Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Possible Worlds | Kripke | I 51f The expressions "winners" and "losers" do not refer to the same objects in all possible worlds. >Rigidity. I 51 Proper names are rigid designators: Nixon is Nixon in all possible worlds, but he is not the winner of the election in all the possible worlds (descriptions are non-rigid designators). >Names/Kripke. I 54 Possible worlds are no foreign countries. A possible world is given by the descriptive conditions we associate it with. Cf. >Telescope theory of possible worlds. I 55 Possible world/Lewis: possible worlds are counterparts, not the same people. Kripke: then it is not about identification but about similarity relation. >Counterparts, >Counterpart theory, >Counterpart relation, >Possible world/Lewis, >Identity across worlds. I 90/91 We do not demand that the objects must exist in all possible worlds of course. Possible world/counterparts: strict identity: are molecules. Counterparts: are for example, tables (not identity of qualities, but of individual objects). Counterpart/Lewis: representatives of the theories that a possible world is only given qualitatively to us ("counterpart theory", David Lewis) argue that Aristotle and his counterparts "in other possible worlds" are "to be identified" with those things that Aristotle resembles most in his most important characteristics. I 123 ff Remember, though, that we describe the situation in our language, not in the language that would be used by people in that situation. Hesperus = Phosphorus is necessarily true (but situation possible in which Venus does not exist). >Morning star/evening star, >Nonexistence. I 143 Epistems: epistems are a different concept of possibility than in logic. The designation is done by us. >Naming/Kripke. --- Berka I 161 Def normal world/Kripke: a normal world is a maximum consistent set of sentences in which at least one statement is necessary. Def non-normal world/Kripke: in non-normal worlds each sentence of the type LB is false. Berka I 179 Definition possible world/Kripke: old: (1959)(1) a world is possible with the complete attribution of truth value, i.e. it is impossible to find two possible worlds in which each atomic formula is attributed to the same truth value (absolute concept of the possible world). New definition: (1963)(2): a world is possible in relation to another world (relatively possible world) Hughes/Cresswell: > accessibility relation. Reflexive accessibility: each possible world is in itself, i.e. that each statement that is true in H is also possible in H. Definition necessary: a formula A in H if it is true in every (possible) world accessible from H. Definition possible: dual to this: if A is possible in H1, iff a world H2 exists, which is possible in relation to H1, and true in A. Transitivity: H2RH3: any formula that is true in H3 is possible in H2. Problem: for traceability to H1 we need a reduction axiom: "what is possibly possible is possible" - you can also set the equivalence relation as accessibility relation. --- Hughes/Cresswell I 243 Non-normal world/possible world/Kripke: non-normal worlds are worlds in which each statement is possible without exception, i.e. including those of the form p. ~p rating: like in normal worlds (p ~ p.) Never 1 - but for modal formulas V (Ma) is always 1 in non-normal worlds, and hence V(La) is always 0, i.e. there are no necessary statements in non-normal worlds. this n-n world is at least accessible for a normal world, but no world is accessible to a n-n world - not even for these themselves. --- Frank I 114 Identity/Kripke: if an identity statement is true, it is always necessarily true, e.g. heat/motion of molecules, Cicero/Tullius, Water/H20 - these are compatible with the fact that they are truths a posteriori. But according to Leibniz: they it is not conceivable that one occurs without the other. Frank I 125 Identity/body/Kripke: "A" is the (rigid) name for the body of Descartes - it survived the body, i.e.: M (Descartes unequal A). This is not a modal fallacy, because A is rigid. Analog: a statue is dissimilar to molecule collection. 1) S.A. Kripke (1959): "A completeness theorem in modal logic", in: The journal of symbolic logic 24 (1), pp. 1-14. 2) S.A. Kripke (1962): The Undecidability of Monadic Modal Quantification Theory, in: Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, Vol. 8, pp. 113-116. |
Kripke I S.A. Kripke Naming and Necessity, Dordrecht/Boston 1972 German Edition: Name und Notwendigkeit Frankfurt 1981 Kripke II Saul A. Kripke "Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2 (1977) 255-276 In Eigennamen, Ursula Wolf Frankfurt/M. 1993 Kripke III Saul A. Kripke Is there a problem with substitutional quantification? In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J McDowell Oxford 1976 Kripke IV S. A. Kripke Outline of a Theory of Truth (1975) In Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar Paradox, R. L. Martin (Hg) Oxford/NY 1984 Berka I Karel Berka Lothar Kreiser Logik Texte Berlin 1983 Cr I M. J. Cresswell Semantical Essays (Possible worlds and their rivals) Dordrecht Boston 1988 Cr II M. J. Cresswell Structured Meanings Cambridge Mass. 1984 Fra I M. Frank (Hrsg.) Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins Frankfurt 1994 |
| Totality | Leibniz | Holz I 73 Totality/whole/outer/outside/Leibniz: because it is one and all (hen kei pan) as such, this supreme general must be conceived outside the series rerum. The world is not a link, but the series itself. ((s) Therefore not outside). >Interior/exterior/Leibniz, >Reality/Leibniz, >Order/Leibniz, >Terminology/Leibniz. Aristotle: thus the whole series is "being itself" (on hê on). Holz: the absolutely irreducible sentence, the first axiom at all: "The world is all that what is the case". The connection of all bodies, however, is not itself a body, that is, not extensional (res extensa, Descartes) but intensional, the structure. >Intension/Leibniz, >Extension. This is the "complete concept". >Hegel: "absolute concept". Complete concept/Leibniz: the complete concept contains all possible conditions and determinations for the existence of a particular being, it is thus identical with the concept of the world as a whole. >Concept/Leibniz. It is only perceptible to an infinite mind. >Perception/Leibniz, >Knowledge/Leibniz. I 74 Identity/Leibniz/Holz: the identity of the finite with itself is formally not to be distinguished from the identity of the infinite whole with itself. Outer/outside/whole/Leibniz: If there was an infinite mind, it would have to be outside the whole to be able to grasp it at the same time. But with this the whole would not be the whole anymore. It is a priori true that the whole cannot be mapped isotropically. Hence, the boundary concept of the infinite mind remains a heuristic fiction, a heuristic analogy to the finite mind. I 113 Single/whole/identity/Leibniz/Holz: the identity of the individual with the whole and vice versa is based on the distinction between the two. (> Hegel: Reason: the >unity of identity and difference). Leibniz: the immanence of substance in the world and the inherence of the world in the individual substance. Logical form/Holz: the "overarching general":´ I 114 The whole has two types: A) the whole itself and B) the individual, which on the one hand is a kind of whole ((s) by demarcation), and yet its opposite, namely, a part. >Order/Leibniz. The ontological correspondence of this logical structure: Twofold way of being in: (A) "in the world" (B) Substance itself as something comprehensive, in which the totality of all other substances, that is, the world, is "contained" as a condition of its own. >Substance/Leibniz. |
Lei II G. W. Leibniz Philosophical Texts (Oxford Philosophical Texts) Oxford 1998 Holz I Hans Heinz Holz Leibniz Frankfurt 1992 Holz II Hans Heinz Holz Descartes Frankfurt/M. 1994 |
| Truth | Rorty | II (e) 116f Truth/Rorty: love of truth not as love for something non-human, but as relation to the fellow human beings. Love of truth as affable willingness to talk made the quasi-object as the target of a search (Platonic idea of the natural order or universally valid convictions, Habermas) entirely superfluous. III 100 Truth/Art/ethics/Rorty: with Davidson, I believe that the distinction true/false can also be applied to sentences of the type "Yeats was a great poet" and "democracy is better than tyranny". V 32 Semantic theory of truth/Tarski: Truth leads back to justification. VI 8f Truth: absolute concept: in the following sense: true for me, but not for you... in my culture, but not in yours, true back then, but not today such statements are strange and pointless. It makes more sense: justified for me but not for you. >Truth criterion, >Justification. VI 11 Justification: relative! Justification is a criterion for truth. VI 199 Truth: not a goal of research! A goal is something of which you can know if you are heading towards or coming away from it. >Goals. VI 327 Truth/Rorty: is a property of sentences. Truth/existence/Rorty: Of course it was true in the past that women should not be suppressed, just like the planetary orbits were true! Truth is ahistorical, but this is not so because true statements are made true by ahistorical entities. >Truthmakers. Horwich I 444 Pragmatism/James/Davidson/Rorty: 1) Truth is not used explanatorily. - 2) beliefs are explained by causal relation. - 3) There are no true-makers. - 4) If no true-makers, then no dispute between realism and anti-realism that accepts this true-makers. Horwich I 454 Truth/DavidsonVsTarski/Rorty: can therefore not be defined in terms of satisfaction or something else. - We can only say that the truth of a statement depends on the meaning of the words and the arrangement of the world. - So we are rid of the correspondence theory. >Correspondence, >Correspondence theory. Horwich I 456 Truth/Putnam: if they were not a property, the truth conditions would be everything you could know about them. Putnam pro truth as a property. Putnam: Then our thoughts would not be thoughts. >Truth conditions. |
Rorty I Richard Rorty Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton/NJ 1979 German Edition: Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997 Rorty II Richard Rorty Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000 Rorty II (b) Richard Rorty "Habermas, Derrida and the Functions of Philosophy", in: R. Rorty, Truth and Progress. Philosophical Papers III, Cambridge/MA 1998 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (c) Richard Rorty Analytic and Conversational Philosophy Conference fee "Philosophy and the other hgumanities", Stanford Humanities Center 1998 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (d) Richard Rorty Justice as a Larger Loyalty, in: Ronald Bontekoe/Marietta Stepanians (eds.) Justice and Democracy. Cross-cultural Perspectives, University of Hawaii 1997 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (e) Richard Rorty Spinoza, Pragmatismus und die Liebe zur Weisheit, Revised Spinoza Lecture April 1997, University of Amsterdam In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (f) Richard Rorty "Sein, das verstanden werden kann, ist Sprache", keynote lecture for Gadamer’ s 100th birthday, University of Heidelberg In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (g) Richard Rorty "Wild Orchids and Trotzky", in: Wild Orchids and Trotzky: Messages form American Universities ed. Mark Edmundson, New York 1993 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty III Richard Rorty Contingency, Irony, and solidarity, Chambridge/MA 1989 German Edition: Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992 Rorty IV (a) Richard Rorty "is Philosophy a Natural Kind?", in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 46-62 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (b) Richard Rorty "Non-Reductive Physicalism" in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 113-125 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (c) Richard Rorty "Heidegger, Kundera and Dickens" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 66-82 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (d) Richard Rorty "Deconstruction and Circumvention" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 85-106 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty V (a) R. Rorty "Solidarity of Objectivity", Howison Lecture, University of California, Berkeley, January 1983 In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1998 Rorty V (b) Richard Rorty "Freud and Moral Reflection", Edith Weigert Lecture, Forum on Psychiatry and the Humanities, Washington School of Psychiatry, Oct. 19th 1984 In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988 Rorty V (c) Richard Rorty The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy, in: John P. Reeder & Gene Outka (eds.), Prospects for a Common Morality. Princeton University Press. pp. 254-278 (1992) In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988 Rorty VI Richard Rorty Truth and Progress, Cambridge/MA 1998 German Edition: Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000 Horwich I P. Horwich (Ed.) Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actuality Relativism | Meixner Vs Actuality Relativism | I 133 Def Actuality Relativism/AR/Meixner: attributes every absolute actuality to intrinsically essential relative actuality, i.e. actuality in w*. For them, "x is actual*" means nothing other than "x is actual in w*". One could ask: "Why is the actual world of all things "this world"? "Why is the sum of all existing facts (state of affairs) w*?" More radical: "why is the world as a state of affairs a maximum-consistent state of affairs at all?" MeixnerVsActuality Relativism: the fact that there is a need for explanation here speaks against the Actuality Relativism: because according to it, it should not exist at all. If actuality* (existence*) for state of affairs means nothing else than being part of state of affairs of w*, then this would simply be an intrinsic necessity. I 134 But if we take the puzzle seriously, then we have already left the view that the partly state of affairs of w* are already actual* by themselves, while all other state of affairs are not actual* by themselves. Meixner: For us, the totality of facts* is simply given (factum brutum, naked fact), or it has a reason, which must then lie deeper than the ground of that totality of facts. Principle of actuality: is not conceptually true for state of affairs if we consider it necessary to explain that the real world is identical with w*. Then it is contingent and in its place could also stand: "x is actual* exactly when x is part of state of affairs of w#." w#: one of w* different possible worlds. For example a world in which no shipwrecks take place. N.B.: "could have been true instead of the principle of actuality": does not mean that the actuality principle in another possible world than w* is false. For example the sinking of the Titanic is not updated in w# but still part of state of affairs of w*. I 135 Actuality Relativism/AR/Meixner: this is considered absurd by actuality relativists. Question: is the truth of the sentence not "No possible world is actual" possible in principle? "At least one possible world is actual" is true in every possible world w, no matter how one understands "is actual" in it.., Because w itself provides the example that makes the sentence in w true. And this is true in every possible world "w" and thus in every possible world. ((s) because each possible world can be called w, or w stands only for any possible world.) On the other hand: absolute: if you take "is actual" as absolute, for example in the sense of "is part state of affairs of w*" then "at least one possible world is actual" is true in every possible world because w* without any relativization is a possible world and therefore absolutely actual. MeixnerVsActuality Relativism: you can only represent this if you reject the actuality relativism. Because if you accept "is actual" absolutely in the sense of the actuality relativism, then there is no basis for considering the truth of the sentences "w# is actual" and "no possible world is actual" as possible. I 136 If one understands "is actual" as indefinitely related to a possible world, then the truth of "w# is actual" can be understood as possible in a certain way (see below, in this paragraph), but still the sentence is "No possible world is actual". conceptually wrong: in no context k "No possible world Wk is actual" can be true. Actuality Relativism: its modal ontological relationships are undoubtedly simpler. Relative/Absolute/Reduction: Problem: the traceability of the absolute concept of actuality to the relative one: arbitrariness of the fixed point. For example, the predicate "x is large" can be defined by the predicate "x is larger than y". Then you can best say: x is greater than b*. Problem: what is the fixed point b*? There are infinitely many to consider. Should they remain constant in time or not? The predicate is then meaningless in itself (without determination), if not senseless. (sense/meaning). I 137 Fixed point/Actuality/Meixner: in the definition of the absolute actuality predicate "x is an actual* state of affairs" by the relative A predicate "x is a state of affairs actual in w", w* has the role of a fixed point. Question: but why w* and not another fixed point? "Because w* is the sum of the actual* state of affairs" does not apply! This already uses the predicate, whose actuality-relativistic definition can only be justified. (circular). Also not: "because w* is the sum of the actual (without star) state of affairs", if "actual" itself is understood, indefinitely, without exact context. w#: for this applies the same as for w*: "w# is the sum of the state of affairs actual in w#". Def Actuality Relativism/Meixner: from their point of view each possible world must seem as suitable as any other to define by reference to it what it means that a state of affairs is actual*. I 138 Lewis/Meixner: is an actuality relativism, he does not regard possible worlds as state of affairs, but as individual-like entities. I 139 MeixnerVsActuality Relativism: not durable, because it does not allow any real contingency. Because it denies the need for explanation, because it makes the difference between actual* and non-actual* an arbitrary difference that essentially depends on us. I 139/140 Act/Action/State of affairs/Meixner: does the state of affairs exist because the person acts in this way* or does* the person act in a metaphysical fundamental perspective in this way because the state of affairs exists? VsActuality Relativism: for it, people cannot be the first source of actuality* of state of affairs! for the actual relativism, fundamental action as the creation of facts is out of question. |
Mei I U. Meixner Einführung in die Ontologie Darmstadt 2004 |
| Carnap, R. | Newen Vs Carnap, R. | New I 115 Science/Carnap/Newen: Thesis: is dealing only with relations ((s) extrinsic properties, no intrinsic ones). Scientific statements are purely structural statements. E.g. rail network (subway map, subway network): Structural Description/Carnap/Newen: does not use names for places. Solution: identification of places by number of connections, in case of same number, the connections of the nearest neighboring places, etc. This probably already allows clearly describing a very complex network by consideration of the immediate neighboring stations. I 116 If unexpectedly two nodes cannot be distinguished by the number of connections, they are also scientifically indistinguishable! VsCarnap/Newen: only relations with regard to a subject area ((s) parameter) are taken into account. Problem: then all structurally identical networks can scientifically be reflected one to one on each other. E.g. a rail network could happen to represent the bloodstream in an organism. Relevance/CarnapVsVs: scientific differences would manifest themselves in differences of the relevant relations. VsCarnap: there is no absolute concept of relevant relations. I 117 VCarnap: it is debatable whether the world can be described without irreducible intrinsic properties. Constitution System/Carnap/Newen: Example 1) statements about our own consciousness 2) statements about the world of physical objects 3) about the consciousness of others 4) about intellectual and cultural objects. Fundamental Experience/Carnap/Newen: is the total content of what is given to consciousness in a moment. I 118 The impressions of all senses together with memories, feelings, etc. Basic relationship of experiences: the similarity memory. Empirical Statements/Carnap: are ultimately very complex statements about similarity memories. Def Quasi Analysis/Carnap/Newen: is the way to appropriate definitions. Quasi objects are constituted from fundamental experiences. All everyday objects are conceived as quasi objects. Fundamental experiences (= node in the network). Relation: Similarity memory. E.g. colors: here, for example, 5 items are set in relationship on the basis of similarity in color. I 119 Def Color/Carnap/Newen: the greatest set of elementary experiences that are of the same color. Quasi Property/Carnap/Newen: what emerges from a quasi analysis, for example, the quasi property of having a particular color, e.g. being red. Rational Reconstruction/Carnap/Newen: this systematic derivation of all knowledge from basic elements is not necessarily psychologically adequate. It's not about syntheses and formations, as they are present in the real process of cognition, but precisely about rational reconstruction. VsCarnap/Newen: Problem: There can be several quasi analysis on an equal footing in a distribution: I 120 (From Mormann Rudolf Carnap p.100): T: 1. A 2. ABC 3. C 4.ABD 5.BCE 6.D 7.DE 8.E T* 1. A 2. BC 3. C 4.AB*D 5.B*CE 6.D 7.DB*E 8.E Both series provide the same structural color relations, because B and B * play symmetrical roles. In addition, A and D as well as C and E are structurally interchangeable. I.e. if you exchange one of them, the fundamental experience 2 in T * is structurally concurrent with no. 7 in T, etc. Point: despite their structural equality T and T * are essentially different, because the fundamental experiences have different properties: according to theory T 2 has the colors A, B and C, according to T * it only has the colors A and C. Problem: Carnap neglected GoodmanVsCarnap: thus the quasi analysis fails principle. NewenVsGoodman: this is controversial. I 121 Carnap/Newen: his theory is solipsistic; it assumes a subject and its experiences (mental states). Consciousness/NewenVsCarnap: we can only represent consciousness without interaction and radical difference. The world of the other can only be considered as a part of my world. NewenVsCarnap: his theory can only succeed if a non-solipsistic approach is chosen. NS I 30 CarnapVsFrege/CarnapVsPlatonism: no platonic realm of thoughts. VsCarnap/VsPossible World Semantics/VsSemantics of Possible Worlds: two problems: 1) problem of empty names. a) how can they be integrated usefully in a sentence b) how can various empty names be distinguished? 2) Problem: Def Hyper-Intentionality/Newen/Schrenk: necessarily true propositions are true in exactly the same sets of possible worlds (i.e. in all). Therefore, they cannot be distinguished by the possible world semantics. Their different content cannot be grasped by the intention if the intention is equated with sets of possible worlds in which the sentence is true. NS I 101 Sense/Names/Frege: Thesis: the sense of a name is given by the description. This is the so-called description theory, a simple variant of the description theory. NS I 102 Reference/Names/Frege: also by reference to description: the description whose sense is the contribution of a name to the thought expressed also defines the object. Names/Carnap/Newen/Schrenk: like Frege. VsFrege/VsCarnap: both have the problem that it is not clear which individual concept is associated with a name. Various speakers could associate various descriptions with a name so that communication remains enigmatic. Solution: Searle: bundle theory. |
New II Albert Newen Analytische Philosophie zur Einführung Hamburg 2005 Newen I Albert Newen Markus Schrenk Einführung in die Sprachphilosophie Darmstadt 2008 |
| Skepticism | Field Vs Skepticism | IV 418 Epistemic Relativism/Field: here, equally good proof systems may differ in their evaluation of convictions. Perhaps there is no best proof system. There are three main tasks: 1) a spectrum of variation must be demonstrated by proof systems, 2) a variation range of intuitively desirable goals 3) (most importantly): ER must evaluate how different proof systems can fulfill different goals. This cannot be done from a neutral point of view. Important argument: the assertion that one proof system is better than another is a factual assertion, and in that, of course, we use the proof system that we normally use. This has led some people to a skepticism that no assertion is ever really justified. Relativism: for him, the question of a "real" justification does not make sense anyway. IV 419 Relativism/FieldVsSkepticism: precisely relativism provides a refutation of skepticism! PutnamVsEpistemic Relativism/Field: three arguments: 1) (p 136): (premise): there are no facts that are independent of values. And that is only of interest if we are VsMetaphysical Realism before. 2) (p 119f): it seems inconsistent to simultaneously represent one point and another that seems to be equally good. FieldVsPutnam: a relativist who is not simultaneously a Protagorean (>Protagoras) should not assume that all points of view are equally good! Some are true, some are false, some are reliable, others are not, etc. 3) (Putnam p 121f): (refers to the inability to distinguish relativism of justification from that of the truth: If statements of the form "X is true (justified) relative to person P" themselves are absolutely true or justified, then this is ultimately an absolute concept of truth (justification). FieldVsPutnam: but precisely that does not apply to justification: the above only shows that statements about justification relative to a system are absolutely true or false, and since truth is factual, not evaluative, for the metaphys.r., this is unproblematic for the MR. FieldVsPutnam: his attempt to refute epistemic relativism fails. |
Field I H. Field Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989 Field II H. Field Truth and the Absence of Fact Oxford New York 2001 Field III H. Field Science without numbers Princeton New Jersey 1980 Field IV Hartry Field "Realism and Relativism", The Journal of Philosophy, 76 (1982), pp. 553-67 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 |
| Williams, B. | Putnam Vs Williams, B. | III 107 Ethics/relativism/Williams, Bernard: if an approximation of positions is really taking place in ethics, it is not because of a steering by the way things really are, whereas in the sciences this could actually be explained in this way. III 108 Reality/Williams/Putnam: We can select some of convictions of which one could say that they are maximally independent from our perspective. "The world as it appears to us" is interpreted as "the world as it appears to us in particular". For such a description only primary qualities should be chosen. III 263 footnote: Ex further terms can be derived therefrom: Ex "impulse" is defined by "mass" and "speed" whereas "speed" is defined by "time" and "location". III 109 How would we describe the world and imagine how it would be if there were no observers. In colloquial descriptions we could, of course, also include secondary qualities and speak of green grass and warm weather. According to Williams, we can readily be brought to the conclusion that we only describe how the grass had appeared to observers. Williams: thesis: our world (with observers) emerged from a world without observers. The laws are exactly the same. III 110 Therefore a description with primary qualities only should be possible. PutnamVsWilliams: enchanting, but it is true? Through evolution, no new laws of physics have emerged. But our predictions refer to phenomena that are described in the language of physics, not in the language of biology, psychology or economics. Once living beings and societies appear on the scene, actually new laws come to light, but they do not contradict the laws of physics. "Offer" and "demand" can not be described in terms of physics. III 128 Values/Williams/Putnam: even if it turns out that the color of a surface is an objective property of reflectivity, that does not impair the contrast between color characteristics and values, which Williams wanted to highlight. Putnam: but to demonstrate that the evaluation does not emerge from one eye from the nature of the eye, the complicated metaphysical explanations of Williams are unnecessary. Def values/Dewey: Evaluation results from the critique of various problem-solving processes. Absoluteness/Williams: contains ideally a "theory of knowledge and error"; contains both the possibility of the local views, as well as its own possibility. Is being eliminated virtually immediately by Williams: "this view of the world must enable to explain the possibility of their own existence". Later: withdrawal: "... which may be subject to the radical indeterminacy of interpretation ..." III 129 Austin: "this is the point at which the philosopher says it, and then comes the point at which s_he withdraws." III 130 PutnamVsWilliams: Problem: for the absolute conception, there is only one way to explain the possibility of local views and their own possibility: an prediction of future occurrences of characters and sounds. III 135 ff RelativismPutnamVsWilliams: the outright "truth of relativism" by Williams is not more coherent than the "absolute conception of the world". Williams/truth: rather carefree use of the term. Sometimes something that is "detected by the procedural manners of a linguistic community" (same perspective as Rorty, who Williams considers an opponent). II 136/137 Truth: According to Williams in the purely academic conflict "not really a problem." He believes that the members of other communities have ethical knowledge, and their beliefs are true, if they use their concepts carefully. PutnamVsWilliams: striking contradiction: Ex "right, her sitting together with her boss alone in the office is unchaste, but we do not consider chastity a virtue". In contradiction to Williams assertion that "true" and "false" could only be used in case of a real conflict. III 140 PutnamVsWilliams: Opposition: Williams would like to acknowledge the involvement of facts and values, and at the same time hold on to the "absoluteness" of scientific knowledge. Putnam: but that's impossible. It's not possible that science is absolute, but nothing else. I (k) 253 Norms/values/Bernard Williams: presumes the perspective of "some social world". On the other hand (according to Putnam) physics proposes an absolute metaphysical truth. PutnamVsWilliams: the talk of the "content" of a conviction that would be "perspective", is lacking any clear sense. That was grist to the mill of deconstructionism. Rorty VI 64 PutnamVsWilliams/Rorty: "approach to the big picture": purely dogmatic. The notion of absoluteness is incoherent. |
Putnam I Hilary Putnam Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Frankfurt 1993 Putnam I (a) Hilary Putnam Explanation and Reference, In: Glenn Pearce & Patrick Maynard (eds.), Conceptual Change. D. Reidel. pp. 196--214 (1973) In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (b) Hilary Putnam Language and Reality, in: Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. pp. 272-90 (1995 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (c) Hilary Putnam What is Realism? in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76 (1975):pp. 177 - 194. In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (d) Hilary Putnam Models and Reality, Journal of Symbolic Logic 45 (3), 1980:pp. 464-482. In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (e) Hilary Putnam Reference and Truth In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (f) Hilary Putnam How to Be an Internal Realist and a Transcendental Idealist (at the Same Time) in: R. Haller/W. Grassl (eds): Sprache, Logik und Philosophie, Akten des 4. Internationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums, 1979 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (g) Hilary Putnam Why there isn’t a ready-made world, Synthese 51 (2):205--228 (1982) In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (h) Hilary Putnam Pourqui les Philosophes? in: A: Jacob (ed.) L’Encyclopédie PHilosophieque Universelle, Paris 1986 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (i) Hilary Putnam Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (k) Hilary Putnam "Irrealism and Deconstruction", 6. Giford Lecture, St. Andrews 1990, in: H. Putnam, Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992, pp. 108-133 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam II Hilary Putnam Representation and Reality, Cambridge/MA 1988 German Edition: Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999 Putnam III Hilary Putnam Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992 German Edition: Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997 Putnam IV Hilary Putnam "Minds and Machines", in: Sidney Hook (ed.) Dimensions of Mind, New York 1960, pp. 138-164 In Künstliche Intelligenz, Walther Ch. Zimmerli/Stefan Wolf Stuttgart 1994 Putnam V Hilary Putnam Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge/MA 1981 German Edition: Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990 Putnam VI Hilary Putnam "Realism and Reason", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association (1976) pp. 483-98 In Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 Putnam VII Hilary Putnam "A Defense of Internal Realism" in: James Conant (ed.)Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 pp. 30-43 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 SocPut I Robert D. Putnam Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York 2000 Rorty I Richard Rorty Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton/NJ 1979 German Edition: Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997 Rorty II Richard Rorty Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000 Rorty II (b) Richard Rorty "Habermas, Derrida and the Functions of Philosophy", in: R. Rorty, Truth and Progress. Philosophical Papers III, Cambridge/MA 1998 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (c) Richard Rorty Analytic and Conversational Philosophy Conference fee "Philosophy and the other hgumanities", Stanford Humanities Center 1998 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (d) Richard Rorty Justice as a Larger Loyalty, in: Ronald Bontekoe/Marietta Stepanians (eds.) Justice and Democracy. Cross-cultural Perspectives, University of Hawaii 1997 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (e) Richard Rorty Spinoza, Pragmatismus und die Liebe zur Weisheit, Revised Spinoza Lecture April 1997, University of Amsterdam In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (f) Richard Rorty "Sein, das verstanden werden kann, ist Sprache", keynote lecture for Gadamer’ s 100th birthday, University of Heidelberg In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (g) Richard Rorty "Wild Orchids and Trotzky", in: Wild Orchids and Trotzky: Messages form American Universities ed. Mark Edmundson, New York 1993 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty III Richard Rorty Contingency, Irony, and solidarity, Chambridge/MA 1989 German Edition: Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992 Rorty IV (a) Richard Rorty "is Philosophy a Natural Kind?", in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 46-62 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (b) Richard Rorty "Non-Reductive Physicalism" in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 113-125 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (c) Richard Rorty "Heidegger, Kundera and Dickens" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 66-82 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (d) Richard Rorty "Deconstruction and Circumvention" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 85-106 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty V (a) R. Rorty "Solidarity of Objectivity", Howison Lecture, University of California, Berkeley, January 1983 In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1998 Rorty V (b) Richard Rorty "Freud and Moral Reflection", Edith Weigert Lecture, Forum on Psychiatry and the Humanities, Washington School of Psychiatry, Oct. 19th 1984 In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988 Rorty V (c) Richard Rorty The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy, in: John P. Reeder & Gene Outka (eds.), Prospects for a Common Morality. Princeton University Press. pp. 254-278 (1992) In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988 Rorty VI Richard Rorty Truth and Progress, Cambridge/MA 1998 German Edition: Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of the more related field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Haecceitsm | Kaplan, D. | Staln I 123 Haecceitism / Kaplan / Nathan Salmon / Stalnaker: Salmon interpreted Kaplan so that he explicitly deals with the relation of identity here. A binary, absolute concept of real identity. (Salmon 1981, 127n) Stalnaker: Salmons thesis is incompatible with mine, but I will argue that we do not need it. It is a misconception that we need absolute identity for our world-relativized identity (Salmon: "ternary" identity). |
|
| |||