Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Thesis Intro [draft]

Hi Euge! Chapter One discusses all that - do let m...

2006-10-04T04:59:57.816-04:00

Hi Euge! Chapter One discusses all that - do let me know if any parts of it seem unclear. Quick examples of Nec-a-Pos are "water is partly composed of Hydrogen atoms" (the natural kind approach) and "Hesperus = Phosphorus" (the coinciding names/rigid-designators approach). Contingent a priori might be "S is a meter long" (where 'S' names the standard meter stick in France), or "P iff actually P". I'm happy to grant Kripke's linguistic intuitions about natural kind terms like 'water', but I don't think it has any metaphysical significance. See the linked chapter for more details...

hi richard, its your un-informed and under-read ch...

2006-10-04T03:59:00.933-04:00

hi richard,
its your un-informed and under-read chum from class Euge. Can you save my having to truck through "naming and necessity" again and list examples of both necessary-a posteriori and contingent a priori truths? Is this kripke's argument from natural kinds BS, or am i mistaken?

Thanks Mike - good spotting! I'm not sure about th...

2006-10-03T01:09:44.333-04:00

Thanks Mike - good spotting! I'm not sure about the redundancy, since some people think there are synthetic apriori claims, the negations of which we can rule out apriori despite not being logically inconsistent in the strict sense. I'm wanting to be neutral on that. But perhaps I could be clearer (perhaps I should leave out mention of "inconsistency" altogether -- though at least it does provide some indication of the kind of things that might be ruled out apriori).

Hi there. Here are some really minor points. The...

2006-10-02T17:58:31.936-04:00

Hi there. Here are some really minor points. There is a grammatical error in the third line of the fifth paragraph (“to true” instead of “to be true”). Also, in the sixth paragraph I am not sure why “strong necessities” has a set of double apostrophes, and ‘primitive modality’ a set of single apostrophes. ‘Open question’ and ‘Open Question Argument’ (last paragraph) also have singles, and the rest seem to be doubles. Also (though this might just show my ignorance) I have a vague idea that it is redundant to say (paragraph 5): “we can discover what’s possible by determining what is consistent and cannot be ruled out a priori.” Is it not the case that once you have ruled out all the (logically?) inconsistent worlds then you have ruled out all the worlds that you can rule out a-priori? And I don’t think you have used the word “consistent” prior to this instance: does this make the word unnecessary (or is it just a-priori contingent)?!
Nice introduction, anyway – it has successfully stimulated my interest in the topic!

yes Alex you are right it does tend to interupt th...

2006-10-02T14:20:11.456-04:00

yes Alex you are right it does tend to interupt the flow - it depends on exactly what you are going for.

Thank you - and yes, I will at some point, but not...

2006-10-02T11:40:54.730-04:00

Thank you - and yes, I will at some point, but not for a while yet. I have a vague policy of not putting things up until they're marked. I imagine lecturers will sometimes google a selection of an essay to check for plagarism, and I wouldn't want my mark influenced either by the general content at my blog, or by any problems commenters raise for said essay :)

That said, there is an old essay I'd been waiting to get back before I posted it, and I'll do that in the next day or two.

Good luck, Alex! (Should we expect any excerpts to...

2006-10-02T08:03:06.060-04:00

Good luck, Alex! (Should we expect any excerpts to be forthcoming on your blog?)

In my (humble!) opinion, continually qualifying ev...

2006-10-02T06:25:01.740-04:00

In my (humble!) opinion, continually qualifying everything you say by pointing out the numerous ways in which people can disagree can just interrupt the flow. I usually find it's better just to write the thing assertively, and (assertively) address relevant criticisms in their own right, in their own section, and no-where else.

(Handing in my own dissertation today - wish me luck!)

> Plenty of people disagree with modal rationalism...

2006-10-02T04:58:05.886-04:00

> Plenty of people disagree with modal rationalism

my point being that I can't tell from your intro...

I don't need to have a specific model rejected, I just expect to see that you have sought out hte best alternatives and dealt with them so I can put my faith in the rest of your statements.

Genius - Plenty of people disagree with modal rati...

2006-10-02T02:50:58.793-04:00

Genius - Plenty of people disagree with modal rationalism and the legitimacy of conceivability-to-possibility inferences. (That dispute is what my whole thesis is about!) Or did you have something else in mind? Specific suggestions could help...

Brandon - thanks. The opening bothers me a bit too, though I'm having trouble coming up with a more natural path into the topic. (Any ideas?)

> For example, Chalmers argues from the conceivabi...

2006-10-02T01:27:01.456-04:00

> For example, Chalmers argues from the conceivability of “zombies”

I'd have written somthign more like
for example, the "XXXX zombie" which Chalmer... (ie a flow of ideas more than a flow of authors). Although maybe that is just a matter of style.

Also, my supervisors would have chastised me if I had written with your confidence. Is there another side? does anyone disagree?

Again a matter of style I guess. Maybe the other aproach doesn't suit philosophy.

It looks good. I was confused for a moment in the ...

2006-10-01T09:28:10.770-04:00

It looks good. I was confused for a moment in the first paragraph about what you were actually intending to argue, since you start out talking about learning what's possible and necessary, and then plunge immediately into questions of scope, which aren't obviously related at first glance. But this was cleared up fairly quickly afterward, so it's not a big issue (at most it would just require a slightly less abrupt transition, if anything at all).