15 ideas
| 15527 | Defining terms either enables elimination, or shows that they don't require elimination [Lewis] |
| 9331 | How do we determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition? [Horwich] |
| 11966 | If there are essential properties, how do you find out what they are? [Chisholm] |
| 11965 | Could possible Adam gradually transform into Noah, and vice versa? [Chisholm] |
| 15530 | A logically determinate name names the same thing in every possible world [Lewis] |
| 9333 | A priori belief is not necessarily a priori justification, or a priori knowledge [Horwich] |
| 9342 | Understanding needs a priori commitment [Horwich] |
| 9332 | Meaning is generated by a priori commitment to truth, not the other way around [Horwich] |
| 9341 | Meanings and concepts cannot give a priori knowledge, because they may be unacceptable [Horwich] |
| 9334 | If we stipulate the meaning of 'number' to make Hume's Principle true, we first need Hume's Principle [Horwich] |
| 9339 | A priori knowledge (e.g. classical logic) may derive from the innate structure of our minds [Horwich] |
| 15528 | A Ramsey sentence just asserts that a theory can be realised, without saying by what [Lewis] |
| 15526 | There is a method for defining new scientific terms just using the terms we already understand [Lewis] |
| 15529 | It is better to have one realisation of a theory than many - but it may not always be possible [Lewis] |
| 15531 | The Ramsey sentence of a theory says that it has at least one realisation [Lewis] |