Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 12 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuants | Continuants: temporally extended entities as opposed to events or occurrences. There is a debate about whether continuants themselves can have temporal parts. See also endurantism, perdurantism, ontology, person, four-dimensionalism. |
||
| Continuants | Chisholm | II 176 ff Continuant/Chisholm/Simons: E.g. people, trees, cars, water waves: precisely not mereologically constant. >Mereology. Continuants are subject to flow of their parts - most parts are not necessary - no mereological essentialism. >Parts. Solution: ens sukzessivum/E.S.: not itself permanent, itself constituted from continuants E.g. ens sukzessivum: President of the United States - (Simons:this is ontologically dubious). - ens sukzessivum is modally analogous to non-negative situations. >Situations: For the terminology of mereology cf. >Peter Simons. II 178 Problem: entia sukzessiva must not have any negative parts. II 179 Solution: by adding parts an object can stop to exist. E.g. egg in fertilization. Also see >Perdurantism, >Endurantism. Simons, Peter. Tractatus Mereologico-Philosophicus? In: M.David/L. Stubenberg (Hg) Philosophische Aufsätze zu Ehren von R.M. Chisholm Graz 1986 |
Chisholm I R. Chisholm The First Person. Theory of Reference and Intentionality, Minneapolis 1981 German Edition: Die erste Person Frankfurt 1992 Chisholm II Roderick Chisholm In Philosophische Aufsäze zu Ehren von Roderick M. Ch, Marian David/Leopold Stubenberg Amsterdam 1986 Chisholm III Roderick M. Chisholm Theory of knowledge, Englewood Cliffs 1989 German Edition: Erkenntnistheorie Graz 2004 |
| Endurantism | Lewis | Schwarz I 32 Definition Endurantism/Lewis/Schwarz: (VsPerdurantism): Thesis: Things are wholly present (not only in part) at all times, at which they exist (like Aristotelian universals). >Universals. LewisVsendurantism (instead: Mosaic Theory). Schwarz I 31 Definition Perdurantism/Lewis/Schwarz: the thesis that temporally extended things usually consist of temporal parts. Mosaic/Lewis: Thesis: All truths about our world also about the temporal extent of things, are based on the properties and relationships between spatially extended points. endurantismVsLewis: since he has nothing to do with mosaic, this is no argument for him. LewisVsendurantism: better argument: intrinsic change: if normal things do not have temporal parts but exist at different times, they cannot be round, nor large, but only round at time t. And that is absurd. Schwarz I 32 Properties/some authors: certainly, not all property are relational like "being remote" - but could they not be time-relational, ignoring this constant dependency? (Haslanger 1989: 123f,[1], Jackson 1994b, 142f,[2] van Inwagen 1990a, 116[3]). Properties/Lewis: (2004.4) At least abstract geometric objects can simply be round, therefore "round" is not generally a relation to times. Properties/endurantism/Johnston: Thesis: one should not relativize the properties, but their instantiations temporally. (Johnston, 1987, §5) E.g. I am now sitting and was sleeping last night. Others: (Haslanger, 1989): Thesis: time specifications (> time) are adverbial modifications of propositions: For example, I am sitting in the present way and am sleeping last night. LewisVsJohnston/LewisVsHaslanger: that makes no big difference. These representatives, too, deny that form properties belong directly, simply, and themselves to the things. perdurantism/endurantism/Schwarz: the debate has been settled, both are accusing each other to analyze change away. endurantism: is an instantiation of incompatible properties and has nothing to do with change. perdurantism: is a timeless instantiation of compatible properties, for example, being straight exactly at t1, being curved at t0, is not a change. Schwarz: both do not correspond to our intuitions. The change is not that important. Cf. >Perdurantism. 1.Sally Haslanger [1989]: “Endurance and Temporary Intrinsics”. Analysis, 49: 119–125 — [1994]: “Humean Supervenience and Enduring Things”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 72: 339–359 2. “Metaphysics by Possible Cases”. In [Jackson 1998b] Mind, Method and Conditionals: Selected Essays. London: Routledge 3.“Four-Dimensional Objects”. Noˆus, 24: 245–256. In [van Inwagen 2001] |
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 |
| Endurantism | Inwagen | Schwarz I 34 Endurantism/Van Inwagen/Schwarz: e.g. caterpillar/butterfly: thesis: there is no insect, nothing that exists beyond the pupation. Recombination/mereology/Schwarz: the existence of temporal parts follows directly from the mereological universalism together with the rejection of the presentism. Then there are also example aggregates from Socrates and the Eiffel Tower (mereological sum). Socrates is a temporal part of it, which at some point ceases to exist, just as e.g. a dried-out lake that fills up again during the rainy season. Temporal parts/van Inwagen: (van Inwagen 1981)(1) van Inwagen basically rejects temporal parts. >Mereology, >Parts, >Part-of-relation, >Temporal parts, >Mereological sum. SchwarzVsInwagen: then he has to radically limit the mereological universalism or be a 'presentist'. Cf. >Perdurantism. 1. Peter van Inwagen [1981]: “The Doctrine of Arbitrary Undetached Parts”. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 62: 123–137. |
Inwagen I Peter van Inwagen Metaphysics Fourth Edition Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 |
| Identity | Stalnaker | I 14 Vague identity/Stalnaker: vague identity can at most occur with vague terms in identity-statements. >Vagueness. Solution/counterpart theory/Stalnaker: if cross-wordly-relation between classes of deputies ((s) counterparts) exists and not between individuals themselves, then the relation must not be the one of identity, and this other relation may be vague.) >Counterparts, >Counterpart theory, >Cross world identity, >Possible worlds. I 126 Contingent Identity/Stalnaker: it is of course not the case that the actualism requires contingent identity, the above examples can be explained away. >Actualism. One cannot simply reject the possibility on the basis of semantics and logic of identity. Necessary identity: that means, that the thesis that all identity is necessary is a metaphysical thesis. >Identity/Kripke. I 131 Identity/necessary/contingent/Stalnaker: according to the modal quantifier theory all identity is necessary. We do not want this, e.g. a thing can have more counterparts in another possible world. I 132 Solution: there are different ways of picking. I 133 Vague identity/Stalnaker/Nathan SalmonVsVague Identity: (Salmon 1981(1), 243) according to Salmon identity cannot be vague: e.g. suppose there is a pair of entities x and y so that it is vague if they are one and the same thing - then this pair is certainly not the same pair like the pair, in which this is definitely true that x is the same thing as itself - but it is not vague, if the two pairs are identical or differentiated. I 134 Vague identity/identity statement/vague objects/Stalnaker: e.g. M is a specific piece of land within the indeterminate Mt Rainier. a) Mt. Rainier is an indefinite object: then it is wrong to say that M = Mt. Rainier. b ) If it is about a statement instead of an object: then it is indeterminate. I 135f Vague identity/Stalnaker: e.g. there are two fish restaurants called Bookbinder's. Only one can be the same as the original. Endurantism: Problem: "B0": (the original) is then an ambiguous term. Perdurantism: here it is clear. >Perdurantism, cf. >Endurantism. I 138 Vague identity/SalmonVsVague identity/uncertainty/Stalnaker: Salmon's argument shows that if we manage to pick out two entities a and b that there then has to be a fact, whether the two are one thing or two different things (Stalnaker pro Salmon, Nathan). Conversely: if it is undetermined whether a = b, then it is uncertain what "a" refers to or what "b" refers to. But this does not give us a reason to suppose that facts together with terms have to decide this. Salmon just shows that when facts and terms do not decide that it is then indeterminate. I 140 StalnakerVsSalmon: Salmon's vagueness is a vagueness of reference. I 139 Identity/indefinite/Kripke: (1971(2), 50-1) e.g. would the table T be the same in the actual world if in the past the constituting molecules were spread a little differently? Here, the answer can be vague. I 148 Identity/one-digit predicates/Stalnaker: one cannot generally treat sentences as predications. >Predication, >Sentences. E.g. x^(Hx u Gx) is an instance of the form Fs, but "(Hs and Gs)" is not. Therefore, our identity-scheme is more limited than Leibniz' law is normally formulated. >Leibniz Principle. I 154f Definition essential identity/Stalnaker: all things x and y, which are identical, are essentially identical, i.e. identical in all possible worlds, in which this thing exists ((s) that means, the existence is made a prerequisite, not the identity for the existence.) ((s) necessary identity/Stalnaker/(s): here the situation is reversed: if x and y are necessarily identical, they must exist in all possible worlds - or if a thing does not exist in a possible world, it may, in the possible worlds in which it exists, not be necessarily identical). Necessary identity/logical form: x^(x = y)> N(x = y) fails in the standard semantics and in counterpart theory, because a thing can exist contingently and include self-identity existence. Counterpart theory. Two different things may be identical, without being essentially identical, e.g. two possible worlds a and b, each possible for the respective other, and two distinct things have the same counterpart in b, namely 3. Then the pair satisfies the identity-relation in b, but because 1 exists in the world a and is from 2 different, the pair does not satisfy N(Ex> x = y) in b. >Cross world identity. 1. Salmon, Wesley C. 1981. Rational prediction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32 (2):115-125 2. Kripke, Saul S. Identity and NEcessity. In Milton Karl Munitz (ed.), Identity and Individuation. New York: New York University Press. pp. 135-164 (1971) |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| Life | Tooley | Singer I 81 Life/Tooley/Peter Singer: (M. Tooley, Abortion and Infanticide in The Problem of Abortion, Belmont, 1973, p. 60): Tooley thesis: only beings who understand themselves as complete entities that exist in time, have a right to life. P. Singer: this corresponds to the concept of person as I take it from Locke (see Person/P. Singer). Tooley/P. Singer: his argument is based on the assumption that there is a conceptual connection between the desires that a being is capable of and the rights that can be attributed to it. For example, Tooley: if someone does not care if I take his car, I do not violate the law by doing it. --- I 82 Law/Life/Tooley/P. Singer: I simplify Tooley, but the point is this: only people have the right to life, because only people are able to experience themselves as independent entities in the future. Tooley: (later, in his book Abortion and Infanticide, Oxford, 1983): Modification of the argument: an individual has only the right to live if it is able to have the desire to live in an instant, e. g. now, to live on. P. SingerVsTooley: Problem: this would also apply to newborns. Solution: we could retroactively attribute thoughts or interests to them. TooleyVsVs: Tooley does not allow retrospective attribution of interests. I am not the child I grew up from. I cannot even remember. When life is now ended, this living being has never developed the notion of a continuing life. ((s) See Endurantism/Perdurantism). --- I 83 P. Singer pro Tooley: Tooley avoids problems with lost consciousness here when he assumes that the living being must have had the concept of continuous life at some point. The law does not therefore end at the moment when I interrupt my thinking about the problem or sleep. |
Tooley I M. Tooley Time, Tense, And Causation Oxford 2000 SingerP I Peter Singer Practical Ethics (Third Edition) Cambridge 2011 SingerP II P. Singer The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically. New Haven 2015 |
| Parts | Inwagen | Schwarz I 34 Endurantism/Van Inwagen/Schwarz: e.g. caterpillar/butterfly: thesis: there is no insect, nothing that exists beyond the pupation. Recombination/mereology/Schwarz: the existence of temporal parts follows directly from the mereological universalism together with the rejection of the presentism. Then there are also e.g. aggregates from Socrates and the Eiffel Tower (mereological sum). Socrates is a temporal part of it which at some point ceases to exist, just as e.g. a dried-out lake that fills up again during the rain season. Temporal Parts/van Inwagen: (van Inwagen 1981)(7): van Inwagen basically rejects temporal parts. SchwarzVsvan Inwagen: then he must radically limit the mereological universalism or be a presentist. perdurantism/Lewis/Schwarz: Lewis pleads for its contingency. Question/Schwarz: what should be contingent? Should there be possible worlds where the ordinary things have no temporal parts? Or should specific things be atomic in time and never change their form? Lewis seems to allow only the latter. Schwarz I 34 Temporal Parts/mereology/Schwarz: but if one accepts aggregates from Socrates and the Eiffel Tower, one could still deny that Socrates himself has temporal parts. Lewis: Lewis also does not assert that necessarily everything that exists over time consists of temporal parts (1986f(1),x,1986e(2),205,1994(3) §1) VsStowe: temporal parts are not intended to provide an analysis of the enduring existence. Lewis: (1083d(4), 76, similar Armstrong 1980(5), 76): e.g. a child, Frieda1 suddenly disappears, while another child, Frieda2, suddenly appears. This may contradict the laws of nature, but it is logically possible. Schwarz I 35 Perhaps no one notices anything. And there is nothing to notice. Vs: this is not convincing. endurantismVs: endurantism cannot accept the premises. Van InwagenVs: Frieda1 and Frieda2 cannot exist strung together, and yet remain different (2000(6), 398). >Mereology, >Part-of-relation, >Temporal parts, >Mereological sum, >Ontology. 1. David Lewis [1986f]: Philosophical Papers II . New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2. David Lewis [1986e]: On the Plurality of Worlds. Malden (Mass.): Blackwell. 3. David Lewis [1994a]: “Humean Supervenience Debugged”. Mind, 103: 473–490. 4. David Lewis [1983d]: Philosophical Papers I . New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5. David Armstrong [1980]: “Identity Through Time”. In Peter van Inwagen (ed.), Time and Cause, Dordrecht: Reidel. 6. Peter van Inwagen [2000]: “Temporal Parts and Identity across Time”. The Monist , 83: 437–459. 7. Peter van Inwagen [1981]: “The Doctrine of Arbitrary Undetached Parts”. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 62: 123–137. In [van Inwagen 2001]. |
Inwagen I Peter van Inwagen Metaphysics Fourth Edition Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 |
| Perdurantism | Lewis | Schwarz I 31 Definition Perdurantism/Lewis/Schwarz: the thesis that temporally extended things usually consist of temporal parts. Schwarz I 32 Definition Endurantism/Lewis/Schwarz: (VsPerdurantismus): Thesis: Things are wholly present (not only in part) at any time they exist (like Aristotelian universals). LewisVsEndurantism (instead: Mosaic theory). Cf. >Endurantism, >Continuants. |
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 |
| Reality | Goodman | I 18ff Reality/world/Goodman: the many materials from which one generates worlds - matter, energy, waves, phenomena - are produced together with the worlds. But not from nothing, but from other worlds. Our creation is re-creation. The beginning should be left to theology. There is no hope of firm foundation. The talk of unstructured content or the given contradicts itself, because speech cannot be unstructured. I 18 Kant: the concept of a pure content is empty. I 34 ... should we stop speaking of right versions as if each world would be its own and should all be recognized as versions of one and the same neutral, underlying world? Goodman/thesis: the world which is regained like this is, as noted earlier, a world without kinds, without order, without movement, without peace and without structure. A world fighting for or against is not worth it. >Structure, >Motion, >Objects, >World, >World/Thinking, >Possible worlds, >Nature. --- II 70f Reality/Goodman: the whole reality, as well as space and time are dependent on description (VsKant, VsSalmon, VsRead). Conceivable: space-time points do not exist all the time. Solution: sum object p + t. >Conceivability, >Space-time, >Endurantism, >Perdurantism. --- IV 44 Reality/Goodman: nothing is realized by a mere decision. The admission that there are many standards of accuracy, can therefore not collapse the distinction between right and wrong. |
G IV N. Goodman Catherine Z. Elgin Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences, Indianapolis 1988 German Edition: Revisionen Frankfurt 1989 Goodman I N. Goodman Ways of Worldmaking, Indianapolis/Cambridge 1978 German Edition: Weisen der Welterzeugung Frankfurt 1984 Goodman II N. Goodman Fact, Fiction and Forecast, New York 1982 German Edition: Tatsache Fiktion Voraussage Frankfurt 1988 Goodman III N. Goodman Languages of Art. An Approach to a Theory of Symbols, Indianapolis 1976 German Edition: Sprachen der Kunst Frankfurt 1997 |
| Substance | Wittgenstein | Hintikka I 69 ff Object/Tractatus/Wittgenstein/Hintikka: phenomenological objects (objects of immediate experience) are also included. >Objects, >Phenomenology, >Experience, >Ontology. 2.021 Objects are the substance of the world 2.024 The substance is what exists independently of what is the case. 2.0271 The object is the fixed, the existing, the configuration is the changing, the volatile. I 74 Substance/Tractatus/Hintikka: ("Objects: substance of the world...") Important: this kind of substantiality has nothing to do with the permanence or transience of the objects in the actual course of events. 2.025 Wittgenstein claims that the objects are form and content and not only substance of the possible world, but also its form. (logical form). When a philosopher thinks about logical form today, he probably thinks first and foremost of the possibilities of making complex sentences out of simple sentences. >Atomic sentences, >Atomism. I 102 ff Substance/Object/World/Tractatus/Wittgenstein/Hintikka: how is it possible that objects of acquaintance to which we can only point, function as an existing, solid form of the world? What can be less existing, firm and consistent than the sense data, which in Russell's writings are regarded as prime examples for the objects of acquaintance? >Acquaintance. Substance/Wittgenstein/Hintikka: so the problem of substantiality remains. Solution: a completely different kind. All talking about permanence is relative to any postulated transformation or change. What change is Wittgenstein planning? The change from one possible world to another! This has nothing to do with the durability of the objects in time. Cf. >Perdurantism, >Endurantism. Hintikka I 104 Substance/Tractatus/Wittgenstein/Hintikka: not because Wittgenstein's objects would be indestructible, they are substance-like but because they are the meanings of our simplest expressions. The expressions whose meanings cannot be described but only exhibited. It is logically incorrect to point to an object "this does not exists". Not because it would be indestructible. - Also not unchangeable - different: if they were composed. Therefore, the objects that make up the substance, are simple objects. VI 73 Substance/Tractatus/Schulte: the simple objects form the solid form of the world, its substance. They contain the possibility of all circumstances. Schulte: there are three interpretations here: 1. realistic objects, "real" atoms, in turn invariable 2. objects are sensory data, 3. the nature of the objects is to be understood only in dependence on the function of the expressions denoting them. >Sense data. Tetens VII 48 Definition Substance/Tractatus/Tetens: the substance of the world is the set of all logically possible worlds: ((s) So it is identical with the logical space). - Tetens: what remains the same in these worlds: the set of objects. The facts change. ((s) = configurations) - actual world: the possible world whose facts are facts. N.B.: therefore the world is the totality of facts. - Fact: possible fact. >Possible worlds. |
W II L. Wittgenstein Wittgenstein’s Lectures 1930-32, from the notes of John King and Desmond Lee, Oxford 1980 German Edition: Vorlesungen 1930-35 Frankfurt 1989 W III L. Wittgenstein The Blue and Brown Books (BB), Oxford 1958 German Edition: Das Blaue Buch - Eine Philosophische Betrachtung Frankfurt 1984 W IV L. Wittgenstein Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP), 1922, C.K. Ogden (trans.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published as “Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung”, in Annalen der Naturphilosophische, XIV (3/4), 1921. German Edition: Tractatus logico-philosophicus Frankfurt/M 1960 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 Tetens I H. Tetens Geist, Gehirn, Maschine Stuttgart 1994 W VII H. Tetens Tractatus - Ein Kommentar Stuttgart 2009 |
| 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 |
| Time | Simons | I 90f Interval/time interval/mereology/van Benthem/Needham/Simons: interval is a term of time and terms of temporal intervals. Needham: an interval is temporal betweenness. Benthem: the term "interval" is part of time organization. >Time, >Parts, >Temporal identity. I 117 Object/thing/everyday language/time/existence/modification/terminology/Simons: we say, an ordinary material object lasts in time (enduring in time) but it is not extended in time (developing, extending, extended in time ). Cf. >Endurantism, >Perdurantism. Participants in the race (continuants) have no temporal parts. The race has temporal parts. I 178 Time/Simons: we assume time as being dense and empty and not relativized onto events. >Events. Singular Term: the singular term is also not temporally relativized. Identity predicate: the identity predicate is not time relativized (unlike the existence predicate). >Singular terms. Time relativized is written as follows: "true-to-t". Points in time themselves are not relativized temporal. >Spacetime points. |
Simons I P. Simons Parts. A Study in Ontology Oxford New York 1987 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endurantism | Lewis Vs Endurantism | Schwarz I 32 Def Endurantism/Schwarz: (Vs Perdurantism): Thesis: Things are present as a whole (and not in parts) at all times in which they exist (like Aristotelian universalia). LewisVsEnduantism (instead: Mosaic theory). Mosaic/Lewis: Thesis: All truth about our world as well as the temporal expansion of things are based on characteristics and relations between spatial-temporal expanded points. endurantism VsLewis: This is not argument for him since he is not interested in mosaic theory. LewisVsendurantism: better argument: intrinsic change: If normal things do not have temporal parts, but exist at different times, they can be neither round nor big, but only round in t. And this would be absurd. Characteristics/some authors: surely, not all characteristics are relational like "to be far away", but they can at least be relational in time, although we ignore this perpetual present dependence. (Haslanger 1989(1):123f, Jackson 1994b(2),142f, van Inwagen 1990a(3), 116). Characteristics/Lewis: (2004(4),4) at least abstract geometric objects can simply be round, therefore "round" is not a general relation to time. Characteristics/endurantism/Johnston: Thesis: not only characteristics, but their instantiations should be relativized in the area of time. (Johnston, 1987(5),§5) e.g. I am now sitting, and was sleeping last night. Others: (Haslanger, 1989)(1): Thesis: Time designations (> time/Lewis) are adverbial modifications of propositions, e.g. I am now sitting this way, and was sleeping this way last night. LewisVsJohnston/LewisVsHaslanger: This is not a great difference. These representatives deny as well that form characteristics arrive to the things in a direct, simple way and on their own. perdurantism/endurantism/Schwarz: The debate has reached a dead end, both parties accuse the other of analyzing transformation away. endurantism: To instantiate incompatible characteristics has nothing to do with transformation. perdurantism: Temporal instantiation, e.g. straight for t1, bent for t0, shall not be a transformation. Schwarz: Both goes against our intuition. Transformation is attributed too much importance. Schwarz I 33 Perdurantism/Schwarz: pro: Intrinsic transformation is no problem for presentism since the past is now only fiction, but the following should make temporal parts attractive for the presentist as well: the surrogate four-dimensionalist needs to construct his ersatz times differently. Instead of primitive essences which surface in strictly identical different ersatz times, temporal ersatz parts could be introduced which will form the essences, and on their associated characteristics it will depend on whether it is an ersatz Socrates or not (as an example). Part/LewisVs endurantism: can also be temporal in everyday's language, e.g. a part of a film or a soccer game. E.g. part of a plan, parts of mathematics: not spatial. It is not even important whether the language accepts such denotations. Temporal would also exist if we could not designate them. 1. Sally Haslanger [1989]: “Endurance and Temporary Intrinsics”. Analysis, 49: 119–125 2. Frank Jackson [1994a]: “Armchair Metaphysics”. In John O’Leary Hawthorne und Michaelis Michael (ed.), Philosophy in Mind, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 23–42. 3. Peter van Inwagen [1990a]: “Four-Dimensional Objects”. Noˆus, 24: 245–256. In [van Inwagen 2001] 4. D. Lewis [2004a]: “Causation as Influence”. In [Collins et al. 2004], 75–107. 5. Mark Johnston [1987]: “Is There a Problem About Persistence?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol., 61: 107–135 |
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 |
| Endurantism | Stalnaker Vs Endurantism | I 135 Vague identity/time/possible world/poss.w./Stalnaker: I ask with some examples for temporal and for cross world identity whether Salmon refuted vague identity with his argument. E.g. in Philadelphia, there are two prominent fish restaurants named "Bookbinder's". They compete with each other. B1: "Bookbinder’s classic fish restaurant" B2: "The old original Bookbinder's". B0: The original, only restaurant from 1865. Today's two restaurants may go back to the old and have a entangled history. Question: does Salmon's argument show, I 136 that there must be a fact (about the history) that decides on which restaurant is the original? One thing is clear: B1 unequal B2. Transitive identity/transitivity/Stalnaker: then due to the transitivity of the identity B0 = B1 and B0 = B2 cannot exist at the same time. Semantic indeterminacy/Stalnaker: but one is tempted to say that there is a certain semantic indeterminacy here. Question: can we reconcile this with Salmon's argument (SalmonVsVague identity)? Stalnaker: I think we can do so. perdurantism/perduration/Stalnaker: e.g. if we say the name "B0" dates back to the time of 1865 when there was a certain restaurant "Bookbinder's" this is the most natural way. endurantism/enduration/Stalnaker: e.g. but we can also say B0 is one of the today existing two restaurants "Bookbinder’s". StalnakerVsendurantism. endurantism/Stalnaker: here it is similar to vague descriptions: example "B0" is ambiguous! It is unclear whether he refers to B1 or to B2. (Indefinite reference). perdurantism/Stalnaker: here the reference is clear. ((s) Because the original restaurant does not exist anymore. B0 therefore clearly means the original restaurant because it cannot be confused with one of the two today existing) Also, of course "B1" and "B2" are unambiguous. Question: given Salmon's argument: how can it then be indefinite if B0 = B2? Stalnaker: that just depends on if we understand continuants as endurant or perdurant. continuant/perdurantism/endurantism/Stalnaker: perdurantism/Stalnaker: can understand continuants e.g. as four-dimensional objects (four dimensionalism) which are extended in time exactly as they are extended in space. Then the example of the restaurants corresponds to the example of buildings (see above). Example buildings: the indeterminacy is there explained by the indeterminacy of the concept "building". One building is maybe a part of another. Example restaurants: according to this view each has a temporal part in common with the original. It is indeterminate here which of the temporal parts is a restaurant and which is a composition of multiple temporal parts of different restaurants. I 137 Therefore, it is indefinite to which of these different entities "B0" refers (indefinite reference). perdurantism/continuant/Stalnaker: one might think, but we have a specific reference, like in the example of the building through a demonstrative with a ostension: when we say "this building". But that does not work with the perdurantistic conception of restaurants. ((s) As an institution, not as a building. This should be perdurant here that means not all temporal parts are simultaneously present and anyway not as material objects). Four dimensionalism/Stalnaker: therefore has two possible interpretations: perdurantistic (here) and endurantistic (see below). endurantism/four dimensional/four dimensionalism/continuant/Stalnaker: some authors: thesis: continuants have no temporal parts like events. That means they are at any moment with all their (only spatial) parts present. Nevertheless, they exist in time. LewisVsendurantism: (Lewis 1986a, 203) this view uses the terms "part" and "whole" in a very limited sense. StalnakerVsLewis: that may not be quite so because the representatives acknowledge that some things e.g. football matches, wars, centuries indeed have temporal parts. endurantism/Stalnaker: even if the whole thing is an obscure doctrine some intuitions speak for it. I will neither defend nor fight him. endurantism: example restaurants: In 1865 there is only one restaurant "Bookbinder's" there are no other candidates for this description. Even if our criterion for "restaurant" is unclear. It seems that we have a definite reference for an endurant thing B0. Also for the today existing restaurant B1 we seem to have definite reference. Salmon/Stalnaker: if we accept his argument again, there must then be a fact which decides whether B0 is identical to B1 or not? StalnakerVs: here the semantic indeterminacy may be subtle but it still exists. We show this like that: Identity in time/Stalnaker: example statue/clay: yesterday there was the pile, today the statue, so both can not be identical. They have different historical properties. This known argument does not require four dimensionalism. Four dimensionalism/statue/clay/Stalnaker: statue and pile as four dimensional objects: here only parts of them exist today. endurantism/statue/clay/Stalnaker: if we say both - Statue and pile - are at today "fully present" (it would have to be explained how) Salmon's argument still shows that both are (now) different. The argument does not depend on the fact that they have different parts. It requires only that they have different historical properties. endurantism/Stalnaker: example restaurants: suppose the concept Restaurant is indefinite. After some arbitrary clarifications B0 = B1 will be, after others B0 = B2. Disambiguation/Stalnaker: then B0 has after some disambiguations temporal properties it would not have after other disambiguations. Semantic indeterminacy/reference/StalnakerVsSalmon, Nathan: the reference of "B0" is then dependent on the way of our arbitrary assumptions for disambiguation. SalmonVsStalnaker/Stalnaker: accuses me of some inconsistencies but I have shown indeterminacy of reference while Salmon refers to indeterminacy of identity between certain objects. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Pro/Versus |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endurantism | Versus | Stalnaker I 136 Endurantism: Thesis: temporally extended things (continuants) are fully present in every moment (even past) Vs: Lewis, Stalnaker - opposite position: perdurantism: Things are not present during their entire history at all (temporal) parts. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 theses of the more related field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vs endurantism | Lewis, D. | Schw I 31 Def Perdurantism / Schwarz: thesis that temporally extended things usually consist of temporal parts. Schw I 32 Def Endurantism / Schwarz: (VsPerdurantism): things are at all times, to which they exist, all (not just partially) present (such as Aristotelian universals). LewisVsendurantism (instead: mosaic theory). |
|
| Vs endurantism | Stalnaker, R. | I 136 (aus Lewis/Schwarz 30) Def perdurantismus/Schwarz: These dass zeitlich ausgedehnte Dinge gewöhnlich aus zeitlichen Teilen bestehen - I 31 - Def endurantismus/Schwarz: (Vs perdurantismus): These Dinge sind zu jeder Zeit, zu der sie existieren, ganz (nicht nur zum Teil) anwesend (wie aristotelische Universalien) - perdurantismus: kann Objekte als vierdimensional, zeitlich genauso wie räumlich erstreckt auffassen - endurantismus: auch er kann annehmen, dass Objekte zeitliche Teile haben - Bsp Fußballspiel - perdurantismus/Perduration/Stalnaker: Bsp wenn wir sagen die Bezeichnung "B0" reicht zurück in die Zeit von 1865, wo es ein gewisses Restaurant "Bookbinders" gab, ist das die natürlichste Weise. endurantismus/Enduration/Stalnaker: Bsp wir können aber auch sagen, B0 ist eins der beiden heute existierenden Restaurants -žBookbinders-œ. StalnakerVs endurantismus. |
|
| Vague Identtity | Stalnaker, R. | I 135f vague identity / Stalnaker: E.g. two seafood restaurants "Bookbinders" - only one can be the same as the original - endurantism: Problem: "B0" (the original) is then an ambiguous term - perdurantism: here it is unique. |
|
| |||