25 ideas
3123 | Science is in the business of carving nature at the joints [Segal] |
3125 | Psychology studies the way rationality links desires and beliefs to causality [Segal] |
5044 | Reality must be made of basic unities, which will be animated, substantial points [Leibniz] |
4304 | Descartes says there are two substance, Spinoza one, and Leibniz infinitely many [Cottingham] |
3105 | Is 'Hesperus = Phosphorus' metaphysically necessary, but not logically or epistemologically necessary? [Segal] |
3106 | If claims of metaphysical necessity are based on conceivability, we should be cautious [Segal] |
4303 | The notion of substance lies at the heart of rationalist metaphysics [Cottingham] |
3113 | The success and virtue of an explanation do not guarantee its truth [Segal] |
5045 | No machine or mere organised matter could have a unified self [Leibniz] |
5046 | The soul does know bodies, although they do not influence one another [Leibniz] |
3112 | Folk psychology is ridiculously dualist in its assumptions [Segal] |
3108 | If 'water' has narrow content, it refers to both H2O and XYZ [Segal] |
3110 | Humans are made of H2O, so 'twins' aren't actually feasible [Segal] |
3124 | Externalists can't assume old words refer to modern natural kinds [Segal] |
3117 | Concepts can survive a big change in extension [Segal] |
3104 | Must we relate to some diamonds to understand them? [Segal] |
3103 | Maybe content involves relations to a language community [Segal] |
3111 | Externalism can't explain concepts that have no reference [Segal] |
3109 | If content is external, so are beliefs and desires [Segal] |
3116 | Maybe experts fix content, not ordinary users [Segal] |
3121 | If content is narrow, my perfect twin shares my concepts [Segal] |
3118 | If thoughts ARE causal, we can't explain how they cause things [Segal] |
3119 | Even 'mass' cannot be defined in causal terms [Segal] |
4306 | For rationalists, it is necessary that effects be deducible from their causes [Cottingham] |
5043 | To regard animals as mere machines may be possible, but seems improbable [Leibniz] |