19 ideas
| 20435 | If philosophy could be summarised it would be pointless [Adorno] |
| Full Idea: Philosophy is in essence not summarisable. Otherwise it would be superfluous; that most of it allows its to be summarised speaks against it. | |
| From: Theodor W. Adorno (Negative Dialectics [1966], p.34), quoted by Gerhard Richter - Benjamin and Adorno 3 | |
| A reaction: This seems contradict the Cicero quotation which I take to be the epigraph of my collection of ideas. Adorno has a very 'continental' view, placing philosophy much closer to poetry (Heidegger's later view) than to science. Not like advocacy either. |
| 10571 | Concern for rigour can get in the way of understanding phenomena [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: It is often the case that the concern for rigor gets in the way of a true understanding of the phenomena to be explained. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 2) | |
| A reaction: This is a counter to Timothy Williamson's love affair with rigour in philosophy. It strikes me as the big current question for analytical philosophy - of whether the intense pursuit of 'rigour' will actually deliver the wisdom we all seek. |
| 10565 | There is no stage at which we can take all the sets to have been generated [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: There is no stage at which we can take all the sets to have been generated, since the set of all those sets which have been generated at a given stage will itself give us something new. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 1) |
| 10564 | We might combine the axioms of set theory with the axioms of mereology [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: We might combine the standard axioms of set theory with the standard axioms of mereology. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 1) |
| 11211 | If a sound conclusion comes from two errors that cancel out, the path of the argument must matter [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: If a designated conclusion follows from the premisses, but the argument involves two howlers which cancel each other out, then the moral is that the path an argument takes from premisses to conclusion does matter to its logical evaluation. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], II) | |
| A reaction: The drift of this is that our view of logic should be a little closer to the reasoning of ordinary language, and we should rely a little less on purely formal accounts. |
| 11210 | Standardly 'and' and 'but' are held to have the same sense by having the same truth table [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: If 'and' and 'but' really are alike in sense, in what might that likeness consist? Some philosophers of classical logic will reply that they share a sense by virtue of sharing a truth table. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000]) | |
| A reaction: This is the standard view which Rumfitt sets out to challenge. |
| 11212 | The sense of a connective comes from primitively obvious rules of inference [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: A connective will possess the sense that it has by virtue of its competent users' finding certain rules of inference involving it to be primitively obvious. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], III) | |
| A reaction: Rumfitt cites Peacocke as endorsing this view, which characterises the logical connectives by their rules of usage rather than by their pure semantic value. |
| 10569 | If you ask what F the second-order quantifier quantifies over, you treat it as first-order [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: We are tempted to ask of second-order quantifiers 'what are you quantifying over?', or 'when you say "for some F" then what is the F?', but these questions already presuppose that the quantifiers are first-order. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005]) |
| 10570 | Assigning an entity to each predicate in semantics is largely a technical convenience [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: In doing semantics we normally assign some appropriate entity to each predicate, but this is largely for technical convenience. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 2) |
| 10573 | Dedekind cuts lead to the bizarre idea that there are many different number 1's [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: Because of Dedekind's definition of reals by cuts, there is a bizarre modern doctrine that there are many 1's - the natural number 1, the rational number 1, the real number 1, and even the complex number 1. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 2) | |
| A reaction: See Idea 10572. |
| 10575 | Why should a Dedekind cut correspond to a number? [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: By what right can Dedekind suppose that there is a number corresponding to any pair of irrationals that constitute an irrational cut? | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 2) |
| 10574 | Unless we know whether 0 is identical with the null set, we create confusions [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: What is the union of the singleton {0}, of zero, and the singleton {φ}, of the null set? Is it the one-element set {0}, or the two-element set {0, φ}? Unless the question of identity between 0 and φ is resolved, we cannot say. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 2) |
| 10560 | Set-theoretic imperialists think sets can represent every mathematical object [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: Set-theoretic imperialists think that it must be possible to represent every mathematical object as a set. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 1) |
| 10568 | Logicists say mathematics can be derived from definitions, and can be known that way [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: Logicists traditionally claim that the theorems of mathematics can be derived by logical means from the relevant definitions of the terms, and that these theorems are epistemically innocent (knowable without Kantian intuition or empirical confirmation). | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 2) |
| 10563 | A generative conception of abstracts proposes stages, based on concepts of previous objects [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: It is natural to have a generative conception of abstracts (like the iterative conception of sets). The abstracts are formed at stages, with the abstracts formed at any given stage being the abstracts of those concepts of objects formed at prior stages. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 1) | |
| A reaction: See 10567 for Fine's later modification. This may not guarantee 'levels', but it implies some sort of conceptual priority between abstract entities. |
| 10561 | Abstraction-theoretic imperialists think Fregean abstracts can represent every mathematical object [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: Abstraction-theoretic imperialists think that it must be possible to represent every mathematical object as a Fregean abstract. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 1) |
| 10562 | We can combine ZF sets with abstracts as urelements [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: I propose a unified theory which is a version of ZF or ZFC with urelements, where the urelements are taken to be the abstracts. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 1) |
| 10567 | We can create objects from conditions, rather than from concepts [Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: Instead of viewing the abstracts (or sums) as being generated from objects, via the concepts from which they are defined, we can take them to be generated from conditions. The number of the universe ∞ is the number of self-identical objects. | |
| From: Kit Fine (Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], 1) | |
| A reaction: The point is that no particular object is now required to make the abstraction. |
| 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). |