Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 50 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A priori | Lewis | IV 20 A priori/Lewis: if we take an a priori point of view, we lose our localization in possible worlds. ((s) Because a priori true statements are true in all worlds. Possible worlds do not differ in what is a priori in all worlds.) >Possible world/Lewis, >Localization, cf. >Centered world, >Identity across worlds. |
Lewis I David K. Lewis Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989 Lewis I (a) David K. Lewis An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (b) David K. Lewis Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (c) David K. Lewis Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980 In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis II David K. Lewis "Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Lewis IV David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983 Lewis V David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986 Lewis VI David K. Lewis Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Konventionen Berlin 1975 LewisCl Clarence Irving Lewis Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970 LewisCl I Clarence Irving Lewis Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991 |
| Actuality | Cresswell | I 30 Def actual/Cresswell: actual always means in the world of the speaker. That someone in another world speaks of the actual world means his own world, not our world. >Possible worlds, >Actualism, >Actual world, >Centered worlds. |
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 |
| Actuality | Lewis | IV 18 Actuality/actual/possible world/Lewis: "actual" should be analyzed as an index word. In every world "actual" refers to this particular world. Important argument: but that does not mean that the meaning of "actual" changes in any way. Non-rigidity: does not mean that the importance varies from possible world to possible world. "Actual": is an operator. LewisVsScepticism: "I am actual" is true in every possible world. That we can know. But "all worlds are actual" is wrong in every possible world. >Possible world/Lewis, >Identity across worlds, >Centered world, >Accessibility, >Modalities. IV 22 Actual/actuality/Lewis: primary sense: actuality refers to the possible world in which the statement is made. Secondary sense: shifts the reference to the context, e.g. only primary sense: there could have been items that differ from the actual ones, e.g. I could be richer than I really am. This is only a secondary meaning: e.g. the following is contingent: in the real world (actual world) Caesar was assassinated. E.g. Alpha be the name of the actual world: alpha (without quotation marks) might also not have been the actual world. IV 24 Actual/ontology/actuality/existence/there is/Lewis: thesis: there are many things that are not actual, e.g. an uncountable number of people, spread over many possible worlds. LewisVsCommon Sense: not everything is actual. There is a difference between "exists"/"there is". >Existence/"There is". |
Lewis I David K. Lewis Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989 Lewis I (a) David K. Lewis An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (b) David K. Lewis Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (c) David K. Lewis Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980 In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis II David K. Lewis "Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Lewis IV David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983 Lewis V David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986 Lewis VI David K. Lewis Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Konventionen Berlin 1975 LewisCl Clarence Irving Lewis Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970 LewisCl I Clarence Irving Lewis Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991 |
| Actuality | Stalnaker | I 28 Actuality/Stalnaker: actuality is a relation that a world has to itself and only to itself. Problem: any other world can also have it to itself. That means actuality is contingent. >Contingency, >Self-identity. LewisVsErsatz World: (moderate modal realism): an ersatz world represents the real world as a special one because it represents it as a "way". >ersatz world. StalnakerVsLewis: but it represents it specifically only from its own point of view, not from any. Stalnaker: there is no neutral position outside of each possible world but there is an objective one: the one from the real world. >Actual world, >Perspective. I 31 The thesis that only the real world is actual only makes sense when "actual" means something different than the totality of all that, that is there. >Totality, >Wholes. StalnakerVs: and it does not mean that. I 31 Way a world can be: is an abstract object, abstracted from the activity of the rationally acting. Cf. >Centered worlds. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Ambiguity | Chalmers | I 63 Ambiguity/Primary/Secondary Intension/Chalmers: there is no danger of ambiguity in truth conditions when they are related to the actual world. >Truth conditions, >Possible worlds, >Reference, >Certainty, >Intensions, >Primary intension, >Propositions/Chalmers, >Centered worlds. |
Cha I D. Chalmers The Conscious Mind Oxford New York 1996 Cha II D. Chalmers Constructing the World Oxford 2014 |
| Centered Worlds | |||
| Centered Worlds | Chalmers | I 133 Centered World/Indexicality/Chalmers: if a centered world is once determined, i.e. if the localization of the center (e.g., I) is established, then a primary intension (e.g., water and H2O) provides a perfect non-indexical property. Cf. >Identity across worlds, >Identification, >Indexicality, >Intensions/Chalmers, >Terminology/Chalmers. Concepts: now one could assume that the term zombie would simply not be used in a zombie-centered world. >Zombies. ChalmersVs: the situation is more complicated: primary intensions do not require the presence of the original concept. This suggests that a posteriori necessity is not necessary for my arguments with regard to consciousness. >Necessity a posteriori. Intensions: the falling apart of primary and secondary intensions causes an uncertainty with regard to water: something watery does not have to be H2O. But that does not apply to consciousness. If something feels like a conscious experience, then it is conscious experience, no matter in which world. >Consciousness/Chalmers. |
Cha I D. Chalmers The Conscious Mind Oxford New York 1996 Cha II D. Chalmers Constructing the World Oxford 2014 |
| Content | Kaplan | Stalnaker I 206 Content/Kaplan: sentence meaning: does not define the content itself. - Only the context defines it. - Context/Stalnaker: can be represented as centered world. >Context, >Centered world, >Possible world. --- I 207 Content/Kaplan: is represented by propositions. >Proposition. Character/content/Kaplan: character and content need to be separated because the sentence meanings ((s) propositions) do not represent the expressed thoughts . ((s) Because it may be that you do not know which proposition the own sentence expresses.) - ((s) because you do not know the entire context.) >Character/Kaplan. Content/Kaplan: that what is said, the idea, the information the speaker intends to convey. >Thought, >Sentence. Knowledge/Proposition: E.g. a doctor leaves on his (own) answering machine the message: "Take two aspirin ...". |
D. Kaplan Here only external sources; compare the information in the individual contributions. Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Content | Lewis | Schwarz I 161 Content/DavidsonVsLewis: depends on the language that we speak - LewisVsDavidson: Content is a class of possible individuals that e.g. get the desire fulfilled - Meaning/LewisVsDavidson: what the sentences of public language mean depends on the content of our expectations, wishes and beliefs. --- Schwarz I 169 Mental Content/Content/Lewis: class of possible situations where it rains, not class of possible worlds where it rains - What kind of worlds should that be? - It would have to be somewhere it rains here and now. Possible situations are centered worlds with a designated here and now. >Situations, >possible worlds. |
Lewis I David K. Lewis Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989 Lewis I (a) David K. Lewis An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (b) David K. Lewis Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (c) David K. Lewis Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980 In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis II David K. Lewis "Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Lewis IV David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983 Lewis V David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986 Lewis VI David K. Lewis Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Konventionen Berlin 1975 LewisCl Clarence Irving Lewis Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970 LewisCl I Clarence Irving Lewis Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991 Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 |
| Context/Context Dependence | Stalnaker | I 206 Content/Kaplan: sentence meaning: the sentence meaning does not define the content itself. It is the context that defines it. >Context/Kaplan, >Character/Kaplan, >Content, >Sentence meaning, >Twodimensional Semantics. Context/Stalnaker: the context can be represented as a centered world. I 207 Content: content is represented by propositions. Character/content: character and content must be separated, because the sentence meanings ((s) propositions) represent the thoughts that are not expressed ((s) because it may be that you do not know which proposition your own sentence expresses.) >Sentences, >Propositions. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Counterparts | Kripke | I Kripke passim Counterparts (Lewis) are qualitatively determined. KripkeVs: possible worlds are not qualitatively determined, but fixed (such as counterfactual, they cannot be explored). >Possible world/Kripke, >Possible world/Lewis, >Identity across worlds, >Centered world, >Acessibility/Kripke. |
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 |
| Cross World Identity | Cross-world identity, philosophy: is an expression for the problem of how to determine the identity of an object by accepting properties that it does not have in the actual world. Is it meaningful to say that Paul could have been taller in a possible world than he actually is, or would Paul be another individual then? See also possible worlds, modal realism, counterpart theory, counterpart relation, counterparts, telescope theory, centered worlds. |
||
| Cross World Identity | Hintikka | II XV Cross-World Identity/Hintikka: cross-world identity remains a crucial problem. Thesis: it is to trace an object (or its trace) in the worlds that it has in common. >Possible worlds, cf. >Centered worlds. That is, it boils down to a re-identification, between time slices of the same event development. It is a matter of continuity. The problem corresponds to the stability theory of sets of differential equations. >Four-dimensionalism, >Space-time, >Identification. II XVI Catastrophe Theory/René Thom/Hintikka: the problem is closely related to the catastrophe theory. Cross-World Identity/Hintikka: Quine: Quine considers cross-world identity to be a hopeless problem. HintikkaVsKripke: Kripke underestimates the problem and considers it to be guaranteed. He cheats. Worldline/cross-world identity/Hintikka: 1. We must allow that some objects not only exist in certain possible worlds, but that their existence is unthinkable there! That is, world lines can cease to exist - even worse: it may be that they are not defined in certain possible worlds. Problem: this is not permitted in the usual knowledge logic (religious logic). 2. World lines can be drawn in two ways: A) object-centered or B) agent-centered. Analogy: this can be related to Russell's distinction between knowledge through acquaintance and description. --- II 78 Cross-World Identity/Hintikka: problem: e.g. the problem can be an intentional (opaque) context (belief contexts). Here, the existential generalization (EG) fails. That is, if a sentence A[b] is true for a subject, we cannot conclude that there is an object from which the sentence A is true (Ex) A [x]. II 79 Solution/semantics of possible worlds/Hintikka: the solution is to accept different individuals in different worlds. If the semantics of possible worlds is right, we somehow manage to determine the cross-world identity. Knowledge/knowledge-who/knowledge-what/semantics of possible worlds: e.g. (4) (Ex) Victoria knows that Lewis Carroll is x. Model-theoretically, this means that "Lewis Carroll" picks out the same individual in all the worlds that are compatible with Victoria's knowledge. This is synonymous with: (5) Victoria knows who Lewis Carroll is. II 80 Possible Worlds/universe/cross-world identity/HintikkaVsLeibniz/Hintikka: problem: when worlds are whole universes, the framework between them changes too often that it is questionable how to re-identify individuals. II 80 Cross-World Identity/cross-world identification/Hintikka: normally we hold a large part of the world fixed when we identify two individuals. Comparability/Hintikka/(s): thus, alternatives become comparable. To make alternatives to different parts comparable, we extend them. The extensions should have a part in common. In an extreme case, they share their story. Identical: two individuals are indentical when their story coincides. This leads to the fact that cross-world identification is partially reduced to re-identification. That is, it becomes the problem. How space-time can be traced back to a common basis. Advantage: we do not have to consider every single possible world. II 81 Cross-World Identification/cross-world identity/Locke/Kripke/Hintikka: thesis: Causation plays an important role. II 205 Cross-World Identification/cross-identification/perception/Hintikka: here, we have to assume a situation when it comes to perceptual identification. There must be someone or something that perceives in them, and the different situations (worlds) must share the perception space of the subject. Semantics of Possible Worlds/perception/HintikkaVsSemantics of Possible Worlds: Hintikka has overlooked this point. Situation/semantics of possible worlds/Hintikka: furthermore, the semantics of possible worlds should investigate relations between smaller and larger situations. II 206 Descriptive Cross-World Identification/descriptive/Hintikka: descriptive identification should take place between parts of the world that are larger than the actual perceptual cross-identification, i.e. a comparison between "bigger" and "smaller" situations. >Situations. |
Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 |
| Cross World Identity | Wiggins | II 303 WigginsVsKripke: even if names are rigid designators: the question remains whether we can evaluate sets of names for all the worlds ("necessary existence"). Problem: cross world identity. >Rigidity, >Names, >Possible worlds, >Necessity, >Contingency, >Centered worlds. |
Wiggins I D. Wiggins Essays on Identity and Substance Oxford 2016 Wiggins II David Wiggins "The De Re ’Must’: A Note on the Logical Form of Essentialist Claims" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 |
| de se | Cresswell | II 121 De se/Lewis: is an attitude that someone has to himself. II 123 De se/Indirect speech/Kaplan/Cresswell: (Kaplan 1978)(1) E.g. "his pants are on fire" - "My God, that’s me". Not sufficient: a description that singles out Kaplan for Kaplan, - because that is compatible with it that he does not know that he himself is Kaplan. Sufficient: "...he himself ...". Analog: time: de nunc: statement on the date at which it is located - "it is now four o’clock". Differently: "Zeus says" four o’clock"" - this could be a timetable information. >He/He himself, >Quasi-indicator, >Self-identification, >Self-knowledge, >Self-ascription. II 124 Solution/Cresswell: triple: of world time, person. >Centered world, >Possible worlds, >Person, >Time. 1. Kaplan, D. (1978). "Dthat". In P. Cole (ed) Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. |
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 |
| Demonstratives | Nozick | II 225 Demonstratives / possible worlds / knowledge / belief / Nozick: "given that" compels us to keep things constant and therefore to consider more distant worlds - also demonstratives can fix things. >Index words, >Indexicality, >Possible worlds, >Identity across worlds, >Centered worlds. II 226 E.g. "Do I know that this e- thing (a pen with familiar scratch) is h? "here e is kept fixed (constant) and the answer seems to provoke the skeptic that h is not known. Solution: in reality it is about "non-(e and non-h)" which is not known. >Knowledge, >Certainty, >Recognition. Skepticism: if e is the only evidence and does not imply (entail) h, how do we know that h, given e? >Evidence, >Hypotheses, >Entailment. Narrower skepticism: goes even further: e falls into a class of statements (about behavior), and h (the conclusion) to another (via mental states). >Skepticism, >Mental states, >Index words, >Indexicality, >Behavior, >Conclusion. |
No I R. Nozick Philosophical Explanations Oxford 1981 No II R., Nozick The Nature of Rationality 1994 |
| Description Theory | Stalnaker | I 15 KripkeVsDescription Theory/Stalnaker: the description theory arises from a confusion between semantics and meta-semantics. >Semantics. Anti-Essentialism/Kripke/Stalnaker: the anti-essentialism arises from a confusion between semantics and metaphysics. >Essentialism, >Metaphysics. I 212 Purely descriptive language/Stalnaker: if we had a purely descriptive language, we would have no reference definition of general terms. >General terms, >Reference. On the other hand: Reference/causal theory of reference: (as a counter-position to descriptivism): the reference tells us how reference is acquired in general. - For names as for predicates. The knowledge about reference definition is then part of the language skills. >Causal theory of reference. I 212 Def Local Descriptivism/Lewis/Stalnaker: local descriptivism is simply a way to explain one part of the language by another ((s) according to Lewis and Stalnaker the only way). Global Descriptivism/LewisVs: global descriptivism makes it impossible to explain how statements can be wrong at all - this is Putnam’s Paradox ((s) then the expressions refer to "which things ever"). Then the properties and relations are always that what best makes the theory true. >Centered worlds. Additional Condition/Lewis: the simple terms have to split the world "at the joints". VsGlobal Descriptivism: 1) Global descriptivism would be holistic, i.e. what I think dependends on everything else that I think; 2) and it would be solipsistic, because depending on my causal relations: in that case "Tullius" means something else for me than for you. >Solipsism, >Holism. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Domains | Hintikka | II 98 Individual Domain/possible worlds/Montague/Hintikka: thesis: Montague assumes a constant domain of individuals. >Possible worlds. HintikkaVsMontague: precisely this assumption leads to problems. Especially in religious contexts. Individual/Montague: individuals are the domain of functions that function as the sense of a singular term. >Singular terms. Belief Context/opaque context/belief/propositional attitude/HintikkaVsMontague: problem: Montague does not allow a special approach (setting contexts) for contexts with propositional attitudes. E.g. "knowing who", e.g. "remembering where", e.g. "seeing what". This is a defect because Montague had been interested in propositional attitudes. >Propositional attitudes. II 176 Domain/variable/individual variable/quantification/Hintikka: my own approach (semantics of possible worlds) has been called "interpretation of the restricted domain". HintikkaVs: this misunderstands the logical situation: it is about the fact that the individuals have to be well-defined for the set of worlds with which we have to deal. N.B.: the set of worlds changes with the propositional attitudes. So the actual world, e.g. does not have to be included! Cf. >Hyperintensionality. Propositional Attitudes/Hintikka/(s): different attitudes (beliefs, doubts, seeing, etc.) demand different sets of worlds. Variables/values/Hintikka: it may be that the domain of our variables can be a superset of the set of the actual individuals (if the set of possible worlds does not contain the actual world). E.g. it may be that someone has correct beliefs about all the actual individuals, but also mistakenly believes that there are still more individuals that he only imagines. Hintikka: therefore my approach can be called with the same right one of the "extended domains". II 176 Individual domain/domain/Russell/Hintikka: Russell, on the other hand, seems to have actually represented a set of the restricted domain by restricting it to objects of acquaintance. II 196 Possible world/individual domain/HintikkaVsKripke: one should not demand that the individuals must remain the same when changing from world to world. The speech of worlds is empty if there is possible experience that could make them different. Cf. >Centered worlds. Possible worlds/Hintikka: possible worlds should be best determined as by the connected possible totals of experience. And then separation cannot be excluded. II 196 Separation/Hintikka: separation is useful in a few models of cross-world identification, re-identification in time. E.g. a computer could be dismantled and two computers could be built from it. This could be revised later. Re-identification/Hintikka: re-identification is the key to cases of separation and fusion. Separation/Hintikka: there is a structural reason why separation is so rare: if world lines are composed of infinitesimal elements as the solutions of differential equations, the separation corresponds to a singularity, and this is a rare phenomenon. Separation/Hintikka: the arguments against them are circular in a deep sense. They are based on the idea that for quantification the individual area should remain fixed (HintikkaVsKripke). Cf. >Systems S4/S5 |
Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 |
| Expansion | Field | I 209 Logic/Independence/Field: what does not go with a set of concepts (e.g. a distinction, a proof) does also not go with an extension of the concepts when the new concepts are merely derived from the old ones only. >Conservativity, >Concepts, >Conclusion, >Consequence, >Theories. I 257 Possibility/Field: modified concept of possibility: "is a possible extension of the actual world" (the real one). - Then there are models in which singular terms denote nothing. >Possible worlds, >Singular terms, >Denotation, >Reference, >Actual world, >Cross world identity, cf. >Centered worlds. The extension then provides a term for something that would not have a denotation in the non-extended model. - Then we will need an additional predicate "act" for the distinction. Problem: this only works outside the modal contexts. >Modalities, >Modal logic. Solution: truth must define truth in a model relative to another model, which is a sub-model of the first. >Models. --- II 356 Expansion/Theory/Language/Predicate/Field: one cannot simply decide to introduce a new predicate for which the indeterminacy of all extensions does not apply. >Introduction. --- III 95f 2nd order logic/Field: E.g. quantifiers like "there are infinitely many". - ((s) Quantified over sets). - Also not: e.g. "there are fewer Fs than Gs".) - ((s) Fs and Gs only definable as sets or properties.). >Quantifiers, >Second order logic. III 98 Expansion of Logic: Preserves us from a vast area of additionally assumed entities. - E.g. "What obeys gravitation theory". >Theoretical entities, >Ontology. QuineVs: rather accept abstract entities than expand the logic. - (Quine in this case per Platonism). >Logic/Quine. |
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 |
| Haecceitism | Logic Texts | Read III 125f Haecceitism/Read: the Haeccetist (from haecce = this one) believes that everything has an individual being, a lot of properties that are essential for it. Anti-Haecceitists: this position is ultra-essentialist. Edmund could hardly be a race car. Rather: his counterparts are simply identified by their similarity with him. >Counterpart, >Counterpart theory. They are more like him than other things in their world. E.g. according to the Haecceitism there may be two possible worlds in which all properties are merely permuted. Vs: that would be a differentiation without a difference. III 130 Actualism: middle position between Quine and Haecceitism. >Possible world, >Identity across worlds, >Centered world, >Identification, >Individuation, >Actuality, >Actualism. |
Logic Texts Me I Albert Menne Folgerichtig Denken Darmstadt 1988 HH II Hoyningen-Huene Formale Logik, Stuttgart 1998 Re III Stephen Read Philosophie der Logik Hamburg 1997 Sal IV Wesley C. Salmon Logic, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1973 - German: Logik Stuttgart 1983 Sai V R.M.Sainsbury Paradoxes, Cambridge/New York/Melbourne 1995 - German: Paradoxien Stuttgart 2001 Re III St. Read Thinking About Logic: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic. 1995 Oxford University Press German Edition: Philosophie der Logik Hamburg 1997 |
| Hyperintensionality | Cresswell | I 101 Hyperintensionality/Cresswell: (more fine-grained than worlds) - ultimately we need access to the world. >Fine-grained/coarse-grained, >Individuation, >Identification, >Possible worlds, >Cross world identity, >Centered worlds. II 72 hyperintensional proposition/hyperintensionality/Cresswell: an approach which takes worlds instead of propositions as the basic concept. >Propositions, >Basic concepts. II 73 The (one-digit) predicate is then a function of things on propositions, etc. 1st problem: we do not know a) what it is for a proposition to be true or b) for two propositions to be incompatible. >Contradictions. |
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 |
| Identity | Hintikka | II 77 Identity/object/thing/semantics of possible worlds/Kripke/Hintikka: Kripke thesis: the existence of permanent (endurant) objects must be assumed as a basic concept. HintikkaVsKripke: this requirement is not well-founded. Perhaps one must, however, presuppose the criteria of identification and of identity only for traditional logic and logical semantics. But that does not mean that the problem of identification is not a permanent problem for philosophers. II 151 Knowing-who/identity/psychology/psychiatry/Hintikka: there are interesting examples here. One must be able to recognize oneself as the same in different situations. >Semantics of possible worlds, >Possible worlds/Hintikka, >Possible worlds/Kripke, >Cross world identity, >Centered worlds, cf. >Systems S4/S5. |
Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 |
| Indeterminacy | Stalnaker | I 142 Indeterminacy/reference/name/representation/modal property/possible world/vagueness/Stalnaker: if it is indeterminate whether the object T has certain modal properties, then the name "T" (in other worlds) is indeterminate. >Proper names, >Centered worlds, >Modal properties, >Modalities, >Modal logic, >Possible worlds. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Individuals | Hintikka | II 2 Individual/well-defined/Hintikka: an individual is well-defined if it can be picked out by a name at a node of the world line. >World lines; cf. >Four-dimensionalism. World Line: a world line can link non-existent embodiments of individuals as long as they are well-defined, for all worlds in which a node of the world line is localizable. Truth conditions are then simple: (Ex) p (x) is true in world w iff. there is an individual, e.g. with the name z such that p (z) is true in w. II 43 Individual/possible worlds/existence/Hintikka: how can an individual exist in several worlds? (By being in different worlds in different relations to its environment?) >Possible worlds, >Centered worlds, >Possible worlds/Lewis, cf. >Counterpart theory. Solution/Hintikka: World Line/Hintikka: we must distinguish two ways, in which a world line cannot be drawn. Case 1: our criteria of cross-world identification work with individual i would still fail in world w, which leads us to say that i does not exist in w. Case 2: more radical: the criteria fail even in the sense that they cannot tell us what i is at all, then we cannot decide whether i exists in w or not (well-defined). Well-defined/existence/Hintikka: N.B.: we can now say: thesis: that well-defined objects are in a certain sense in the actual world. This is the best rational reconstruction. |
Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 |
| Intensions | Chalmers | I 54 Intension/Chalmers: intension is a function that defines how a concept is used in different situations. It is not the same as "meaning" and also not a definition. >Meaning, >Definitions, >Situations, >Reference, >Use, cf. >Extension. I 57 Intension/Chalmers: depending on whether a concept picks out an object in the actual world, or in a counterfactual world, I will speak of primary and secondary intension. >Concepts, >Possible worlds, >Actual world, >Terminology/Chalmers. Secondary Intension/Chalmers: secondary intension is therefore, independent of empirical factors. It describes how reference depends on how the outer world turns out. >twin earth, > rigidity). I 61 When counterfactual worlds are involved, it is not a priori determined what the reference is, since the actual world can be determined by different speakers as their own (mirror-inverted), >Centered Worlds/Quine. The determination as a primary or secondary intension will then also vary inversely. Cf. >Intensions/Stalnaker, >Propositions/Chalmers. I 62 Meaning/Chalmers: Both primary as well as secondary intensions are candidates for the "meaning" of a concept. "Water" could mean H2O, or twin earth water, depending on what is meant by the concept in the respective world. I 63 Necessary Truth/Chalmers: both can even be constructed as a necessary truth when possible worlds are conceived as uttering contexts. Cf. >Character/Kaplan, >Content/Kaplan, >Two-dimensional Semantics. I 200 Primary Intension/Chalmers: For example, the largest star in the universe: picks out a star in every given centered world. Even non-existent objects have a primary intension, e.g. the Nicholas, (Santa Claus). This primary intension could have picked out an object if the world had turned out accordingly. Cf. >Non-existence, >Possibilia. For my concept of consciousness, the primary intension is more important than a causal relation to an object. >Consciousness/Chalmers. I 205 Also, a zombie can have primary intensions that are overlapping with mine. >Zombies. I 206 Quality/Qualia: primary intensions do not specify Qualia. >Qualia. |
Cha I D. Chalmers The Conscious Mind Oxford New York 1996 Cha II D. Chalmers Constructing the World Oxford 2014 |
| Intensions | Stalnaker | I 16 Def C-intension/Jackson: a c-intension is c(x) expressed by u in x. ((s) This is where the semantics in possible world x causes the content c to be expressed, which is perhaps different from what can be meant by it in another possible world), i.e. it is relative to possible worlds. >Possible worlds, >Cross world identity. Def A-intension/Jackson: the A-intension is solely determined by the idea of propositino ((s) what is meant?) (regardless of possible worlds). Then there is a difference between modal and epistemic distinctions. There are no propositions that are both necessary and a posterori, and no propositions that are both contingent and a priori - but statements! Def necessary a posteriori statement: a necessary a posteriori statement is one with a necessary C-intension and a contingent A-intension. >Necessity a posteriori. Def contingent a priori statement: a contingent a priori statement is, on the other hand, one with a necessary A-intension and a contingent C-intension. I 205 Def two-dimensional sentence intension/Stalnaker: a two-dimensional sentence intension is a function with two arguments, a centered world and a possible world. Its value is a truth value. Def A-intensions/primary intension/primary sentence intension/Stalnaker: A intensions function with one argument and one centered world - their value is a truth value. Def C-intension/secondary intension/secondary sentence intension/Stalnaker: C-intensions function with one argument and one possible world - their value is a truth value. Cf. >Twodimensional semantics. I 208 Two-dimensional intension/thought/non-rigid/content/Stalnaker: the two-dimensional intension for thoughts defines a non-rigid description of a proposition: the secondary intension is the reference of this description. >Thoughts, >Rigidity. Secondary proposition/Stalnaker: the secondary proposition is not the content of the thoughts of the speaker, but is determined by the content, as a function of the facts. >Content/Stalnaker, >Facts. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Knowledge | Stalnaker | I 49 Knowledge/Lewis/Stalnaker: conclusion: knowledge of actual things is determined, not because it is causal knowledge, but because it is indexical knowledge. That is not knowledge of the existence, but of the fact that we are in a certain relation to things. >Indexicality, cf. >Centered worlds. N.B.: therefore all impersonal ontological beliefs are justified by a priori reasons. This will not be accepted by many authors. I 189 Fact/unknown/knowledge/truth value/Stalnaker: e.g. "Julius was the inventor of the zipper." This establishes an unknown fact. We know by virtue of our designation, that it is true, although we do not know the fact (because we do not know who is Julius). Reference of names: the reference of names depends on facts. >Causal theory of reference, >Causal theorys of names, >Facts. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Modal Properties | Modal properties: are properties that are not attributed actually to an object, but are attributed in a possible world. A modal property is e.g. the property of being happier under other circumstances. The question is whether an object in the actual world must have a certain quality in order to have different properties in another world. See also modal logic, modal realism, possible worlds, centered worlds, contingency, possibility, necessity, properties, extensionality. |
||
| Phenomena | Stalnaker | I 269 Def phenomenal information/terminology/Lewis/Stalnaker: phenomenal information is - beyond physical information - an irreducible other type of information. The two are independent. Stalnaker: it is the kind of information that Jackson's color researcher Mary acquires. It is compatible with the modest view. >Colour researcher Mary, >Colours/Jackson, >Knowledge/Jackson, >Knowledge how. Lewis: thesis: Mary is not missing phenomenal information. I 271ff Phenomenal information/self/subjectivity/Stalnaker: e.g. Mary knows in her room, that the treasure lies at a huge military cemetery in the 143rd row in the southerly direction and in the 57th row in the westerly direction. Problem: they still do not know that the treasure is "here". Problem: even if she stands in front of it, then she may have miscounted. ((s) Then she does not know what proposition the sentence expresses.) In the room: she cannot be fooled. Objective content: objective content is already in the room and possible to learn. Subjective content: subjective content cannot be expressed as a timeless proposition with "here". >Localization, >Index words, >Indexicality. I 274 Phenomenal indistinguishability, is possible in relation to colors, but not in relation to possible worlds. >Indistinguishability, >Possible worlds. Phenomenal information/self-identification/Stalnaker: e.g. person with memory loss: Rudolf Lingens does not know whether he is Lingens or Gustav Lauben. >Self-identification. Error: it is false to assume that there will be a possible world, that is just like the actual world, except that the experiences of Lingens were reversed with those of Lauben. Even if such an interpersonal comparison between worlds is understandable, it would not be compatible with the fact that self-localization is an irreducible information. >Centered worlds. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Possible Worlds | Adams | Stalnaker I 32 Possible worlds/Robert Adams: if there are true propositions that speak of the existence of nonactual possible worlds, they must be able to be reduced to sentences in which only things from the actual world are mentioned which are not identical with non-actual possibilities. >Possible worlds, >Actuality, >Actual world, >Possibility, >Counterfactuals. StalnakerVsAdams: I do not see why this should be necessary. Possible worlds/Stalnaker: Two questions: 1. Are they really so obscure? I 33 2. Does the belief in possible worlds and the indexical analysis of actuality oblige us to extreme realism? Certainly not. >Centered worlds. World stories/world-story/Possible worlds/Robert Adams: Thesis: a world-story is a maximally consistent set of propositions. The concept of a possible world can be given in a contextual analysis in terms of world stories. Proposition/Truth/Adams/Stalnaker: a proposition is true in some or all possible worlds if it is an element of some or all of the world-stories. StalnakerVsAdams: in his approach, there are three undefined terms: Proposition, consistent, and contradictory. >Propositions, >Consistency, >Contradiction. Proposals/Adams/Stalnaker: proposals can be presented as language-independent, abstract objects. They have truth values. >Truth value, >Abstract objects. Consistency/Adams/Stalnaker: consistency is a property of sets of propositions. >Consistency. One can define them in terms of possible worlds in which all propositions are true. I 34 Two conditions for consistency: (W1) The set of all true propositions is consistent (W2) Each subset of a consistent set is consistent. Contradiction/Adams/Stalnaker: contradiction could be defined in terms of consistency: A and B are contradictory, iff. {A, B} is not consistent And for each consistent set of propositions Γ is either Γ U {A} or Γ U {B} consistent. The theory presupposes: (W3) Each proposition has a contradiction. Proposition/Adams/Stalnaker: this is a minimal theory of propositions. It does not impose any structure on propositions, except for what is needed for compatibility, implication, and equivalence. And to ensure that e.g. the right kind of implication is present. E.g. implication: Definition Implication/Proposition/Stalnaker: (here): A implies B iff. a set consisting of A and a contradiction of B is not consistent. (W1) and (W2) ensure that our implication has the right properties. Stalnaker I 36 Proposition/Possible World/Stalnaker: an analysis of propositions as worlds provides definitions of consistency, etc., in concepts of set-theoretical relations between sets of worlds. World Story Theory/Adams/Stalnaker: the theory of world stories is weaker because it leaves open questions that clarify the analysis of propositions as worlds. >Stronger/weaker, >Strength of theories. The following two theses are consequences of the possible-worlds-theory but not of the world-story theory: (W5) Seclusion condition: For any set of propositions G there is a proposition A such that G implies A and A implies every element of G. Stalnaker: i.e. that for any set of propositions there is a proposition which says that every proposition in the set is true. Proposition/Seclusion/Stalnaker: whatever propositions are, if there are any, there are also sets of them. And for any set of propositions, it is definitely true or false that all their elements are true. And of course this is a proposition. So I assume that the world-story theorist wants to add (W5) to his theory. (W6) Equivalent propositions are identical. Problem: the problems of (W6) are known. ((s)> hyperintensionalism/hyperintentionality: sentences that are true in the same worlds are indistinguishable, equivalence of "snow is white" to "grass is green", etc.). >Hyperintensionality, >Semantics of Possible Worlds. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Possible Worlds | Cresswell | I VII Possible World/possible world/Cresswell: Main problem: how to adapt propositional attitudes. >Propositional attitudes, >Centered worlds, >Cross world identity. I 1 It does not matter if they exist, how it does not matter whether money or surrogate money is needed. I 6 It is pointless to want to decide about existence. LewisVs ersatz world: made from other things - e.g. from space time-points. >Ersatz worlds. I 4 Possible worlds are never part of the actual word. >Actual world, >Actuality, >Actualism. I 30 Therefore, they are also not "out there" (otherwise still part). I 16 We also do not have enough names for all possible worlds to put our empirical data into order. (Analogy: as we must postulate the past in order to arrange our present evidence). I 56f Possible World/Cresswell: we can equate any possible world with the set of things (objects) that exist in it. ((s) not an empty space.) Barcan formula: is valid for quantifiers, which can operate in any possible world on those things which exist in this possible world. >Barcan-Formula, >Possible world semantics, >Modal logic. |
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 |
| Possible Worlds | Esfeld | I 200 ~ Possible World/Esfeld: if the possible world is physically the same, then there are also the same meanings but if it is mentally distinguished, then it is also physically distinguished (supervenience). >Supervenience, >Accessibility, >Similarity metrics, >Centered worlds, cf. >Twin Earth, >Externalism, >Reference, >Meaning. |
Es I M. Esfeld Holismus Frankfurt/M 2002 |
| Possible Worlds | Field | I 41 Possible World/difference/differentiation/Field: E.g. we cannot postulate a possibel world which is isomorphic to ours and in which only Nixon is like Humphrey (here) and Humphrey like Nixon (here) - (throughout the whole story). >Cross world identity, cf. >Centered worlds. I 75 Possible Worlds/Lewis: (Counterfactuals, Section 4.1): possible Worlds are 4-dimensional slices of a broader reality, like other possible world. All together form the actual universe. FieldVsLewis. NominalismVsPossible Worlds: these are abstract entities. I 222 Problem of quantities/Possible World/Field: with possible world and cross-world-congruence we could avoid the possibility operator. FieldVs: we exactly wanted to avoid the ontology of the space-time regions. Possible World/Field: are only heuristically harmless. I 223 Possible World/StalnakerVsLewis: (Stalanker 1976)(1): Alternative to Lewis: Speech of possible worlds should be understood as a speech about a property Q, so it is necessary that if the universe has Q, then there is x*, y*, z*, w* and u*, so that F (x*, y*, z*, w*, u*). Problem: How should we understand the cross-world congruence? The last incidents of x* are not bound by quantifiers during the comparison. FieldVsStalnaker: Problem: interpretation of the expression "spatial relation". --- II 89 Possible world/Quantities of/Field: what is relevant for sets of possible worlds as objects of states of the mind is that they form a Boolean algebra. N.B.: then the elements themselves need not be a possible world - any other kind of elements are then just as good for a psychological explanation. They could simply be everything - e.g. numbers. Numbers: do not pretend to represent the world as it is. II 90 Intentionality/Possible world/FieldVsStalnaker/Field: The wit of the possible world assumption is the Boolean Algebra, the boolean relation that prevails between possible worlds. Problem: then the empty set of possible worlds which contains the trisection of the angle, which is a subset of the set of the possible world, in which Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Problem: what fact does that make? - Without it the approach is meaningless. >Nonfactualism. 1. Robert C. Stalnaker, 1976. Possible Worlds. ous 10, 65-75. |
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 |
| Possible Worlds | Fodor | IV 88 Possible World/Fodor: if "it is raining" does not mean that it is raining, but the speaker has the relationship to the pair <"it's raining", it's raining>, then the laws of psychology are changed in this world ((s) but the behavior is not changed). Cf. >Centered worlds. |
F/L Jerry Fodor Ernest Lepore Holism. A Shoppers Guide Cambridge USA Oxford UK 1992 Fodor I Jerry Fodor "Special Sciences (or The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis", Synthese 28 (1974), 97-115 In Kognitionswissenschaft, Dieter Münch Frankfurt/M. 1992 Fodor II Jerry Fodor Jerrold J. Katz Sprachphilosophie und Sprachwissenschaft In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Fodor III Jerry Fodor Jerrold J. Katz The availability of what we say in: Philosophical review, LXXII, 1963, pp.55-71 In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 |
| Possible Worlds | Hintikka | II 74 Possible Worlds/VsSemantics of Possible Worlds/Hintikka: problem: possible worlds seem to take the worlds and complete sets of possibilia as self-evident. Possible Worlds/Leibniz: thesis: there is a determined set of worlds among which God makes a selection. >Possible worlds/Leibniz. HintikkaVsLeibniz: that is extremely doubtful. Possible Worlds/Hintikka: we should rather call it world stories or scenarios. II 75 We can limit the set of worlds to those that are conceivable. Semantics of Possible Worlds/Hintikka: one can build a theory of questions and answers on the semantics of possible worlds. >Questions/Hintikka, >Answers/Hintikka. II 76 This is about what is possible in more than one world. For this, we must assume much more than is assumed in an extensional language. Reference/semantics of possible worlds: here it is not enough to accept only the referents which have our expressions in the actual world. II 196 Possible World/individual area/HintikkaVsKripke: one should not demand that the individuals must remain the same when changing from world to world. The talk of worlds is empty, if there are no possible experiences that could make them different. Possible Worlds/Hintikka: possible worlds should be best determined as by the connected possible totals of experience. And then separation cannot be ruled out. >Cross world identity, >Centered worlds. |
Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 |
| Possible Worlds | Lewis | IV 147 Centered possible worlds/De re/de se/Quine/Lewis: (Ontological Relativity, Propositional Objects): E.g., A cat that is being chased by a dog wants to get onto the roof to be safe - de dicto: it wants a state that is the class of all possible worlds where it reaches the roof. Problem: cross-world identity: Question: which of the many counterparts in many possible worlds is the cat itself? Solution/Quine: centered world: Pairs of a world and a designated time-space point in it, the desired state is then a class of centered worlds - no centered world belongs to two classes (desired and dreaded possible worlds). >Centered world, >Counterpart/Lewis, >Counterpart relation/Lewis, >Counterpart theory/Lewis, >Identity across worlds. QuineVs: ultimately better divided theory: here are the objects of simple settings, classes of stimulus patterns that are more complex are linguistic. Property/Lewis: corresponds to a class of centered worlds, more specifically to a property of space-time points, but also a property of cats. IV 148 Possible world/Quine/Lewis: Lewis: large particulars (concrete) - Quine: abstract entities - certain classes of classes of quadruples of real numbers - (space-time points) - Stalnaker: pro Quine: corresponds better to our everyday language: What it could have been like. IV 149 Situation/Possible world/Lewis: Thesis: there can also be alternatives within a possible world - thus distinction situation/Possible world - LewisVsStalnaker: not propositions as belief objects (objects of desire) but attitudes de se - E.g. Lingens with memory loss finds out in the book that there are two people who could be identical with him - a) on the 6th floor at Stanford - b) in the basement of a different library 3km away - two possible situations (possibilities) in the same possible worlds - solution: property instead proposition - the propositions apply to both people in the same way. >Properties/Lewis, >Proposition/Lewis. --- V 42 Centering assumption/Possible world/Lewis: If it was violated, worlds that differed in a non-observed way would be considered to be the same as the actual world. V 262 Possible world/Equality/Identity/Lewis: it is an independent and difficult question whether two possible worlds that exactly match their history also match in all other aspects - e.g. in their probabilities, laws, modal truths, counterfctual conditionals. >Counterfactual conditional/Lewis. Lewis: this is not of interest here. Overall history/Supervenience: supervenes on the history of events, whatever else may in turn supervene on the overall history. >Supervenience/Lewis. --- Schwarz I 216 Possible world/Lewis: no set of ordinary sentences - of which there are not enough in the language. Lewis: counterparts, possible worlds are real (KripkeVs) (PutnamVs). --- Lewis I 59 Possible world/Lewis: you can speak pretty freely and metaphysically guileless and without special ontological reservations about possible worlds. --- II 214 Possible world save separation of object/meta languange - Truth and analyticity cannot be defined in the same language. II 214 Definition Possible World (VsLewis): The concept of a possible world can be explained even by recourse to semantic terms. Possible worlds are models of the analytical sentences of a language or diagrams or theories of such models. II 214 LewisVs: possible worlds cannot be explained by recourse to semantic terms. Possible worlds exist and should not be replaced by their linguistic representations. 1) Such a replacement does not work properly: two worlds that are indistinguishable in the representative language are (falsely) assigned one and the same representation. >ersatz world/Lewis. |
Lewis I David K. Lewis Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989 Lewis I (a) David K. Lewis An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (b) David K. Lewis Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (c) David K. Lewis Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980 In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis II David K. Lewis "Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Lewis IV David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983 Lewis V David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986 Lewis VI David K. Lewis Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Konventionen Berlin 1975 LewisCl Clarence Irving Lewis Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970 LewisCl I Clarence Irving Lewis Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991 Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 |
| Propositions | Lewis | Frank I 17 Proposition/Lewis: the number of possible worlds in which this proposition is true. >Possible world/Lewis. Def property/Lewis: the number of (actual or non-actual) beings that have this property. >Properties/Lewis. Proposition/Lewis/Frank: now a one-to-one correspondence can be established between each proposition and the property to inhabit a world in which the proposition applies. It makes it possible to dispense with propositions as the objects of the attitudes. But there are now attitudes that cannot be analyzed as an attitude toward a proposition: where we locate ourselves in space and time. E.g. memory loss: someone bumps into their own biography and can still not fit themselves in. - ((s) Because proposition = number of possible worlds, then - e.g. I’m true here in every possible worlds. - Therefore no knowledge). Frank I 329 Proposition: number of possible worlds in which they are true (extensional). Advantage: non-perspectivic access. - ((s) Not everyone has their own possible worlds.) Frank I 355 Propositions: have nothing intersubjective per se. - Problematic therefore is the subjectivity of reference of the first person. >First Person, >Subjectivity, >Centered world. Hector-Neri Castaneda (1987b): Self-Consciousness, Demonstrative Reference, and the Self-Ascription View of Believing, in: James E. Tomberlin (ed) (1987a): Critical Review of Myles Brand's "Intending and Acting", in: Nous 21 (1987), 45-55 James E. Tomberlin (ed.) (1986): Hector-Neri.Castaneda, (Profiles: An International Series on Contemporary Philosophers and Logicians, Vol. 6), Dordrecht 1986 --- Lewis IV 137 Proposition/Lewis: divides the population into inhabitants of such worlds in which it applies and those in which it does not apply - one assigns oneself to one of the worlds through belief and localizes oneself in a region of logical space - if quantification over several possible worlds is possible (cross-world), there is a large population across worlds and times. IV 142 E.g. Heimson thinks I’m Hume/Perry/Lewis: self-attribution of a property, not an empty proposition Heimson is Hume - all propositions that are true for Hume, are also true for Heimson, because both live in the same world. - Lewis: So Heimson believes the same things as Hume by believing a true proposition - the predicate -believes to be Hume - applies to both. E.g. of HeimsonVsPropositions as objects of belief - otherwise "I am Hume" would either be true both times or false both times - ((s) difference > proposition / > statement). IV 145 Proposition: in a divided world any proposition is either true or false - hence individual objects of desire are more likely properties (that can be self-attributed) than propositions. IV 146 Proposition: No Proposition: E.g. - there is something that I wish now and I will also want it even when I have it, only I will be happier then - no proposition, because it applies to the time before and after - one time of me will not be happy to live in a world where it will happen at some time. - Solution: the wish for the property to be located later in time - localization in logical space instead of proposition: E.g. The Crusader wants a region in logical space without avoidable misfortune - these are properties. V 160 Proposition: no linguistic entity - no language has enough sentences to express all the propositions - truth functional operations with propositions are Boolean operations about sets of possible worlds. - > inclusion, overlapping. --- ad Stechow 42 Language/Infinite/Lewis/(s): number of propositions is greater than the number of sentences, because power set of the possible worlds). |
Lewis I David K. Lewis Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989 Lewis I (a) David K. Lewis An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (b) David K. Lewis Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (c) David K. Lewis Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980 In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis II David K. Lewis "Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Lewis IV David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983 Lewis V David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986 Lewis VI David K. Lewis Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Konventionen Berlin 1975 LewisCl Clarence Irving Lewis Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970 LewisCl I Clarence Irving Lewis Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991 Fra I M. Frank (Hrsg.) Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins Frankfurt 1994 |
| Reality | Nagel | I 119 Reality/Nagel: The mere recognition of a distinction between appearance and reality provides no way to discover the reality. >Method, >World/thinking, >Knowledge, >Recognition. Nagel: I am convinced that it is possible to understand the desire for order as a direct consequence of the idea of an objective reality that is independent of specific observations and observers (realism). >Realism. I 130 ff The attempt to interpret the orderly worldview as a projection of our mind fails due to the need to find a place for ourselves in the world. On the quest for our place in the world we have to apply the same kind of thinking. >Centered World. But: there is no logical or necessary truth that the world is ordered or even that we can understand this order. NagelVsanthropic principle. >Anthropic Principle. As it turns out, there is amazingly much within our reach. |
NagE I E. Nagel The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation Cambridge, MA 1979 Nagel I Th. Nagel The Last Word, New York/Oxford 1997 German Edition: Das letzte Wort Stuttgart 1999 Nagel II Thomas Nagel What Does It All Mean? Oxford 1987 German Edition: Was bedeutet das alles? Stuttgart 1990 Nagel III Thomas Nagel The Limits of Objectivity. The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, in: The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 1980 Vol. I (ed) St. M. McMurrin, Salt Lake City 1980 German Edition: Die Grenzen der Objektivität Stuttgart 1991 NagelEr I Ernest Nagel Teleology Revisited and Other Essays in the Philosophy and History of Science New York 1982 |
| Recognition | Hintikka | II 209 Re-Identification/Hintikka: with this problem, situation semantics and semantics of possible worlds are in the same boat again. >Situation semantics, >Semantics of possible worlds. Situation Semantics: situation semantics rather veils the problem. For overlapping situations it assumes, e.g. that the overlapping part remains the same. Re-Identification/Quine/Hintikka: Quine and Hintikka consider re-identification as hopeless because you cannot explain how it works. Re-Identification/Kripke/Hintikka: Kripke ditto, but that is why we should simply postulate it, at least for physical objects. HintikkaVsQuine/HintikkaVsKripke: this is either too pessimistic or too optimistic. But ignoring the problem would mean to neglect one of the greatest philosophical problems. >Cross world identity, >Centered worlds, >Identification. |
Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 |
| Reference | Chalmers | I 201 Reference/Consciousness/Chalmers: if we can refer to our conscious experiences, our consciousness is probably not causally irrelevant to the explanation of consciousness. In any case not, if a causal relation is required for reference. However, this is not always necessary when it comes to e.g. intensions. Cf. >Causal relation, >Intensions, >Consciousness/Chalmers, >Experience. E.g. Primary Intension: For example, the largest star in the universe: picks out a star in any given centered world, whether I have a causal relationship with it or not. >Identification, >Possible worlds, >Centered worlds, "Primary Intension": >Terminology/Chalmers. Certainly, however, it is usually the case that, in the centered world, objects are picked out by a causally induced reference. But that does not always have to be the case. I 202 Causality: may often be helpful to distinguish between potential candidates of the reference, or to learn concepts. >Language acquisition, >Learning, >Concepts, >Words. |
Cha I D. Chalmers The Conscious Mind Oxford New York 1996 Cha II D. Chalmers Constructing the World Oxford 2014 |
| Relativism | Nagel | I 9ff Relativism/subjectivism/Nagel: the relativism is first, self-contradictory, because it is claimed, nothing is the case, second, meaningless, because everything arbitrary is the case, what we say or believe. I 31 ff E.g. Rorty (subjectivist): We cannot identify a hook which draws us out of mere coherence to something like the correspondence with the "per se subsistent reality". >Correspondence, >Coherence. NagelVsRorty et.al.: this is convincing at first glance, but: if you take these authors seriously, they are just contrary to that consensus on which, according to them the objectivity "is based": people who develop scientific or mathematical beliefs, are in agreement that these things are absolutely true, regardless of if we agree on them. >Realism/Nagel, > Reality/Nagel. I 136 Relativism/NagelVsRelativism/Nagel: the attempt to reinterpret the orderly world image as a projection of our mind, fails due to the need, to find a place for ourselves in the so-ordered world. Cf. >Centered world. I 134 If we consider the phenomena always as merely "for us", we need to show that they have no systematic relationship with observed regularities. |
NagE I E. Nagel The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation Cambridge, MA 1979 Nagel I Th. Nagel The Last Word, New York/Oxford 1997 German Edition: Das letzte Wort Stuttgart 1999 Nagel II Thomas Nagel What Does It All Mean? Oxford 1987 German Edition: Was bedeutet das alles? Stuttgart 1990 Nagel III Thomas Nagel The Limits of Objectivity. The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, in: The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 1980 Vol. I (ed) St. M. McMurrin, Salt Lake City 1980 German Edition: Die Grenzen der Objektivität Stuttgart 1991 NagelEr I Ernest Nagel Teleology Revisited and Other Essays in the Philosophy and History of Science New York 1982 |
| Representation | Nagel | I 130 ff The attempt to reinterpret the ordered world image as a projection of our mind, fails because we need to idenbtify a place for ourselves in the ordered world. In search of our place in the world, we must again apply the same kind of thinking. >Regress, cf. >Centered world. But there is no logical or necessary truth that the world is ordered, or even that we can understand this order. NagelVsAnthropic Principle. >Anthropic principle. As it turns out, there is amazingly much within our reach. >World/thinking/Nagel. |
NagE I E. Nagel The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation Cambridge, MA 1979 Nagel I Th. Nagel The Last Word, New York/Oxford 1997 German Edition: Das letzte Wort Stuttgart 1999 Nagel II Thomas Nagel What Does It All Mean? Oxford 1987 German Edition: Was bedeutet das alles? Stuttgart 1990 Nagel III Thomas Nagel The Limits of Objectivity. The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, in: The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 1980 Vol. I (ed) St. M. McMurrin, Salt Lake City 1980 German Edition: Die Grenzen der Objektivität Stuttgart 1991 NagelEr I Ernest Nagel Teleology Revisited and Other Essays in the Philosophy and History of Science New York 1982 |
| Self | Nagel | Stalnaker I 260 Objective Self/Nagel/NagelVsOntological View: if "being me" was to be an objective property, the assumption collapses that it could also be in relation to anyone else. But if it is an aspect of the objective TN, I can ask again "Which of these people am I". No matter to what extent we complete the concept of non-centered world, the fact that I’m TN will be missing. Cf. >Centered worlds. Stalnaker pro. - But: the objective property fulfills two conditions: 1) only TN has it 2) Only the person who has it can attribute it. Problem: "TN’s self-property" is non-rigid. - There are possible worlds where TN and SK are reversed. >Rigidity, >Possible worlds. Stalnaker I 262 True Self/Nagel: is not the perspective and has no perspective. (In the non-centric world) - that’s what it is about when I look at the world as a whole and ask: "How can I be TN?" - It’s not about ontology. Stalnaker I 263 StalnakerVsNagel: the fact that I can imagine a situation does not mean that I could be in it - see. StalnakerVsNagel. |
NagE I E. Nagel The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation Cambridge, MA 1979 Nagel I Th. Nagel The Last Word, New York/Oxford 1997 German Edition: Das letzte Wort Stuttgart 1999 Nagel II Thomas Nagel What Does It All Mean? Oxford 1987 German Edition: Was bedeutet das alles? Stuttgart 1990 Nagel III Thomas Nagel The Limits of Objectivity. The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, in: The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 1980 Vol. I (ed) St. M. McMurrin, Salt Lake City 1980 German Edition: Die Grenzen der Objektivität Stuttgart 1991 NagelEr I Ernest Nagel Teleology Revisited and Other Essays in the Philosophy and History of Science New York 1982 Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Self | Stalnaker | I 253 Self/semantic diagnosis/Nagel/Stalnaker: NagelVsSemantic diagnosis: the semantic diagnosis is unsatisfactory. VsOntological solution: the ontological solution wants to enrich the objective, centerless world in the wrong way. Nagel: center position thesis: there is an objective self. StalnakerVsNagel: the semantic diagnosis has more potential than Nagel thinks. Simple solution: we need context-dependent or subjective information. I 255 Belief/conviction/Stalnaker: beliefs are sets of uncentered possible worlds. They are a self-attribution of property. >Self/Nagel. I 264 Objective self/modest semantic view/Stalnaker: the objective self dispenses with subjective content that would be more than self-localization - there is no realm of subjective facts. Cf. >Centered worlds, >Subjectivity, >Objectivity/Nagel. I 269 Then one would have to know what it is like for Napoleon to be Napoleon if all the facts are considered. Minimal subject: >Subjects/Stalnaker. I 270 Objective self/StalnakerVsObjectivation: (of subjective content) 1) the objective self takes on an extravagant metaphysics and 2) requires an explanation of the special relationship that we still would have to it. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Self- Identification | Castaneda | Frank I 190 Self-Identification/I/Self/Hume/Kant: you cannot perceive yourself as the object that implements the experience - instead you identify an object in the experience with a thing that is not part of the experience, and it is this thing to which the person concerned refers with "I" - Castaneda pro. >I, Ego, Self/Castaneda, >Self-knowledge, >Self, >Person, >I, Ego, Self. I 190 I/Self/Identification/Carl Ginet/Castaneda: ingenious analysis, seems to preserve the directly relating role of 'he*": E.g. for every sentence of the form" X believes that he* is H" there is a translation without "he*": Proposal: "X considers the proposition to be true that X would express if X said "I am H". CastanedaVsGinet: 1) the mere utterance of "I am H" does not guarantee that any proposition is expressed at all 2) circular: then you also have to analyze "what it usually means". I 202 Self-Identification/Castaneda: you should not and cannot identify yourself with every description - otherwise the heaviest man in Europe would know that he is without ever stepping on a scale - therefore, "he*" must not be used as an independent symbol. I 220 Self-Identification/Castaneda: in order for X to refer to Y as Z, X must not only identify Y with Z, but also represent Z as Z (representation) - accumulation of references - "boxes in boxes" - box: fragment of the world as person understands it. >Possible worlds, >Cross-world identity, >Centered worlds. de dicto/Castaneda: pictures of representations: boxes in boxes. de Re/Castaneda: simply the references of the speaker - also on non-existent things. >de re, >de dicto, >Reference. Hector-Neri Castaneda(1966b): "He": A Study on the Logic of Self-consciousness, in : Ratio 8 (Oxford 1966), 130-157 |
Cast I H.-N. Castaneda Phenomeno-Logic of the I: Essays on Self-Consciousness Bloomington 1999 Fra I M. Frank (Hrsg.) Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins Frankfurt 1994 |
| Self- Reference | Nozick | II 75 Self-reference/Nozick: (in all possible worlds) has two components: a) rigid: in all worlds to the same thing b) in each possible world to itself (in this one possible world). >Possible worlds, >Rigidity, >Identity across worlds, >Centered worlds, >Reflexivity, >Reference, >Names. Therefore the term must be defined by its meaning - which in turn makes circumstances superfluous. >Circumstances, >Sense, >Meaning. Rigidity is insufficient: E.g. Gödel number. But the Gödel number is necessary self-referential. >Gödel numbers. II 81 I/self-reference/truth/semantic facts/Nozick: Problem: truth (or semantic fact) does not help to know that you are the one, to which a sentence with "I" refers to. >Truth, >Semantic facts. E.g. "Only this originator of tokens "I am in Cambridge" ". Here you still have to know that you are there. Otherwise, there is nothing better than "exactly this X". ((s) Solution/(s): It must be knowledge about the truth.) Cf. >Quasi-Indicator, >He/Himself, >I/Castaneda. II 93 Self-reference/Nozick: should not be defined by a permanent feature, but by something that arises in the act of referencing. - ((S) That is then indexical, but unproblematic). - Punchline: E.g. "exactly this" will still be described from the outside - that means, it is still not reflexive. - Nozick: pro: then there is no question "How is that possible?". >"How is it possible"-Questions. |
No I R. Nozick Philosophical Explanations Oxford 1981 No II R., Nozick The Nature of Rationality 1994 |
| Space Time | Hintikka | II 81 Space Time/identification/KripkeVsHintikka/QuineVsHintikka/Hintikka: Kripke and Quine argue (for different reasons) that space time continuity does not always have a precise meaning. >Possible worlds, >Cross world identity, >Centered worlds, >Identification, >World lines. SaarinenVsHintikka: the identity of individuals, which occur in several worlds, is not always well-defined for all these possible worlds. Hintikka: ditto: it may be in belief contexts that an individual is identified under a description, but not under another description. This must also be the case, otherwise we would be omniscient again. Possible Worlds: we must also be careful to adopt a "common reason" from all possible worlds. We certainly do not share a part of the space time, but part of the facts. World/Tractatus/Wittgenstein/substance/Hintikka: in Wittgenstein, the world is the sum of the facts, not of the objects: for a shared space time this would only be by additional assumptions. Cross-world identification/Hintikka: the cross-world identification seems lost when we are dealing only with a lot of facts ((s) epistemically) and a common space time is missing. II 82 Re-identification: re-identification of physical objects is necessary first to get to the cross-world identification later. II 90 Possible worlds/Hintikka: the expression possible world presupposes that a space time is shared. |
Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 |
| Terminology | Stalnaker | Schwarz I 30 Def Perdurantism/Schwarz: thesis: timely extended things are usually composed of temporal parts. Schwarz I 31 Def Endurantism/Schwarz: (VsPerdurantism): thesis: things are completely (not only partially) present at any time at which they exist (like Aristotelian universals). Perdurantism: perdurantism can perceive objects as four-dimensional, extended both in time and space. Endurantism: endurantism can also assume that objects have temporal parts, e.g. a football game. Stalnaker I 135f Vague Identity/Stalnaker: e.g. there are two fish restaurants Bookbinder's - only one can be identical with the original one. Endurantism: problem: B0: (the original one) is then an ambiguous name. Perdurantism: here perdurantism is unique. Stalnaker I 81 Def Individualbegriff/Stalnaker: The individual concept is a function of possible worlds on individuals. Stalnaker I 91 Def weak supervenience/Stalnaker: Weak supervenience is found within a possible world. Strong Supervenience/Stalnaker: strong supervenience is found within one or in several. Global Supervenience/Stalnaker: Global supervenience is when any two possible worlds that are B indistinguishable are also A indistinguishable. Global Supervenience: Global supervenience must be improved. So it is not even sufficient for weak supervenience. I 124 Def Identity/Possible World Relative/Stalnaker: identity is always the binary relation whose extension in any possible world w is the set of pairs such that d is in the domain of w. I 267 Def minimal subject/terminology/Stalnaker: a minimal subject is Ex anything that is a representative, something that receives, stores, or transmits information. I 192 Def kontingent a priori/zwei-dimensionale Semantik/Stalnaker: Kontingent a priori ist eine Aussage mit einer kontingenten sekundären Intension, aber einer notwendigen primären. Def notwendig a posteriori: umgekehrt: Notwendig a posteriori sind notwendige sekundäre Intensionen, kontingente primäre. Pointe: Keine Proposition ist selbst kontingent a priori oder notwendig a posteriori. Es gibt nur verschiedene Weisen, in denen notwendige und kontingente Propositionen mit Aussagen assoziiert sind. Def Charakter/Kaplan: Charakter ist gleich Bedeutung. Er ist die Funktion von möglichen (Gebrauchs-) Kontexten auf Referenten. I 212 Def Local Descriptivism/Lewis/Stalnaker: local descriptivism is simply a way of explaining one part of speech by another. ((s) According to Lewis and Stalnaker, this is the only way). I 9 Def Property/Stalnaker: (a) thin/sparse definition: a trait is a way individuals can be grouped. b) richer definition/Stalnaker: (more robust): A trait is something upon which (in relation to which) individuals are grouped. I 103 Def Fundamental property/Stalnaker: a fundamental property must provide for distinctions between individuals that could not otherwise be explained. I 154f Def essential identity/Stalnaker: all things x and y that are identical are essentially identical, i.e. identical in all possible worlds in which the thing exists. I 34 Def Implication/Proposition/Stalnaker: (here): A implies B gdw. a set consisting of A and a contradiction of B is inconsistent. I 50 Def doxastically accessible/Lewis: Doxastically accessible means being compatible with other beliefs and knowledge. I 16 Def C-Intension/Jackson: A C-intension is c(x) expressed by u in x. Def A-intension/Jackson: The A-intension is determined by the propositional thought alone. Def necessary a posteriori statement: A necessary a posteriori statement is a statement with a necessary C-intension and a contingent A-intension. Def contingent a priori statement: a contingent a priori statement is conversely one with a necessary A-intension and a contingent C-intension. I 205 Def two-dimensional propositional intents/Stalnaker: a two-dimensional propositional intents is a function with two arguments, a centered world and a possible world. Its value is a truth value (WW). Def A-intentions/primary intension/primary sentence intension/stalnaker: an A-intention is a function with one argument, one centered world. Its value is a truth value. Def C-Intension/Secondary Intension/Secondary Sentence Intension/Stalnaker: A C-Intension is a function with an argument and a possible world. Its value is a truth value. I 15 Def Metaphysics/Stalnaker: metaphysics concerns the distinctions that must be made between possibilities. I 43 Def Liberal Platonism/LP/Terminology/Stalnaker: (early thesis): If practice is legitimate, (inferences, etc.) then we are really making assertions and semantics really tells us what the assertions say. I 61f Def Proposition/Stalnaker: a proposition is no more than a subregion, or subset of possible worlds. Def assertion/Stalnaker: asserting a proposition is nothing more than locating the real world in that subset. Def true-relative-to-x: To say a proposition is true relative to a world x is to say that the world x is in the subset (of possible worlds) that the proposition constitutes. Def true simpliciter: "True simpliciter" means to say that the real world is in this subset (of possible worlds constituting the proposition). |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 |
| Twin Earth | Chalmers | I 134 Twin Earth/Chalmers: this is about the distinction between primary and secondary intensions. >Propositions/Chalmers, >Terminology/Chalmers. One could have suspected a priori that water is XYZ instead of H2O. But Kripke shows us that after the actual world has emerged as as it is, we would describe it wrongly as one in which XYZ is water. >Reference/Kripke, >Twin Earth. N.B.: we would falsely describe them with the primary intension (relative to the actual world) rather than with the secondary appropriate intension. >Actual World, >Centered Worlds. |
Cha I D. Chalmers The Conscious Mind Oxford New York 1996 Cha II D. Chalmers Constructing the World Oxford 2014 |
| Values | Lewis | Graeser I 190 Value/Validation/Lewis: These values should be considered as feeling, believing, desiring - ultimately desire of desire. HarmanVsLewis: 1) intrinsic desire of a higher level misleading. "Desire" has the meaning of intention and is, just like any intention, already self-referential. >Ethics/Harman. I 191 FrankfurtVsHarman: risk of blurring the distinction between the goal (s) and the means, and thus committing oneself to the assumption that goals are equipped with means in a certain way and that’s how we come across them. --- Schwarz I 185 Value/ethics/Lewis/Schwarz: values are not inherent in the validated events, but in us. In our wishes - Problem: just because you want something, it’s not necessarily good - Solution: Wishes 2nd stage: desire not to want to smoke - best theory: dispositional - Problem: latent relativism. Schwarz I 187 LewisVsUtilitarism: neglects perspective. >Utilitarianism, >Centered world, >Relativism/Lewis, >Desire, >Disposition/Lewis. |
Lewis I David K. Lewis Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989 Lewis I (a) David K. Lewis An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (b) David K. Lewis Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (c) David K. Lewis Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980 In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis II David K. Lewis "Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Lewis IV David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983 Lewis V David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986 Lewis VI David K. Lewis Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Konventionen Berlin 1975 LewisCl Clarence Irving Lewis Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970 LewisCl I Clarence Irving Lewis Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991 Grae I A. Graeser Positionen der Gegenwartsphilosophie. München 2002 Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kaplan, D. | Stalnaker Vs Kaplan, D. | I 206 Def character/Kaplan: (= proposition meaning): a function of context to content. Context/Stalnaker: can be represented as centered world (centered poss.w.). Centered world/centered possible world/ poss.w./Stalnaker: shall represent the context here. I 207 Content: is here represented by propositions Proposition: function of poss.w. to truth values. Character/Kaplan/Stalnaker: is then a two-dimensional intension. (Kaplan 1989b) StalnakerVsKaplan: this paradigm does not answer the questions of basic semantics to the facts that determine the semantic values. It belongs to the descriptive semantics. That means it is not a theory on the interpretation of thoughts. Thoughts/interpretation/Stalnaker: is a question of basic semantics that means of the facts. Character/content/Kaplan/Stalnaker: the original motivation for the separation was that sentence meanings do not represent the expressed thoughts. Content/Stalnaker: = secondary intension. Content/Kaplan: that what is being said. The thought, the information that the speaker intends to transmit. I 208 Solution/StalnakerVsKaplan: Kaplan's approach must be expanded by a theory of thoughts and a language theory. This allows us to treat a wider domain of expressions as context-dependent than normally. II 5 Double indexing/double index/Kaplan/Stalnaker: (Kaplan Demonstratives, 1968): thesis: 1. a) the meaning of a proposition determines the content relative to the context but b) the content determines a truth value only relative to a poss.w. Stalnaker: so Kaplan's theory was two dimensional or double indicated. Context/Kaplan/Stalnaker: was represented by an index like the one of Montague and propositions were interpreted relative to this index Content/Kaplan/Stalnaker: the actual values of the interpretation function were then, however, the contents and not the truth values, while Def content/Kaplan: a function of poss.w. on truth values. 2. Kaplan second modification: Index/Kaplan/Stalnaker: was limited: Index/Montague/Stalnaker: only a list of time, speaker, place, maybe poss.w.) Index/Kaplan: only: the relations between these must also be considered. That means an index can represent the content only when the agent is actually at the location in the poss.w.. II 6 Context dependence/Stalnaker: is, however, pervasive: adjectives like e.g. "large" are interpreted relative to contextually specific comparison classes. Likewise e.g. "I", "here", "now" (index words). StalnakerVsKaplan: Kaplan (1968) says nothing about this. II 10 Character/Kaplan/Stalnaker: Kaplan was about proposition types. Propositional concept/p.c./StalnakerVsKaplan: are, however, associated with certain statement tokens. This p.c. is dependent on the semantic properties that these tokens have in the poss.w. in which they occur. This is no contradiction to Kaplan's and my theory. It is simply about different issues. II 162 de re/belief/ascription/Kaplan/Stalnaker: ("Quantifying in", 1969) Kaplan has an intermediate position (between Quine and Stalnaker): Ascription/Kaplan: (like Quine) is not ascribed to a certain conviction. de re/logical form/Quine/Kaplan: de re-ascription: existence quantification. Truth conditions/tr.c./de re/KaplanVsQuine/Stalnaker: here Kaplan follows the semantic approach: ascriptions de re are only then true if the believer has to be in a relation with the knowledge. Intensification: the name must denote the individual. E.g. "a is a spy": here a must not only denote Ortcutt, but there are additional conditions 1. for the content 2. for the causal relation between the name, the individual and the believer. Pointe/Stalnaker: it is still possible that all the conditions are fulfilled by two different names. Thus, the examples can be described without having to ascribe conflicting belief. KaplanVsQuine/Stalnaker: his approach also covers cases in which Quine's analysis was too liberal. StalnakerVsKaplan: his approach is an ad hoc compromise. Knowledge/ascription/Stalnaker: in the semantic analysis knowledge is self-evident without it you cannot believe anything. You cannot believe a proposition without having detected the expressions occurring in the concepts in which they are defined. StalnakerVsKaplan: 1. but the need for knowledge loses its motivation when it is grafted to Quine's approach. 2. Kaplan keeps the artificial assumption that de re-ascriptions ascribe no particular belief and he is bound to the sententialism (propositions as belief objects). II 163 At least it have to be proposition-like objects with name-like constituents. de re/ascriptoin/belief de re/StalnakerVsQuine/StalnakerVsKaplan/Stalnaker: thesis: we instead accept propositions as sets of poss.w.. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Lewis, C.I. | Schwarz Vs Lewis, C.I. | Schwarz I 31 Personal identity/SchwarzVsLewis: his criterion is not accurate and provides in interesting cases no answer. E.g. continuity after brain surgery, etc. But Lewis does not want that. Our (vague) everyday term should only be made explicitly. Beaming/Teleportation/Doubling/Lewis: all this is allowed by his theory. Schwarz I 60 Identity/Lewis/Centered world/Possible world/Schwarz: my desire to be someone else, does not refer to the whole world, but only to my position in the world. E.g. Twin Earth/Schwarz: one of the two planets is blown tomorrow, the two options (that we are on the one or the other) do however not correspond to two possible worlds! Detailed knowledge would not help out where we are, because they are equal. ((s) so no "centered world"). Actually, we want to know where we ourselves are in the world. (1979a(1),1983b(2),1986e(3):231 233). SchwarzVsLewis: says too little about these perspective possibilities. It is not enough here to allow multiple counterparts (c.p.) in a world. It should not just be possible that Humphrey is exactly as the actual Nixon, he should also to be allowed to be different. Humphrey may not be a GS of himself. (> Irreflexive counterpart relation,> see below Section 9.2. "Doxastic counterparts". Similarity relation. No matter what aspects you emphasize: Nixon will never be more similar to Humphrey than to himself. Schwarz I 100 Fundamental properties/SchwarzVsLewis: this seems to waver whether he should form the fE to the conceptual basis for the reduction of all predicates and ultimately all truths, or only a metaphysical basis, on which all truths supervene. (>Supervenience, >Reduction). Schwarz I 102 Naturalness/Natural/Property/Content/Lewis: the actual content is then the most natural candidate that matches the behavior. "Toxic" is not a perfectly natural property (p.n.p.), but more natural than "more than 3.78 light years away" and healthy and less removed and toxic". Naturalness/Degree/Lewis: (1986e(3):, 61,63,67 1984b(4):66): the naturalness of a property is determined by the complexity or length of their definition by perfectly natural properties. PnE: are always intrinsically and all their Boolean combinations remain there. Problem: extrinsic own sheep threaten to look unnatural. Also would e.g. "Red or breakfast" be much more complicated to explain than e.g. "has charge -1 or a mass, whose value is a prime number in kg. (Although it seems to be unnatural by definition). Naturalness/Property/Lewis: (1983c(5), 49): a property is, the more natural the more it belongs to surrounding things. Vs: then e.g. "cloud" less natural than e.g. "table in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant or clock showing 7:23". Schw I 103 Naturalness/Properties/Lewis: (1983c(5): 13f): naturalness could be attributed to similarity between characteristics: E.g. a class is more natural, the more the properties of its elements resemble each other. Similarity: Lewis refers to Armstrong: similarity between universals 1978b(6),§16.2,§21, 1989b(7): §5.111997 §4.1). Ultimately LewisVs. Naturalness/Lewis/Schwarz: (2001a(8):§4,§6): proposing test for naturalness, based on similarity between individual things: coordinate system: "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" axis. A property is then the more natural, the more dense and more compact the appropriate region is. Problem: 1. that presupposes gradual similarity and therefore cannot be well used to define gradual naturalness. 2. the pnE come out quite unnatural, because the instances often do not strongly resemble each other. E.g. if a certain mass property is perfect, of course, then all things with this mass build a perfectly natural class, no matter how dissimilar they are today. SchwarzVsLewis: it shows distinctions between natural and less natural properties in different areas, but does not show that the distinction is always the same. Naturalness/SchwarzVsLewis: could also depend on interests and biological expression. And yet, can in various ways the different types of natural - be determined by perfect naturalness. That is not much, because at Lewis all, by definition, by the distribution of p.n.p. is determined. ((s)>Mosaic). Schwarz I 122 Naturalness/SchwarzVsLewis: not reasonable to assume that it was objectively, regardless of how naturally it appears to us. Lewis introduced objective naturalness as a metaphysical basis for qualitative, intrinsic similarity and difference, as some things resemble each other like eggs and others do not. (see above 5.2). Intrinsic Similarity: also qualitative character and duplication: these terms are intended to be our familiar terms by Lewis. SchwarzVsLewis: but if objective naturalness is to explain the distinction of our opinions about similarity, one cannot ask with sense the question whether the distinction serves exactly this. So although there are possible beings (or worlds) whose predicates express relatively unnatural properties and therefore are wrong about natural laws, without being able to discover the error. But we can be sure a priori that we do not belong to them. Problem: the other beings may themselves believe a priori to be sure that their physical predicates are relatively natural. Solution: but they (and not we) were subject to this mistake, provided "natural" means in their mouth the same as with us. ((s) but we also could just believe that they are not subject to error. Respectively, we do not know whether we are "we" or "they"). Schwarz: here is a tension in our concept of natural law (NL): a) on the one hand it is clear that we can recognize them empirically. b) on the other hand they should be objective in a strong sense, regardless of our standards and terms. Problem: Being with other standards can come up with the same empirical data to all other judgments of NL. Schwarz I 134 Event/SchwarzVsLewis: perhaps better: events but as the regions themselves or the things in the regions: then we can distinguish e.g. the flight from the rotation of the ball. Lewis appears to be later also inclined to this. (2004d)(9). Lewis: E.g. the death of a man who is thrown into a completely empty space is not caused by something that happens in this room, because there is nothing. But when events are classes of RZ regions, an event could also include an empty region. Def Qua thing/Lewis/Schwarz: later theory: “Qua-things” (2003)(10): E.g. „Russell qua Philosoph“: (1986d(9a),247): classes of counterpieces – versus: LewisVsLewis: (2003)(10) Russell qua Philosoph and Russell qua Politician and Russell are identical. Then the difference in counterfactual contexts is due to the determined by the respective description counterpart relation. These are then intensional contexts. (Similar to 1971(11)). counterfactual asymmetry/Lewis/Schwarz: Lewis' analysis assumes similarity between possible worlds. HorwichVsLewis: (1987(15),172) should explain why he is interested in this baroque dependence. Problem/SchwarzVsLewis: so far, the analysis still delivers incorrect results E.g. causation later by earlier events. Schwarz I 139 Conjunctive events/SchwarzVsLewis: he does not see that the same is true for conjunctive events. Examples A, B, C, D are arbitrary events, so that A caused B and C caused D. If there is an event B&C, which exactly occurs when both B and C happen, then A is the cause of D: without A, B would not have happened, neither B&C. Likewise D would not have happened without B&C. Because causation is transitive, thus any cause causes any effect. Note: according to requirement D would not happen without C, but maybe the next possible world, in which B&C are missing, is one in which C is still taking place? According to Lewis the next possible world should however be one where the lack of cause is completely extinguished. Schwarz: you cannot exclude any conjunctive events safely. E.g. a conversation or e.g. a war is made up of many events and may still be as a whole a cause or effect. Lewis (2000a(13), 193) even used quite unnatural conjunctions of events in order to avoid objections: E.g. conjunction from the state of brain of a person and a decision of another person. Absence/Lewis/Schwarz: because Lewis finds no harmless entities that are in line as absences, he denies their existence: they are no events, they are nothing at all, since there is nothing relevant. (200a, 195). SchwarzVsLewis: But how does that fit together with the Moore's facts? How can a relationship be instantiated whose referents do not exist?. Moore's facts/Schwarz: E.g. that absences often are causes and effects. Something to deny that only philosopher comes to mind. I 142 Influence/SchwarzVsLewis: Problem: influence of past events by future. Example had I drunk from the cup already half a minute ago, then now a little less tea would be in the cup, and depending on how much tea I had drunk half a minute ago, how warm the tea was then, where I then had put the cup, depending on it the current situation would be a little different. After Lewis' analysis my future tea drinking is therefore a cause of how the tea now stands before me. (? Because Ai and Bi?). Since the drinking incidents are each likely to be similar, the impact is greater. But he is not the cause, in contrast to the moon. Schwarz I 160 Know how/SchwarzVsLewis: it is not entirely correct, that the phenomenal character must be causal effect if the Mary and Zombie pass arguments. For causal efficacy, it is sufficient if Mary would react differently to a phenomenally different experience ((s) >Counterfactual conditional). Dualism/Schwarz: which can be accepted as a dualist. Then you can understand phenomenal properties like fundamental physical properties. That it then (as above Example charge 1 and charge 1 switch roles in possible worlds: is possible that in different possible worlds the phenomenal properties have their roles changed, does not mean that they are causally irrelevant! On the contrary, a particle with exchanged charge would behave differently. Solution: because a possible world, in which the particle has a different charge and this charge plays a different role, is very unlike to our real world! Because there prevail other laws of nature. ((s) is essential here that besides the amended charge also additionally the roles were reversed? See above: >Quidditism). SchwarzVsLewis: this must only accept that differences in fundamental characteristics do not always find themselves in causal differences. More one must not also accept to concede Mary the acquisition of new information. Schwarz I 178 Content/Individuation/Solution/LewisVsStalnaker: (1983b(2), 375, Fn2, 1986e(3), 34f), a person may sometimes have several different opinion systems! E.g. split brain patients: For an explanation of hand movements to an object which the patient denies to see. Then you can understand arithmetic and logical inference as merging separate conviction fragments. Knowledge/Belief/Necessary truth/Omniscience/SchwarzVsLewis/SchwarzVsFragmentation: Problem: even within Lewis' theory fragmentation is not so easy to get, because the folk psychology does not prefer it. Schwarz I 179 E.g. at inconsequent behavior or lie we do not accept a fragmented system of beliefs. We assume rather that someone changes his beliefs or someone wants to mislead intentionally. E.g. if someone does not make their best move, it must not be the result of fragmentation. One would assume real ignorance contingent truths instead of seeming ignorance of necessary truths. Fragmentation does not help with mathematical truths that must be true in each fragment: Frieda learns nothing new when she finally finds out that 34 is the root of the 1156. That they denied the corresponding proposition previously, was due to a limitation of their cognitive architecture. Knowledge/Schwarz: in whatever way our brain works, whether in the form of cards, records or neural networks - it sometimes requires some extra effort to retrieve the stored information. Omniscience/Vs possible world/Content/VsLewis/Schwarz: the objection of logical omniscience is the most common objection to the modeling mental and linguistic content by possible worlds or possible situations. SchwarzVsVs: here only a problem arises particularly, applicable to all other approaches as well. Schwarz I 186 Value/Moral/Ethics/VsLewis/Schwarz: The biggest disadvantage of his theory: its latent relativism. What people want in circumstances is contingent. There are possible beings who do not want happiness. Many authors have the intuition that value judgments should be more objective. Solution/Lewis: not only we, but all sorts of people should value under ideal conditions the same. E.g. then if anyone approves of slavery, it should be because the matter is not really clear in mind. Moral disagreements would then in principle be always solvable. ((s)>Cognitive deficiency/Wright). LewisVsLewis: that meets our intuitions better, but unfortunately there is no such defined values. People with other dispositions are possible. Analogy with the situation at objective probability (see above 6.5): There is nothing that meets all of our assumptions about real values, but there is something close to that, and that's good enough. (1989b(7), 90 94). Value/Actual world/Act.wrld./Lewis: it is completely unclear whether there are people in the actual world with completely different value are dispositions. But that does not mean that we could not convince them. Relativism/Values/Morals/Ethics/Lewis/Schwarz: Lewis however welcomes a different kind of relativism: desired content can be in perspective. The fate of my neighbor can be more important to me than the fate of a strangers. (1989b(14), 73f). Schwarz I 232 Truthmaker principle/SchwarzVsLewis: here is something rotten, the truth maker principle has a syntax error from the outset: we do not want "the world as it is", as truth-makers, because that is not an explanation, we want to explain how the world makes the truth such as the present makes propositions about the past true. Schwarz I 233 Explanation/Schwarz: should distinguish necessary implication and analysis. For reductive metaphysics necessary implication is of limited interest. SchwarzVsLewis: he overlooks this when he wrote: "A supervenience thesis is in the broader sense reductionist". (1983,29). Elsewhere he sees the difference: E.g. LewisVsArmstrong: this has an unusual concept of analysis: for him it is not looking for definitions, but for truth-makers ". 1. David Lewis [1979a]: “Attitudes De Dicto and De Se”. Philosophical Review, 88: 513–543. 2. David Lewis [1983b]: “Individuation by Acquaintance and by Stipulation”. Philosophical Review, 92: 3–32. 3. David Lewis [1986e]: On the Plurality of Worlds. Malden (Mass.): Blackwell 4. David Lewis [1984b]: “Putnam’s Paradox”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61: 343–377 5. David Lewis [1983c]: “New Work for a Theory of Universals”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61: 343–377. 6. David M. Armstrong [1978b]: Universals and Scientific Realism II: A Theory of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 7. David M. Armstrong [1989b]: Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press 8. David Lewis [2001a]: “Redefining ‘Intrinsic’ ”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63: 381-398 9. David Lewis [2004d]: “Void and Object”. In [Collins et al. 2004], 277–291 9a. David Lewis [1986d]: “Events”. In [Lewis 1986f]: 241–269 10. David Lewis [2003]: “Things qua Truthmakers”. Mit einem Postscript von David Lewis und Gideon Rosen. In Hallvard Lillehammer und Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (Hg.), Real Metaphysics: Essays in Honour of D.H. Mellor, London: Routledge, 25–38. 11. David Lewis [1971]: “Counterparts of Persons and Their Bodies”. Journal of Philosophy, 68: 203–211. 12. David Lewis [1987]: “The Punishment that Leaves Something to Chance”. Proceedings of the Russellian Society, 12: 81–97. 13. David Lewis [2000a]: “Causation as Influence”. Journal of Philosophy, 97: 182–197. Gekürzte Fassung von [Lewis 2004a] 14. David Lewis [1989b]: “Dispositional Theories of Value”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 63: 113-137. 15. Paul Horwich [1987]: Asymmetries in Time. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press |
Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 |
| Lewis, D. | Perry Vs Lewis, D. | Schwarz I 170 Mental Content/Content/View/PerryVsLewis/Schwarz: some authors want to keep perspective out of the content (Perry 1977)(1): Thesis: locate perspective differences in the way of givenness: E.g. Fred in Kuala Lumpur, I in Berlin: our content is the same: that it rains on 12 August 2005 in Berlin, but the content is given differently which explains the different behavioral consequences. Def Givenness/Perry/Black: is the function that assigns to every situation the class of worlds in which it is rains at the place and time of the situation. LewisVsPerry: it makes no difference (1989b(2), 74, Fn 9). Content is simply the class of situations to which a true proposition is assigned. Perspective/Lewis: on the other hand, it is not possible to reconstruct the perspective proposition from Lewis' content. Perry: thus has an additional content component. Lewis: which is not needed with him. Perspective/Uncentered World/Perry/Schwarz: Perry has other tasks in mind: the uncentered content component should help with the semantics of beliefs and explain why Fred and I intuitively believe the same thing. LewisVsPerry: doubts that this is possible: semantics: when it comes to our intuitions about "meaning the same thing", they are more vague and complicated. E.g. there is a good sense in which Fred and I mean the same thing, if he believes that it rains where he is! E.g. "I wish it would rain" - "I wish the same thing." For this classes of possible situations are sufficient. 1. John Perry [1977]: “Frege on Demonstratives”. Philosophical Review, 86: 474–497 2. David Lewis [1989b]: “Dispositional Theories of Value”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 63: 113-137. Stalnaker I 255 Def Belief/Conviction/Self//Stalnaker: having a conviction with a given property means to attribute this property to yourself. Belief/Lewis: (not based on the self): believe that φ (φ being a proposition) = attributing the property of living in a possible world φ to yourself. Self/Semantic Diagnostic/PerryVsLewis/Stalnaker: provides no content of a self-attribution, but distinguishes belief content from belief state. Relativized Proposition/Perry: classify believers: we have the same belief state in common if we both have the belief, e.g. "I am a philosopher." That corresponds set-centered possible worlds. |
Perr I J. R. Perry Identity, Personal Identity, and the Self 2002 Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Nagel, Th. | Stalnaker Vs Nagel, Th. | I 20 Objective Self/Nagel/Stalnaker: Nagel begins with the expression of a general sense of confusion about one's place in an impersonal world. I: if somebody says "I am RS" it seems that the person expresses a fact. I 21 Important argument: it is an objective fact whether such a statement is true or false, regardless of what the speaker thinks. Problem: our concept of the objective world seems to leave no place for such a fact! A full representation of the world as it is in itself will not pick out any particular person as me. (single out). It will not tell me who I am. Semantic diagnosis: attempts a representation of index words or self-localization as a solution. NagelVsSemantic diagnosis: that does not get to the heart of the matter. StalnakerVsNagel: a particular variant can solve our particular problem here but many others remain with regard to the relation between a person and the world they inhabited, namely what exactly the subjective facts about the experience tell us how the world in itself is Self-identification/Self-localisation/belief/Stalnaker: nothing could be easier: if EA says on June 5, 1953 "I am a philosopher" then that is true iff EA is a philosopher on June 5, 1953. Problem: what is the content of the statement? Content/truth conditions/tr.cond./Self-identification/I/Stalnaker: the content, the information is not recognized through tr.cond. if the tr.cond. are made timeless and impersonal. ((s) The truth conditions for self-identification or self-localization are not homophonic! That means they are not the repetition of "I'm sick" but they need to be complemented by place, date and information about the person so that they are timeless and capable of truth. Problem/Stalnaker: the speaker could have believed what he said, without even knowing the date and place at all or his audience could understand the statement without knowing the date, etc.. Solution: semantic diagnosis needs a representation of subjective or contextual content. Nagel: is in any case certain that he rejects the reverse solution: an ontological perspective that objectifies the self-.properties. Stalnaker: that would be something like the assertion that each of us has a certain irreducible self-property with which he is known. ((s) >bug example, Wittgenstein dito), tentatively I suppose that that could be exemplified in the objectification of the phenomenal character of experience. I 253 Self/Thomas Nagel/Stalnaker: Nagel finds it surprising that he of all people must be from all Thomas Nagel. Self/subjective/objective/Stalnaker: general problem: to accommodate the position of a person in a non-centered idea of an objective world. It is not clear how to represent this relation. Self/I/Nagel/Stalnaker: e.g. "I am TN". Problem: it is not clear why our world has space for such facts. Dilemma: a) such facts must exist because otherwise things would be incomplete b) they cannot exist because the way things are they do not contain such facts. (Nagel 1986, 57). Self/semantic diagnosis/Nagel/Stalnaker: NagelVsSemantic diagnosis: unsatisfactory: NagelVsOntological solution: wants to enrich the objective, centerless world in a wrong way. Nagel: center position thesis: There is an objective self. StalnakerVsNagel: this is difficult to grasp and neither necessary nor helpful. I 254 Semantic diagnosis/StalnakerVsNagel: has more potential than Nagel assumes. My plan is: 1. semantic diagnosis 2. sketch of a metaphysical solution 3. objective self is a mistake 4. general problem of subjective viewpoints 5. context-dependent or subjective information - simple solution for qualitative experiences. Self/subjective/objective/semantic diagnosis/Nagel/Stalnaker: (in Stalnaker's version): This does not include that "I am TN" is supposedly without content. StalnakerVsNagel: the identity of the first person is not "automatically and therefore uninteresting". semantic diagnosis: starts with the tr.cond. WB: "I am F" expressed by XY is true iff XY is F. What information is transmitted with it? I 255 Content/information/self/identity/Stalnaker: a solution: if the following is true: Belief/conviction/Stalnaker: are sets of non-centered poss.w. Content/self-ascription/Stalnaker: is then a set of centered poss.w. E.g. I am TN is true iff it is expressed by TN, Content: is represented by the set of centered poss.w. that have TN as their marked object. Content/conviction/Lewis/Stalnaker: with Lewis belief contents can also be regarded as properties. (Lewis 1979). I 257 Semantic diagnosis/NagelVsSemantic diagnosis/Stalnaker: "It does not make the problem go away". Stalnaker: What is the problem then? Problem/Nagel: an appropriate solution would have to bring the subjective and objective concepts into harmony. I 258 StalnakerVsNagel: for that you would have to better articulate the problem's sources than Nagel does. Analogy. E.g. suppose a far too simple skeptic says: "Knowledge implies truth so you can only know necessary truths". Vs: which is a confusion of different ranges of modality. VsVs: the skeptic might then reply "This diagnosis is not satisfactory because it does not make the problem go away". Problem/Stalnaker: general: a problem may turn out to be more sophisticated, but even then it can only be a linguistic trick. Illusion/explanation/problem/Stalnaker: it is not enough to realize that an illusion is at the root of the problem. Some illusions are persistent, we feel their existence even after they are explained. But that again does not imply that it is a problem. I 259 Why-questions/Stalnaker: e.g. "Why should it be possible that..." (e.g. that physical brain states cause qualia). Such questions only make sense if it is more likely that the underlying is not possible. I 260 Self-deception/memory loss/self/error/Stalnaker: e.g. suppose TN is mistaken about who he is, then he does not know that TN itself has the property to be TN even though he knows that TN has the self-property of TN! (He does not know that he himself is TN.) He does not know that he has the property which he calls "to be me". ((s) "to be me" is to refer here only to TN not to any speaker). objective/non-centered world/self/Stalnaker: this is a fact about the objective, non-centered world and if he knows it he knows who he is. Thus the representative of the ontological perspective says. Ontological perspective/StalnakerVsNagel/StalnakerVsVs: the strategy is interesting: first, the self is objectified - by transforming self-localizing properties into characteristics of the non-centered world. Then you try to keep the essential subjective character by the subjective ability of detecting. I 263 Nagel: thesis: because the objective representation has a subject there is also its possible presence in the world and that allows me to bring together the subjective and objective view. StalnakerVsNagel: I do not see how that is concluded from it. Why should from the fact that I can think of a possible situation be concluded that I could be in it? Fiction: here there are both, participating narrator and the narrator from outside, omniscient or not. I 264 Semantic diagnosis/Stalnaker: may be sufficient for normal self-localization. But Nagel wants more: a philosophical thought. StalnakerVsNagel: I do not think there is more to a philosophical thought here than to the normal. Perhaps there is a different attitude (approach) but that requires no difference in the content! Subjective content/Stalnaker: (as it is identified by the semantic diagnosis) seems to be a plausible candidate to me. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Possible Worlds | Stalnaker Vs Possible Worlds | I 49 Possible world/poss.w./knowledge/mathematics/StalnakerVsLewis/Stalnaker: I am inclined to say that the poss.w.-theory makes assumptions about the nature of their properties that are - unlike the corresponding assumptions of mathematical platonism - incompatible with the representation of the connection between the knowledge subjects and their objects in the case of poss.w.. poss.w./MR/VsModal realism/knowledge/verificationism/StalnakerVsLewis: the modal realist cannot cite any verificationist principles for what he calls his knowledge. Conclusion: problem: the MR cannot on the one hand say that poss.w. things are of the same kind as the actual world (contingent physical objects) and say on the other hand that poss.w. are things of which we know by the same kind like of numbers, sets, functions. ((s) Namely no real existing things.). I 53 StalnakerVsLewis: he contradicts himself because his other thesis about poss.w. about which we can have substantial beliefs contradicts his definition of content (see above). I 58 Contradiction/Lewis: there is no object howsoever fantastic about which one could tell the truth by contradicting oneself. Footnote: Takashi YagisawaVsLewis: why not? What should you expect otherwise? Impossible things are impossible. II 20 Belief ascription/solution/Stalnaker: I always wonder how the poss.w. would be according to what the believer believes. E.g. Pierre: for him there are two cities (Londres and London) E.g. Lingens in the library: for him there are two men, one named "Lingens" about which the other reads something. Relations theory/RelTh/Stalnaker: this can reconcile with the assumption that propositions are the belief objects. (Team: Stalnaker pro Relations theory? (1999)) Index/belief/Stalnaker: nevertheless I believe that convictions have an irreducible indexical element. Solution/Lewis: sets of centered poss.w. as belief objects. StalnakerVsLewis: although I have accepted that such poss.w. then include a representation of the mental state of the believer. But that is not what it is about! It is not sufficient that poss.w. that are compatible with one's convictions then include a person who has these convictions (> e.g. Lingens), the believer must identify himself with the person who has this thought! Proposition/identification/self-identification/Stalnaker: I am not suggesting that this identification is fulfilled by the belief in a proposition. I now think that this is not at all about some kind of cognitive performance. Indexical conviction/Stalnaker: (E.g. Perry: memory loss, library, e.g. Lewis: 2 gods (2 omniscient gods, e.g. Castaneda: memory loss): indexical unknowing. Stalnaker: thesis: people do not differ in what they believe. II 21 E.g. O'Leary knows that he is in the basement and that Daniels is in the kitchen. And Daniels knows the same thing: that he is in the kitchen and O'Leary in the basement. Everyone knows who and where he is and who and where the other is. The poss.w. that are compatible with the convictions of the two are the same. They argue about nothing. Yet there is an obvious difference in their doxastic situation: O'Leary identifies himself with the one in the basement and Daniels identifies himself as one who is in the kitchen. poss.w. semantics/StalnakerVsPossible worlds semantics/Stalnaker: this difference in the belief states of the two is not reflected by a set of poss.w. as belief state. Solution/Lewis: self-ascription of properties, or - equivalently - sets of centered poss.w.. StalnakerVsLewis: I do not want that. StalnakerVsLewis: problem: it is wrong to treat the difference in perspective as a dispute (disagreement). The two argue about nothing. Problem: it is not sure if one can express their agreement with the fact that the set of their uncentered poss.w. is the same. Because E.g. Heimson/Perry/Stalnaker: (Heimson believes "I am David Hume") all his impersonal beliefs about Hume are correct. Suppose they are the same convictions as the convictions of Hume about Hume. Stalnaker: nevertheless it would be wrong to say that they argue about nothing. ((s) unlike O'Leary and Daniels). II 134 Localization/space/time/self-localization/logical space/Lewis/Stalnaker: logical space/Lewis/Stalnaker: set of poss.w. from which one selects one. Self-localization/physical: in space and time. We usually know where we are. ((s) but we never know all poss.w. in which we could be localized, we cannot distinguish all poss.w. because we do not know everything). Gods example/Stalnaker: the two know exactly where they are in the logical space. II 135 But they do not know where within this poss.w. they are. LewisVsTradition: the doctrine of the proposition is focused only on one of the two types of localized belief. Generalization: is what we need and for that the transition from propositions to properties (as belief objects) serves. II 144 Gods example/Stalnaker: this is also a case of unknowing, which of two indistinguishable poss.w. is actual. One is actually the actual world while the other exactly the sam, with the exception that the god who sits in the actual world on the highest mountain is this time sitting on the coldest mountain and in fact with all the properties that the god on the highest mountain actually has. ((s) two individuals change places but keep all the properties. This is only possible if localization is not a property) Omniscience/Stalnaker: then you have to say, the two gods are not really omniscient regarding propositions, but rather omniscient in relation to purely qualitative criteria. LewisVsStalnaker: Lewis rejects this explanation for two reasons: 1. because he represents the counterpart theory (c.th.) that makes the cross world identity superfluous or meaningless. 2. even without counterpart it would not work because Assuming that the two gods of world W have traded places in world V assuming the god on the highest knows that his world is W, not V. Assuming he is omniscient with respect to all propositions not only the qualitative propositions. II 145 V: the world V cannot be relevant because he knows that he does not live there. Problem: there are still two mountains in a poss.w. W where he after all what he knows can live. StalnakerVsLewis: that does not answer the question: you cannot simply stipulate that the God in W knows something and not V. Because after the explanation we proposed that leads to the fact that he knows on which mountain he lives. Lewis/Stalnaker: his explanation is plausible if one conceives it as a metaphor for a location in the logical space: logical space/Lewis/Stalnaker: assume that a map of the logical space divided into large regions match the poss.w. and in smaller subdivisions represent the locations within poss.w.. Important argument: then we can tell someone in which large region he is without telling him exactly where he is located in it. Modal Realism/MR/logical space/Stalnaker: for him this image might be appropriate. Actualism/logical space/localization/Stalnaker: for the actualism this image is misleading: to know in which country you are is different to know where in the country you are but it is not so clear that there is a difference between the fact that one knows anything about in which poss.w. one is and knowing which poss.w. is the actual. Lewis also admits this. Stalnaker: my approach seems to be really close to the one of Lewis, but no. Centered poss.w.: one should perhaps instead of indistinguishable poss.w. speak of centered worlds (after Quine). These are then distinguishable. Indistinguishability/poss.w./Stalnaker: distinct but indistinguishable poss.w. would then be the same worlds but with different centers. Attitude/properties/propositions/centered world/Lewis: to treat objects of attitudes as sets of centered poss.w. makes them to properties instead of propositions. Centered poss.w./Stalnaker: I agree that possible situations normally, perhaps even essential, are centered in the sense of a representation of a particular mental state. II 146 StalnakerVsLewis: but this makes the approach (gods example) more complicated when it comes to the relations between different mental states. E.g. to compare past with current states is then more difficult, or relations between the convictions of different people. Information/communication/Stalnaker: we need then additional explanation about how information is exchanged. Two examples: E.g. O'Leary is freed from his trunk and wonders at around nine: a) "What time was it when I wondered what time it was?" Stalnaker: that is the same question like the one he asked then. When he learns that it was three o'clock, his doubt has been eliminated. Solution: the doubt is eliminated since all possible situations (poss.w.) in which a thought occurs at two different times are involved. The centers of these situations have moved in the sense that it is now nine o'clock and O'Leary no longer in the trunk but it may be that the first occurrence of the then thought is what O'Leary is now thinking about. Important argument: this moving of the center does not require that the poss.w. that the propositions characterize are changed. b) "What time was it when I wondered if it was three or four?". (If he wondered twice) Indistinguishability: even if the two incidents were indistinguishable for O'Leary, it may still be that it was the first time which O'Leary remembers at around nine o'clock. StalnakerVsLewis: his approach is more complicated. According to his approach we have to say at three o'clock, O'Leary wonders about his current temporal localization in the actual world (act.wrld.) instead of wondering in what poss.w. he is. Versus: at nine, things are quite different: now he wonders if he lives in a poss.w. in which a particular thought occurred at three or four. This is unnecessarily complicated. E.g. Lingens, still in the library, meets Ortcutt and asks him "Do you know who I am?" – "You are my cousin, Rudolf Lingens!". Stalnaker: that seems to be a simple and successful communication. Information was requested and given. The question was answered. II 147 Proposition/Stalnaker: (Propositions as belief objects) Ortcutt's answer expresses a proposition that distinguishes between possible situations and eliminates Lingen's doubt. StalnakerVsLewis: according to his approach (self-ascription of properties), it is again more complicated: Lingens: asks if he correctly ascribes himself a certain set of properties i. Ortcutt: answers by ascribing himself a completely different set of properties. Lingens: has to conclude then subsequently himself the answer. So all the answers are always indirect in communication. ((s) also StalnakerVsChisholm, implicit). Communication/Lewis/Chisholm/StalnakerVsLewis/StalnakerVsChsholm: everyone then always speaks only about himself. Solution/Stalnaker: Lewis would otherwise have to distinguish between attitudes and speech acts and say that speech acts have propositions as object and attitudes properties as an object. Problem/StalnakerVsLewis: Lewis cannot say by intuition that the content of Ortcutt's answer is the information that eliminates Lingen's doubt. That is also a problem for Perry's approach. (> StalnakerVsPerry) |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Quine, W.V.O. | Lewis Vs Quine, W.V.O. | IV IX LewisVsQuine: Realism in relation to unrealized possibilities. IV 27 Possibility/Quine: Vs unrealized possibilities: the identity criteria are not clear. LewisVsQuine: But identity is not a particular problem for us. Individuation/possible worlds: in every world, things in every category are as individual as in the actual world. Identity/Possible World: Things in different worlds are never identical. (Because of P2) The counterpart relation is the correspondence of identity across worlds (cross world identity). Lewis: while some authors say they can do different things in different worlds and have different properties, I prefer to say that they are only in the actual world and in no other worlds but that they have counterparts in other worlds. IV 32 Essentialism/LewisVsQuine: we actually have the ability to say which properties are essential regardless of description. And also regardless of whether the attribute follows analytically from any other descriptions of the thing. For example, the single-digit sentence φ and an object that is designated by the singular term ζ To say that this attribute is essential means to claim the translation of N φ ζ (N = necessary). IV 147 Centered possible worlds/de re/de se/Quine/Lewis: (Ontological Relativity, "Propositional Objects"): For example, a cat that is chased by a dog wants to go to the roof to be safe. de dicto: the cat wants a state of affairs, which is the class of all possible worlds in which it is on the roof. It fears the class of all possible worlds where the dog catches her. Problem: Crossworld Identity. Question: which of the many similar cats in the many possible worlds (with many dogs and roofs) is it? Some cats are on roofs, some in the dog's claws. Does the cat belong to both the desired and the feared conditions? Solution: centered possible world: pairs consisting of a world and a designated time in space, the desired state is then a class of centered worlds. In fact, the gravitational center is the cat's pineal gland. No centered world belongs to two classes (desired and feared). It would be problematic if the wish were fulfilled under one centering and not fulfilled under another. Quine: does not accept this solution in the end. He prefers the shared theory that the objects of "simple settings" are classes of stimulus patterns, while the more complex settings are linguistic. LewisVsQuine: the benefits of unified objects (properties only) should not be given away. Property/Lewis: corresponds to a class of centered worlds, more precisely a property of space-time points, but also a property of cats. Let X be a class of centered worlds, Y be a property. Then the class corresponds exactly to the centered worlds that are centered on a cat with the property Y. It cannot be centered on two different cats. To rule that out, we can redefine centered worlds as pairs of a world and a designated inhabitant in it. Quine/Lewis: he has actually replaced propositions by properties through centering. IV 148 I'm not sure what his reasons are. They are not the same in relation to Catilina and the Great Pyramid (> ontological relativity) (here he wants to avoid the counterpart relation) but certainly in the cat example. Possible World/LewisVsQuine: big difference: by possible world I simply mean big individual things, of which our actual world is one. Possible Worlds/Quine: means certain abstract entities, certain classes of classes of quadruples of real numbers. ((s) space-time points). Quine/Lewis: I suspect that he at least distinguishes our concrete world from the abstract "replacement world" that it represents! Let's call it "updated ersatz world" to distinguish it from the world itself. Lewis: Variety of concrete worlds. Quine: Variety of abstract ersatz worlds, one of which represents our special one. Stalnaker: pro Quine: corresponds better to everyday language than "how it could have been". Lewis: the actual ersatz world is special only because it represents our concrete real world. And it is special not only from its own point of view, but from every world. One could assume the following now: therefore it is not contingent special, because contingency is variation from one possible world to another. LewisVs: in this way it looks like it is a non-contingent fact, which is updated by the many possible worlds. And that is wrong! ((s) Then every fact in the actual world would be necessary, every movement. >Determinism.) Schwarz I 46 Possibility/LewisVsQuine: there must be a theory of what would be true under these or other conditions. But not only because they are needed for the analysis of dispositions and causality. Schwarz I 132 Def Event/Quine/Schwarz: (1960b(1),171): Suggestion: to identify them with the space-time region in which they occur. Vs: this is too coarse-grained for effects and causes. For example, if a ball flies through the air and rotates, then flight and rotation occupy the same region, but only flight causes the window to break. Counterfactual analysis/counterfactual conditional/CoCo/Possible World/Similarity/Lewis: the next possible world in which rotation does not take place are not the next possible worlds in which flight does not take place. The two events correspond to the same space-time region in the real world, but not in all possible worlds. ((s) "Next" is not decisive here). Event/Identity/LewisVsQuine: Modification: Events are identical if they occupy the same space-time region in all possible worlds. Def Event/Lewis: is then the class of all regions (in all possible worlds) in which it happens. (1986d(2)). Schwarz I 220 Def Analytical Truth/LewisVsQuine/Schwarz: a sentence is analytical when its primary truth conditions cover all situations. Schwarz: More interesting is his thesis that practically every sentence can empirically prove to be wrong. Our theories cannot be divided into a revisable empirical and an unrevisable analytical component. 1. Willard Van Orman Quine [1960b]: Word and Object. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press 2. David Lewis [1986d]: “Events”. In [Lewis 1986f]: 241–269 |
Lewis I David K. Lewis Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989 Lewis I (a) David K. Lewis An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (b) David K. Lewis Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (c) David K. Lewis Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980 In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis II David K. Lewis "Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Lewis IV David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983 Lewis V David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986 Lewis VI David K. Lewis Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Konventionen Berlin 1975 LewisCl Clarence Irving Lewis Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970 LewisCl I Clarence Irving Lewis Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991 Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 |
| |||
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Two-Dimens. Sem. | Kaplan, D. | Staln I 206 Two-Dimensional Semantics/Kaplan/Stalnaker: Kaplan's thesis ("paradigm") Separation of character and content. We start with the obvious fact that natural language is strongly context-dependent. Sentence Meaning/Kaplan: does not determine the content itself. Content/Kaplan: is not yet defined by sentence meaning. Context/Kaplan: only the context - together with the sentence meaning - defines the content. Example: "You will feel better in the morning". Def character/Kaplan: (= sentence meaning): a function from context to content. Context/Stalnaker: can be represented as centered world (centered possible world). I 207 Thought/Interpretation/Stalnaker: is a question of basic semantics, i.e. the facts. Character/Content/Kaplan/Stalnaker: the original motivation for the separation was that sentence meanings do not represent the expressed thoughts. Content/Stalnaker: = secondary intention. |
|
| |||