82 ideas
| 18835 | Logic doesn't have a metaphysical basis, but nor can logic give rise to the metaphysics [Rumfitt] |
| 18819 | The idea that there are unrecognised truths is basic to our concept of truth [Rumfitt] |
| 14415 | A ground must be about its truth, and not just necessitate it [Merricks] |
| 14408 | Truthmaker needs truths to be 'about' something, and that is often unclear [Merricks] |
| 14395 | If a ball changes from red to white, Truthmaker says some thing must make the change true [Merricks] |
| 14398 | Truthmaker says if an entity is removed, some nonexistence truthmaker must replace it [Merricks] |
| 14403 | If Truthmaker says each truth is made by the existence of something, the theory had de re modality at is core [Merricks] |
| 14397 | Truthmaker demands not just a predication, but an existing state of affairs with essential ingredients [Merricks] |
| 14396 | If 'truth supervenes on being', worlds with the same entities, properties and relations have the same truths [Merricks] |
| 14400 | If truth supervenes on being, that won't explain why truth depends on being [Merricks] |
| 14394 | It is implausible that claims about non-existence are about existing things [Merricks] |
| 18826 | 'True at a possibility' means necessarily true if what is said had obtained [Rumfitt] |
| 14390 | Truthmaker isn't the correspondence theory, because it offers no analysis of truth [Merricks] |
| 14412 | Speculations about non-existent things are not about existent things, so Truthmaker is false [Merricks] |
| 14414 | I am a truthmaker for 'that a human exists', but is it about me? [Merricks] |
| 14418 | Being true is not a relation, it is a primitive monadic property [Merricks] |
| 14391 | If the correspondence theory is right, then necessary truths must correspond to something [Merricks] |
| 14419 | Deflationism just says there is no property of being truth [Merricks] |
| 18803 | Semantics for propositions: 1) validity preserves truth 2) non-contradition 3) bivalence 4) truth tables [Rumfitt] |
| 18814 | 'Absolute necessity' would have to rest on S5 [Rumfitt] |
| 18798 | It is the second-order part of intuitionistic logic which actually negates some classical theorems [Rumfitt] |
| 18799 | Intuitionists can accept Double Negation Elimination for decidable propositions [Rumfitt] |
| 18830 | Most set theorists doubt bivalence for the Continuum Hypothesis, but still use classical logic [Rumfitt] |
| 18843 | The iterated conception of set requires continual increase in axiom strength [Rumfitt] |
| 18836 | A set may well not consist of its members; the empty set, for example, is a problem [Rumfitt] |
| 18837 | A set can be determinate, because of its concept, and still have vague membership [Rumfitt] |
| 18845 | If the totality of sets is not well-defined, there must be doubt about the Power Set Axiom [Rumfitt] |
| 10405 | In the iterative conception of sets, they form a natural hierarchy [Swoyer] |
| 18815 | Logic is higher-order laws which can expand the range of any sort of deduction [Rumfitt] |
| 18805 | Classical logic rules cannot be proved, but various lines of attack can be repelled [Rumfitt] |
| 18804 | The case for classical logic rests on its rules, much more than on the Principle of Bivalence [Rumfitt] |
| 18827 | If truth-tables specify the connectives, classical logic must rely on Bivalence [Rumfitt] |
| 18813 | Logical consequence is a relation that can extended into further statements [Rumfitt] |
| 18808 | Normal deduction presupposes the Cut Law [Rumfitt] |
| 18840 | When faced with vague statements, Bivalence is not a compelling principle [Rumfitt] |
| 10407 | Logical Form explains differing logical behaviour of similar sentences [Swoyer] |
| 18802 | In specifying a logical constant, use of that constant is quite unavoidable [Rumfitt] |
| 18800 | Introduction rules give deduction conditions, and Elimination says what can be deduced [Rumfitt] |
| 18809 | Logical truths are just the assumption-free by-products of logical rules [Rumfitt] |
| 18807 | Monotonicity means there is a guarantee, rather than mere inductive support [Rumfitt] |
| 18842 | Maybe an ordinal is a property of isomorphic well-ordered sets, and not itself a set [Rumfitt] |
| 18834 | Infinitesimals do not stand in a determinate order relation to zero [Rumfitt] |
| 18846 | Cantor and Dedekind aimed to give analysis a foundation in set theory (rather than geometry) [Rumfitt] |
| 14393 | The totality state is the most plausible truthmaker for negative existential truths [Merricks] |
| 10421 | Supervenience is nowadays seen as between properties, rather than linguistic [Swoyer] |
| 10410 | Anti-realists can't explain different methods to measure distance [Swoyer] |
| 10416 | Can properties have parts? [Swoyer] |
| 10399 | If a property such as self-identity can only be in one thing, it can't be a universal [Swoyer] |
| 14413 | Some properties seem to be primitive, but others can be analysed [Merricks] |
| 10417 | There are only first-order properties ('red'), and none of higher-order ('coloured') [Swoyer] |
| 10413 | The best-known candidate for an identity condition for properties is necessary coextensiveness [Swoyer] |
| 14416 | An object can have a disposition when the revelant conditional is false [Merricks] |
| 10402 | Various attempts are made to evade universals being wholly present in different places [Swoyer] |
| 10400 | Conceptualism says words like 'honesty' refer to concepts, not to properties [Swoyer] |
| 10403 | If properties are abstract objects, then their being abstract exemplifies being abstract [Swoyer] |
| 14392 | Fregeans say 'hobbits do not exist' is just 'being a hobbit' is not exemplified [Merricks] |
| 18839 | An object that is not clearly red or orange can still be red-or-orange, which sweeps up problem cases [Rumfitt] |
| 18838 | The extension of a colour is decided by a concept's place in a network of contraries [Rumfitt] |
| 14410 | You believe you existed last year, but your segment doesn't, so they have different beliefs [Merricks] |
| 18816 | Metaphysical modalities respect the actual identities of things [Rumfitt] |
| 18825 | S5 is the logic of logical necessity [Rumfitt] |
| 18824 | Since possibilities are properties of the world, calling 'red' the determination of a determinable seems right [Rumfitt] |
| 18828 | If two possibilities can't share a determiner, they are incompatible [Rumfitt] |
| 14417 | Counterfactuals aren't about actuality, so they lack truthmakers or a supervenience base [Merricks] |
| 10406 | One might hope to reduce possible worlds to properties [Swoyer] |
| 18821 | Possibilities are like possible worlds, but not fully determinate or complete [Rumfitt] |
| 14402 | If 'Fido is possibly black' depends on Fido's counterparts, then it has no actual truthmaker [Merricks] |
| 18831 | Medieval logicians said understanding A also involved understanding not-A [Rumfitt] |
| 10404 | Extreme empiricists can hardly explain anything [Swoyer] |
| 18820 | In English 'evidence' is a mass term, qualified by 'little' and 'more' [Rumfitt] |
| 10408 | Intensions are functions which map possible worlds to sets of things denoted by an expression [Swoyer] |
| 10409 | Research suggests that concepts rely on typical examples [Swoyer] |
| 18817 | We understand conditionals, but disagree over their truth-conditions [Rumfitt] |
| 10401 | The F and G of logic cover a huge range of natural language combinations [Swoyer] |
| 10420 | Maybe a proposition is just a property with all its places filled [Swoyer] |
| 18829 | The truth grounds for 'not A' are the possibilities incompatible with truth grounds for A [Rumfitt] |
| 10412 | If laws are mere regularities, they give no grounds for future prediction [Swoyer] |
| 10411 | Two properties can have one power, and one property can have two powers [Swoyer] |
| 14407 | Presentist should deny there is a present time, and just say that things 'exist' [Merricks] |
| 14411 | Maybe only presentism allows change, by now having a property, and then lacking it [Merricks] |
| 14406 | Presentists say that things have existed and will exist, not that they are instantaneous [Merricks] |
| 14405 | How can a presentist explain an object's having existed? [Merricks] |