Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Euthyphro | Geach | I 36f Euthyphro: GeachVsSocrates: Questions of fact are not necessarily decidable. - Moral questions are not undecidable in principle. Eutyhphron: GeachVs Socrates: E.g. decisions are as important as definition. >Definition. I 38 Euthyphro/Geach: correct: (1) What is pious is loved by the gods, because it is pious. - ((s) a = b because a - (what is __ is --)). correct: (2) What is beloved by the Gods is loved by the God, because it is loved by the Gods. - ((s) b = b because b - (what is __is, __)). wrong: (3) What is beloved by the Gods is loved by the Gods because it is beloved of God. (circular). - ((s) b = b because b'(what is __, is__)). wrong: (4) What is pious is pious, because it is loved by the Gods. - (s) a = a because b (or because b'!) - (what is __ is __)). >Circular reasoning. I 39 Euthyphro/Geach: Identity/Leibniz Principle: the principle breaks in contexts which are not purely extensional. >Leibniz principle, >Extensionality. It provides opaque contexts: e.g. I beat him because he was my father (because he hit me). - The truth value can differ, although it is the same man. >Opacity, >Truth value, >Reference, >Identification. The falsity of the first sentence does not guarantee that another man is meant. False: that pious acts and humans are not the same classes as those who are loved by God. Wrong solution: John Stuart Mill: God-loved/religious: same denotation/different connotation: This distinction cannot be attributed to Plato. >Connotation, >Plato. Plato: pious: is a form - God-loved: is not a form. Wrong solution: use: explanation: active/passive: e.g. a thing is carried because someone carries it. This is wrong. Wrong: someone carries a thing because it is carried. Geach: this is true. But this cannot be attributed to Plato. I 41f Euthyphro/Geach: McTaggart: instead of "because" (causal but opaque) "in view of" (not causal). GeachVsMcTaggart: missing causality does not rule out error. I do not admire someone in terms of my own belief. - Not even gods. Geach: the attitude is already the reason, but it does not provide the property. |
Gea I P.T. Geach Logic Matters Oxford 1972 |
| Past | McTaggart | Geach I 313 Time/VsMcTaggart: his proof that time does not exist has been attacked because he uses the terms past, present and future. E.g. "Queen Anne's death is past". VsMcTaggart: "past" is ostensive and not a logical predicate. GeachVsVs: one cannot disprove McTaggart so easily. If the predicate is not to be a logical predicate,... I 314 ...then "Queen Anne's death" cannot be a logical subject either! >Time, >Present, >Future, >Predication, >Singular term, >Description. |
Gea I P.T. Geach Logic Matters Oxford 1972 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of an allied field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time | McTaggart, J. | Geach I 305 Zeit/McTaggart: These Zeit ist eine Illusion! Aber seine These hat mit dieser Sicht nichts zu tun. GeachVsMcTaggart: Zeit kann keine Illusion sein! Und einige seiner eigenen Argumente zeigen das ironischerweise. Diese Argumente zeigen, daß gewisse Merkmale, die von der Zeit verschieden sind, unmöglich illusorisch sein können: Unkorrigierbarkeit/Täuschung/Irrtum/Illusion/Geach: Bsp so muß es wirklich Irrtum im Universum geben: denn wenn es uns nur so vorkommt, daß es Irrtum im Universum gibt, dann ist das der Irrtum! SD. Bsp Unglück: kann keine Illusion sein! Denn wenn ich das Gefühl habe, unglücklich zu sein, kann es sich nicht herausstellen, daß ich in Wirklichkeit glücklich bin! |
Gea I P.T. Geach Logic Matters Oxford 1972 |
| |||