DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is Inference? Penalty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is Inference? Penalty WHAT IS INFERENCE? OR THE FORCE OF REASONING by Ulf Hlobil Dipl.-Psych., University of Trier, 2008 Magister Artium in Philosophy, University of Trier, 2009 M.A. in Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, 2012 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2016 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Ulf Hlobil It was defended on May 31, 2016 and approved by Robert Brandom, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy John McDowell, Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy Kieran Setiya, Professor of Philosophy James Shaw, Associate Professor of Philosophy Dissertation Director: Robert Brandom, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy ii Copyright © by Ulf Hlobil 2016 iii WHAT IS INFERENCE? OR THE FORCE OF REASONING Ulf Hlobil, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2016 What are we doing when we make inferences? I argue that to make an inference is to attach inferential force to an argument. Inferential force must be understood in analogy to assertoric force, and an argument is a structure of contents. I call this the “Force Account of inference.” I develop this account by first establishing two criteria of adequacy for accounts of inference. First, such accounts must explain why it is absurd to make an inference one believes to be bad. The upshot is that if someone makes an inference, she must take her inference to be good. Second, accounts of inference must explain why we cannot take our inferences to be good—in the sense that matters for inference—by merely accepting testimony to the effect that they are good. Next, I spell out the Force Account in detail, and I show that it meets these two criteria of adequacy. According to the Force Account, we make an inference by reflectively endorsing the inference as good. That allows us to understand in what sense inference is a self-conscious and active manifestation of reason. I then demonstrate that the account can be fruitfully applied to debates in epistemology and practical philosophy. In particular, I show that the Force Account gives us the resources to settle debates about inferential internalism and pure moral testimony. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .........................................x 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................1 1.1 GETTING THE TOPIC INTO VIEW.....................2 1.2 WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?...........................7 1.3 THE PLAN....................................8 2.0 ‘TAKING’ ONE’S INFERENCE TO BE GOOD .............. 10 2.1 INFERENTIAL MOOREAN ABSURDITY.................. 12 2.1.1 Introducing the Absurdity........................ 13 2.1.2 From IMA to ‘Taking’........................... 17 2.1.3 What Is the Content of the Commitment?............... 18 2.2 SOME ALTERNATIVES REJECTED..................... 21 2.2.1 Wright’s Account............................. 22 2.2.2 Boghossian’s Account........................... 25 2.2.3 Accounts on Which the ‘Taking’ Is an Intuition............. 27 2.3 OBJECTIONS, FIRST ROUND........................ 31 2.3.1 The Critique of McHugh and Way.................... 32 2.3.2 Why Think That the Commitment Arises From a ‘Taking’?...... 34 2.3.3 Reasoners Who Cannot Think Instances of (IMA)........... 38 2.3.4 A Disjunctive Explanation?........................ 39 2.4 EXCURSION: IS THIS MOOREAN?..................... 42 3.0 IS THE ‘TAKING’ A BELIEF? ......................... 46 3.1 TWO RECENT PROPOSALS: VALARIS AND NETA............ 48 v 3.1.1 Neta’s View................................ 48 3.1.2 Valaris’ View................................ 53 3.2 TESTIMONY AND INFERENCE....................... 57 3.2.1 Clarifying My Thesis........................... 57 3.2.2 The Argument............................... 59 3.2.3 Premise (P1)................................ 60 3.2.4 Premise (P2)................................ 63 3.2.5 Valaris and Neta Again.......................... 66 3.3 GENERALIZING BEYOND TESTIMONY.................. 68 3.3.1 ‘Taking’ by Inference?........................... 68 3.3.2 ‘Taking’ by Perception?.......................... 70 3.4 OBJECTIONS, SECOND ROUND....................... 73 3.4.1 Biting the Bullet.............................. 73 3.4.2 Twofold ‘Takings’............................. 75 3.4.3 Know-How................................. 76 3.4.4 Another Option?.............................. 78 4.0 THE FORCE ACCOUNT OF INFERENCE ................ 80 4.1 DOXASTIC FORCE............................... 82 4.1.1 Essential Norms.............................. 83 4.1.2 The Form of Judging........................... 85 4.1.3 The Reflexive Nature of Force...................... 88 4.2 INFERENTIAL FORCE............................. 92 4.2.1 Arguments................................. 93 4.2.2 Norms and Kinds of Inference...................... 95 4.2.3 Informing Inference............................ 100 4.2.4 Reflective Endorsement of Inferences................... 103 4.3 INTERLOCKING FORCES........................... 106 4.3.1 Basic Materials.............................. 108 4.3.2 Assent-Rank................................ 114 4.3.3 Attitude-Combinations in Theoretical Inferences............ 115 vi 4.3.4 Attitude-Combinations in Practical Inferences............. 119 4.3.5 Rigidity of Forces............................. 122 4.3.6 Rigidity at Work.............................. 124 4.3.7 Inferences Under Suppositions...................... 127 4.3.8 Practically Inferring a Belief....................... 130 4.4 ACTIVITY AND SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS.................. 131 4.4.1 Being Active Without Acting....................... 132 4.4.2 Self-Consciousness............................. 136 4.5 EXPLAINING IMP AND JEMEINIGKEIT .................. 139 4.5.1 Explaining the Inferential Moorean Phenomenon............ 140 4.5.2 Incompatibility Without Inferential Role................ 142 4.5.3 Explaining the Jemeinigkeit of Inference................. 145 4.6 THE SOPHISTICATION OBJECTION.................... 150 5.0 FIRST APPLICATION: INFERENTIAL INTERNALISM ....... 154 5.1 INFERENTIAL INTERNALISM........................ 155 5.1.1 The Opening Moves on Both Sides.................... 156 5.1.2 Achilles Fends Off the Tortoise...................... 160 5.1.3 The Tortoise Strikes Back......................... 161 5.1.4 Four Emerging Criteria of Adequacy................... 165 5.2 APPLYING THE FORCE ACCOUNT..................... 166 5.2.1 The Force Account and the Tortoise Regress.............. 167 5.2.2 The Collapse of Justification for ‘Takings’................ 169 5.2.3 The Rationality of Inferences....................... 173 5.2.4 How Not to Apply ‘Takings’....................... 179 5.2.5 Recapturing the Motivations Behind Inferential Internalism...... 181 5.3 TAKING STOCK................................ 183 6.0 SECOND APPLICATION: MORAL TESTIMONY ............ 185 6.1 THE DEBATE ABOUT MORAL TESTIMONY............... 186 6.1.1 Pessimism vs. Optimism About Pure Moral Testimony......... 187 6.1.2 A Bipartisan Task and a View in a Nutshell............... 189 vii 6.2 INFERENTIAL PESSIMISM .......................... 190 6.2.1 The Argument for Inferential Pessimism . 191 6.2.2 Virtue and Inference ............................ 194 6.2.3 Practical Inference and Testimony . 198 6.3 INFERENTIAL PESSIMISM AT WORK . 200 6.3.1 Reasoning From What One Should Do .................. 201 6.3.2 Morality and Practical Inference . 204 6.3.3 Examples .................................. 206 6.4 TAKING STOCK ................................ 211 7.0 CONCLUSION ................................... 213 7.1 WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? ........................ 214 7.2 ACTS OF REASON IN GENERAL ...................... 218 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 224 viii LIST OF FIGURES 1 Müller-Lyer illusion................................ 29 2 Flow-chart of possible views on inference.................... 49 3 The original tortoise regress............................ 158 4 Regress of justification............................... 162 5 Regress of applications.............................. 164 ix PREFACE I was once working at a home for people with psychiatric diseases. One day, a woman living there was, as usual, giving voice to her delusions over lunch, when one of her roommates had enough of this. Being a very nice lady, the second woman calmly explained to the first: “You know, these things are just what you are thinking right now. That’s totally fine. It’s just that they clearly aren’t true.” Why is this story funny? One thing that is funny about it is that the second woman seems to suggest that the first woman should go on having the thoughts she has but should simply stop thinking that they are true. But having these thoughts just is taking them to be true. Once we realize this, however, we have to face a philosophical puzzle. How can it be that thinking something and thinking that it is true are one and the same thought? After all, there must surely be a sense in which these are different thoughts. This is the kind of philosophical puzzle—applied to the case of inference—that motivates the ideas collected in this dissertation. My ultimate goal is to get clearer about what it means to be a rational creature. If I had to put the ideas below into a slogan, it would be: To be rational—rather than arational—is to do things by taking them to be rational—rather than irrational. On the view I shall recommend, an act of reason is one that happens because of its (sometimes merely apparent) rationality, where this is not
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reliability of Mathematical Inference
    Reliability of mathematical inference Jeremy Avigad Department of Philosophy and Department of Mathematical Sciences Carnegie Mellon University January 2020 Formal logic and mathematical proof An important mathematical goal is to get the answers right: • Our calculations are supposed to be correct. • Our proofs are supposed to be correct. Mathematical logic offers an idealized account of correctness, namely, formal derivability. Informal proof is viewed as an approximation to the ideal. • A mathematician can be called on to expand definitions and inferences. • The process has to terminate with fundamental notions, assumptions, and inferences. Formal logic and mathematical proof Two objections: • Few mathematicians can state formal axioms. • There are various formal foundations on offer. Slight elaboration: • Ordinary mathematics relies on an informal foundation: numbers, tuples, sets, functions, relations, structures, . • Formal logic accounts for those (and any of a number of systems suffice). Formal logic and mathematical proof What about intuitionstic logic, or large cardinal axioms? Most mathematics today is classical, and does not require strong assumptions. But even in those cases, the assumptions can be make explicit and formal. Formal logic and mathematical proof So formal derivability provides a standard of correctness. Azzouni writes: The first point to observe is that formalized proofs have become the norms of mathematical practice. And that is to say: should it become clear that the implications (of assumptions to conclusion) of an informal proof cannot be replicated by a formal analogue, the status of that informal proof as a successful proof will be rejected. Formal verification, a branch of computer science, provides corroboration: computational proof assistants make formalization routine (though still tedious).
    [Show full text]
  • Misconceived Relationships Between Logical Positivism and Quantitative Research: an Analysis in the Framework of Ian Hacking
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 452 266 TM 032 553 AUTHOR Yu, Chong Ho TITLE Misconceived Relationships between Logical Positivism and Quantitative Research: An Analysis in the Framework of Ian Hacking. PUB DATE 2001-04-07 NOTE 26p. PUB TYPE Opinion Papers (120) ED 2S PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. 'DESCRIPTORS *Educational Research; *Research Methodology IDENTIFIERS *Logical Positivism ABSTRACT Although quantitative research methodology is widely applied by psychological researchers, there is a common misconception that quantitative research is based on logical positivism. This paper examines the relationship between quantitative research and eight major notions of logical positivism:(1) verification;(2) pro-observation;(3) anti-cause; (4) downplaying explanation;(5) anti-theoretical entities;(6) anti-metaphysics; (7) logical analysis; and (8) frequentist probability. It is argued that the underlying philosophy of modern quantitative research in psychology is in sharp contrast to logical positivism. Putting the labor of an out-dated philosophy into quantitative research may discourage psychological researchers from applying this research approach and may also lead to misguided dispute between quantitative and qualitative researchers. What is needed is to encourage researchers and students to keep an open mind to different methodologies and apply skepticism to examine the philosophical assumptions instead of accepting them unquestioningly. (Contains 1 figure and 75 references.)(Author/SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Misconceived relationships between logical positivism and quantitative research: An analysis in the framework of Ian Hacking Chong Ho Yu, Ph.D. Arizona State University April 7, 2001 N N In 4-1 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIALHAS BEEN GRANTED BY Correspondence: TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES Chong Ho Yu, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Logic to Philosophical Theology: a Formal Deductive Inference of Affirming God's Existence from Assuming the A-Priori
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Tomsk State University Repository Вестник Томского государственного университета Философия. Социология. Политология. 2020. № 55 ОНТОЛОГИЯ, ЭПИСТЕМОЛОГИЯ, ЛОГИКА УДК 16 + 17 + 2 + 51-7 DOI: 10.17223/1998863Х/55/1 V.O. Lobovikov1 APPLYING LOGIC TO PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY: A FORMAL DEDUCTIVE INFERENCE OF AFFIRMING GOD’S EXISTENCE FROM ASSUMING THE A-PRIORI-NESS OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE SIGMA FORMAL AXIOMATIC THEORY For the first time a precise definition is given to the Sigma formal axiomatic theory, which is a result of logical formalization of philosophical epistemology; and an interpretation of this formal theory is offered. Also, for the first time, a formal deductive proof is constructed in Sigma for a formula, which represents (in the offered interpretation) the statement of God’s Existence under the condition that knowledge is a priori. Keywords: formal axiomatic epistemology theory; two-valued algebra of formal axiology; formal-axiological equivalence; a-priori knowledge; existence of God. 1. Introduction Since Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Cicero, and especially since the very beginning of Christianity philosophy, the possibility or impossibility of logical proving God’s existence has been a nontrivial problem of philosophical theology. Today the literature on this topic is immense. However, even in our days, the knot- ty problem remains unsolved as all the suggested options of solving it are contro- versial from some point of view. Some respectable researchers (let us call them “pessimists”) believed that the logical proving of God’s existence in theoretical philosophy was impossible on principle, for instance, Occam, Hume [1], and Kant [2] believed that any rational theoretic-philosophy proof of His existence was a mistake (illusion), consequently, a search for the logical proving of His existence was wasting resources and, hence, harmful; only faith in God was relevant and useful; reason was irrelevant and use- less.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Universals in Contemporary Philosophy∗ Scuola Normale Superiore [Pisa - July 5, 2010]
    93 Reportage 7 novembre 2010 International conference on Ontology The problem of universals in contemporary philosophy∗ Scuola Normale Superiore [Pisa - July 5, 2010] Gianmarco Brunialti Masera Overview The three-day conference opened in the afternoon of July, 5 and, after taking a quick look at the programme and the names of the important thinkers standing out on it, one could have expected to find a crowded audience room. Actually that was not quite the case. What I could afford to follow and am going to write about here is only the first day of the conference. The debate started right on time, after a short introduction given by Gabriele Galluzzo, both organizer of the conference and member of the scientific board. I would ac- tually like to underline the word debate: each speech (about 40 minutes) was immediately followed by a short discussion of the issues introduced by the proponent. Unfortunately, de- spite of the accurate and punctual speeches, the little time dedicated to each is what most penalized the conference, in my opinion: this inevitably obliged both the speakers and the audience to be plunged in medias res, without standing too much on ceremonies. I take this to be ‘penalizing’, considering the debate on universals is a very wide one and composed by an incredibly great number of positions which can sometimes start from oppo- site sides and some other times depart at some specific middle point of one single theory of properties and relations. Moreover, most (if not all) of them entail a certain number of other metaphysical themes from which the specific problematics of universals cannot be cut off.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Philosophy.Pdf
    I N T R O D U C T I O N What Is Philosophy? CHAPTER 1 The Task of Philosophy CHAPTER OBJECTIVES Reflection—thinking things over—. [is] the beginning of philosophy.1 In this chapter we will address the following questions: N What Does “Philosophy” Mean? N Why Do We Need Philosophy? N What Are the Traditional Branches of Philosophy? N Is There a Basic Method of Philo- sophical Thinking? N How May Philosophy Be Used? N Is Philosophy of Education Useful? N What Is Happening in Philosophy Today? The Meanings Each of us has a philos- “having” and “doing”—cannot be treated en- ophy, even though we tirely independent of each other, for if we did of Philosophy may not be aware of not have a philosophy in the formal, personal it. We all have some sense, then we could not do a philosophy in the ideas concerning physical objects, our fellow critical, reflective sense. persons, the meaning of life, death, God, right Having a philosophy, however, is not suffi- and wrong, beauty and ugliness, and the like. Of cient for doing philosophy. A genuine philo- course, these ideas are acquired in a variety sophical attitude is searching and critical; it is of ways, and they may be vague and confused. open-minded and tolerant—willing to look at all We are continuously engaged, especially during sides of an issue without prejudice. To philoso- the early years of our lives, in acquiring views phize is not merely to read and know philoso- and attitudes from our family, from friends, and phy; there are skills of argumentation to be mas- from various other individuals and groups.
    [Show full text]
  • The Routledge Companion to Islamic Philosophy Reasoning in the Qurn
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 25 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Routledge Companion to Islamic Philosophy Richard C. Taylor, Luis Xavier López-Farjeat Reasoning in the Qurn Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315708928.ch2 Rosalind Ward Gwynne Published online on: 03 Sep 2015 How to cite :- Rosalind Ward Gwynne. 03 Sep 2015, Reasoning in the Qurn from: The Routledge Companion to Islamic Philosophy Routledge Accessed on: 25 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315708928.ch2 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 2 REASONING- IN THE QURʾAN Rosalind Ward Gwynne Introduction Muslims consider the Qurʾa-n to be the revealed speech of God—sublime, inimitable and containing information that only God knows. It has been analyzed in every pos- sible way—theologically, linguistically, legally, metaphorically—and some of these analyses have presented their results as the conclusions of reasoning in the Qurʾa-n itself, whether explicit or implicit.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Philosophy
    An Introduction to Philosophy W. Russ Payne Bellevue College Copyright (cc by nc 4.0) 2015 W. Russ Payne Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document with attribution under the terms of Creative Commons: Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International or any later version of this license. A copy of the license is found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 1 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………. 3 Chapter 1: What Philosophy Is ………………………….. 5 Chapter 2: How to do Philosophy ………………….……. 11 Chapter 3: Ancient Philosophy ………………….………. 23 Chapter 4: Rationalism ………….………………….……. 38 Chapter 5: Empiricism …………………………………… 50 Chapter 6: Philosophy of Science ………………….…..… 58 Chapter 7: Philosophy of Mind …………………….……. 72 Chapter 8: Love and Happiness …………………….……. 79 Chapter 9: Meta Ethics …………………………………… 94 Chapter 10: Right Action ……………………...…………. 108 Chapter 11: Social Justice …………………………...…… 120 2 Introduction The goal of this text is to present philosophy to newcomers as a living discipline with historical roots. While a few early chapters are historically organized, my goal in the historical chapters is to trace a developmental progression of thought that introduces basic philosophical methods and frames issues that remain relevant today. Later chapters are topically organized. These include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, areas where philosophy has shown dramatic recent progress. This text concludes with four chapters on ethics, broadly construed. I cover traditional theories of right action in the third of these. Students are first invited first to think about what is good for themselves and their relationships in a chapter of love and happiness. Next a few meta-ethical issues are considered; namely, whether they are moral truths and if so what makes them so.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Inference and Its Dynamics
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers Logical Inference and Its Dynamics Carlotta Pavese 1 Duke University Philosophy Department Abstract This essay advances and develops a dynamic conception of inference rules and uses it to reexamine a long-standing problem about logical inference raised by Lewis Carroll's regress. Keywords: Inference, inference rules, dynamic semantics. 1 Introduction Inferences are linguistic acts with a certain dynamics. In the process of making an inference, we add premises incrementally, and revise contextual assump- tions, often even just provisionally, to make them compatible with the premises. Making an inference is, in this sense, moving from one set of assumptions to another. The goal of an inference is to reach a set of assumptions that supports the conclusion of the inference. This essay argues from such a dynamic conception of inference to a dynamic conception of inference rules (section x2). According to such a dynamic con- ception, inference rules are special sorts of dynamic semantic values. Section x3 develops this general idea into a detailed proposal and section x4 defends it against an outstanding objection. Some of the virtues of the dynamic con- ception of inference rules developed here are then illustrated by showing how it helps us re-think a long-standing puzzle about logical inference, raised by Lewis Carroll [3]'s regress (section x5). 2 From The Dynamics of Inference to A Dynamic Conception of Inference Rules Following a long tradition in philosophy, I will take inferences to be linguistic acts. 2 Inferences are acts in that they are conscious, at person-level, and 1 I'd like to thank Guillermo Del Pinal, Simon Goldstein, Diego Marconi, Ram Neta, Jim Pryor, Alex Rosenberg, Daniel Rothschild, David Sanford, Philippe Schlenker, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Seth Yalcin, Jack Woods, and three anonymous referees for helpful suggestions on earlier drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Predication and the Problem of Universals Catherine Legg
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Commons@Waikato Philosophical Papers Vol. 30, No. 2 (July 2001): 117-143 Predication and the Problem of Universals Catherine Legg Abstract: This paper contrasts the scholastic realists of David Armstrong and Charles Peirce. It is argued that the so-called 'problem of universals' is not a problem in pure ontology (concerning whether universals exist) as Armstrong construes it to be. Rather, it extends to issues concerning which predicates should be applied where, issues which Armstrong sets aside under the label of 'semantics', and which from a Peircean perspective encompass even the fundamentals of scientific methodology. It is argued that Peir ce's scholastic realism not only presents a more nuanced ontology (distinguishing the existent front the real) but also provides more of a sense of why realism should be a position worth fighting for. ... a realist is simply one who knows no more recondite reality than that which is represented in a true representation. C.S. Peirce Like many other philosophical problems, the grandly-named 'Problem of Universals' is difficult to define without begging the question that it raises. Laurence Goldstein, however, provides a helpful hands-off denotation of the problem by noting that it proceeds from what he calls The Trivial Obseruation:2 The observation is the seemingly incontrovertible claim that, 'sometimes some things have something in common'. The 1 Philosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. Justus Buehler (New York: Dover Publications, 1955), 248. 2 Laurence Goldstein, 'Scientific Scotism – The Emperor's New Trousers or Has Armstrong Made Some Real Strides?', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol 61, No.
    [Show full text]
  • “Bare Particulars”∗ Theodore Sider Philosophical Perspectives 20 (2006), 387–97
    “Bare Particulars”∗ Theodore Sider Philosophical Perspectives 20 (2006), 387–97 One often hears a complaint about “bare particulars”. This complaint has bugged me for years. I know it bugs others too, but no one seems to have vented in print, so that is what I propose to do. (I hope also to say a few constructive things along the way.) The complaint is aimed at the substratum theory, which says that partic- ulars are, in a certain sense, separate from their universals. If universals and particulars are separate, connected to each other only by a relation of instanti- ation, then, it is said, the nature of these particulars becomes mysterious. In themselves, they do not have any properties at all. They are nothing but a pincushion into which universals may be poked. They are Locke’s “I know not what” (1689, II, xxiii, §2); they are Plato’s receptacles (Timaeus 48c–53c); they are “bare particulars”.1 Against substratum theory there is the bundle theory, according to which particulars are just bundles of universals. The substratum and bundle theories agree on much. They agree that both universals and particulars exist. And they agree that a particular in some sense has universals. (I use phrases like ‘particular P has universal U ’ and ‘particular P’s universals’ neutrally as between the substratum and bundle theories.) But the bundle theory says that a particular is exhaustively composed of (i.e., is a mereological fusion of) its universals. The substratum theory, on the other hand, denies this. Take a particular, and mereologically subtract away its universals.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphysics: a Contemporary Introduction: Third Edition
    Metaphysics Metaphysics: A contemporary introduction is for students who have already done an introductory philosophy course. Michael J. Loux provides a fresh look at the central topics in metaphysics, making this essential reading for any student of the subject. This third edition is revised and updated and includes two new chapters on Time and Causation. Topics addressed include: • the problem of universals • the nature of abstract entities • the problem of individuation • the nature of modality • identity through time • the nature of time • the Realism/anti-Realism debate Wherever possible, Michael J. Loux relates contemporary views to their classical sources in the history of philosophy. As an experienced teacher of philosophy and an important contributor to recent debates, Loux is uniquely qualified to write this book. The third edition retains the student-friendly features of previous editions: • chapter overviews summarizing the main topics of study • examples to clarify difficult concepts • annotated further reading at the end of each chapter • endnotes and a full bibliography Michael J. Loux is Shuster Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He is also editor of Metaphysics: Contemporary Readings, designed to accompany this textbook and also published by Routledge. His book Substance and Attribute (1978) is one of the major metaphysics books of recent years. Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy Series editor: Paul K. Moser Loyola University of Chicago This innovative, well-structured series is for students who have already done an introductory course in philosophy. Each book introduces a core general subject in contemporary philosophy and offers students an access- ible but substantial transition from introductory to higher-level college work in that subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Passmore, J. (1967). Logical Positivism. in P. Edwards (Ed.). the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 5, 52- 57). New York: Macmillan
    Passmore, J. (1967). Logical Positivism. In P. Edwards (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 5, 52- 57). New York: Macmillan. LOGICAL POSITIVISM is the name given in 1931 by A. E. Blumberg and Herbert Feigl to a set of philosophical ideas put forward by the Vienna circle. Synonymous expressions include "consistent empiricism," "logical empiricism," "scientific empiricism," and "logical neo-positivism." The name logical positivism is often, but misleadingly, used more broadly to include the "analytical" or "ordinary language philosophies developed at Cambridge and Oxford. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The logical positivists thought of themselves as continuing a nineteenth-century Viennese empirical tradition, closely linked with British empiricism and culminating in the antimetaphysical, scientifically oriented teaching of Ernst Mach. In 1907 the mathematician Hans Hahn, the economist Otto Neurath, and the physicist Philipp Frank, all of whom were later to be prominent members of the Vienna circle, came together as an informal group to discuss the philosophy of science. They hoped to give an account of science which would do justice -as, they thought, Mach did not- to the central importance of mathematics, logic, and theoretical physics, without abandoning Mach's general doctrine that science is, fundamentally, the description of experience. As a solution to their problems, they looked to the "new positivism" of Poincare; in attempting to reconcile Mach and Poincare; they anticipated the main themes of logical positivism. In 1922, at the instigation of members of the "Vienna group," Moritz Schlick was invited to Vienna as professor, like Mach before him (1895-1901), in the philosophy of the inductive sciences. Schlick had been trained as a scientist under Max Planck and had won a name for himself as an interpreter of Einstein's theory of relativity.
    [Show full text]