|
9766
|
Study vagueness first by its logic, then by its truth-conditions, and then its metaphysics [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
My investigation of vagueness began with the question 'What is the correct logic of vagueness?', which led to the further question 'What are the correct truth-conditions for a vague language?', which led to questions of meaning and existence.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Vagueness, Truth and Logic [1975], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the most perfect embodiment of the strategy of analytical philosophy which I have ever read. It is the strategy invented by Frege in the 'Grundlagen'. Is this still the way to go, or has this pathway slowly sunk into the swamp?
|
|
9775
|
Excluded Middle, and classical logic, may fail for vague predicates [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Maybe classical logic fails for vagueness in Excluded Middle. If 'H bald ∨ ¬(H bald)' is true, then one disjunct is true. But if the second is true the first is false, and the sentence is either true or false, contrary to the borderline assumption.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Vagueness, Truth and Logic [1975], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
Fine goes on to argue against the implication that we need a special logic for vague predicates.
|
|
9768
|
Vagueness is semantic, a deficiency of meaning [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
I take vagueness to be a semantic feature, a deficiency of meaning. It is to be distinguished from generality, undecidability, and ambiguity.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Vagueness, Truth and Logic [1975], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
Sounds good. If we cut nature at the joints with our language, then nature is going to be too subtle and vast for our finite and gerrymandered language, and so it will break down in tricky situations. But maybe epistemology precedes semantics?
|
|
9776
|
A thing might be vaguely vague, giving us higher-order vagueness [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a possibility of 'higher-order vagueness'. The vague may be vague, or vaguely vague, and so on. If J has few hairs on his head than H, then he may be a borderline case of a borderline case.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Vagueness, Truth and Logic [1975], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
Such slim grey areas can also be characterised as those where you think he is definitely bald, but I am not so sure.
|
|
9770
|
Logical connectives cease to be truth-functional if vagueness is treated with three values [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
With a three-value approach, if P is 'blob is pink' and R is 'blob is red', then P&P is indefinite, but P&R is false, and P∨P is indefinite, but P∨R is true. This means the connectives & and ∨ are not truth-functional.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Vagueness, Truth and Logic [1975], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
The point is that there could then be no logic in any way classical for vague sentences and three truth values. A powerful point.
|
|
9773
|
With the super-truth approach, the classical connectives continue to work [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
With the super-truth approach, if P is 'blob is pink' and R is 'blob is red', then P&R is false, and P∨R is true, since one of P and R is true and one is false in any complete and admissible specification. It encompasses all 'penumbral truths'.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Vagueness, Truth and Logic [1975], 3)
|
|
A reaction:
[See Idea 9767 for the super-truth approach, and Idea 9770 for a contrasting view] The approach, which seems quite appealing, is that we will in no circumstances give up basic classical logic, but we will make maximum concessions to vagueness.
|
|
11214
|
We learn 'not' along with affirmation, by learning to either affirm or deny a sentence [Rumfitt]
|
|
Full Idea:
The standard view is that affirming not-A is more complex than affirming the atomic sentence A itself, with the latter determining its sense. But we could learn 'not' directly, by learning at once how to either affirm A or reject A.
|
|
From:
Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], IV)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] This seems fairly anti-Fregean in spirit, because it looks at the psychology of how we learn 'not' as a way of clarifying what we mean by it, rather than just looking at its logical behaviour (and thus giving it a secondary role).
|
|
23684
|
Morality gives everyone reasons to act, irrespective of their desires [Foot, by Hacker-Wright]
|
|
Full Idea:
In her early work she also defends moral rationalism, which is the idea that morality gives reasons for action to everyone, even those who lack the desire to do what is right.
|
|
From:
report of Philippa Foot (Moral Beliefs [1959]) by John Hacker-Wright - Philippa Foot's Moral Thought Intro
|
|
A reaction:
Evidently a rejection of the Humean view that only a desire can motivate action, including moral action. There is an ongoing debate about whether reasons can cause anything, or motivate anything. I think the contents of reasons pull us towards action.
|
|
23690
|
We all have reason to cultivate the virtues, even when we lack the desire [Foot, by Hacker-Wright]
|
|
Full Idea:
Foot advocates the view that anyone has reason to cultivate the virtues, even if they lack the desire to do so at a given moment.
|
|
From:
report of Philippa Foot (Moral Beliefs [1959], Pt II) by John Hacker-Wright - Philippa Foot's Moral Thought 2 'Concepts'
|
|
A reaction:
The view which she soon abandoned, but then returned to later. It specifically repudiates the view of Hume, that only desires can motivate. I'm unsure, because the concept of 'reason' strikes me as too imprecise. She sees self-interest as a reason.
|
|
22379
|
The meaning of 'good' and other evaluations must include the object to which they attach [Foot]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is no describing the evaluative meaning of 'good', evaluation, commending, or anything of the sort, without fixing the object to which they are supposed to be attached.
|
|
From:
Philippa Foot (Moral Beliefs [1959], p.112)
|
|
A reaction:
I go further, and say that a specification of the feature(s) of the object that produce the value must also be available (if requested). 'That's a good car, but I've no idea why' makes no sense. 'Apparently that's a good car', if other people know why.
|