Jean-marc pizano On one hand, everybody knows, deep down, thatInferential Role Semantics makes the problem of concept individuation intractable. And, on the other hand, everybodygags on Informational Atomism. (Well, practically everybody does.) And nobody seems to be able to think of any otheralternatives. Probably that's because those are all the alternatives that there are.

 


It's my view that we're eventually going to have to swallow Informational Atomism whole. Accordingly, I've been doing what I can to


sweeten the pill. It seemed to me, for a long while, that a cost of atomism would be failing to honour the distinction between theoretical concepts and the rest. For, surely, theoretical concepts are ones that you have to believe a theory inorder to have? And, according to conceptual atomism, there are no concepts that you have to believe a theory in orderto have. But it doesn't seem to me that way now. A theoretical concept isn't a concept that's defined by a theory; it's justa concept that is, de facto, locked to a property via a theory. Informational Atomism doesn't mind that at all, so long asyou keep the “de facto” in mind.


Likewise, it used to seem to me that atomism about concepts means that DOORKNOB is innate. But now I think that you can trade a certain amount of innateness for a certain amount of mind-dependence. Being a doorknob is just:striking our kinds of minds the way that doorknobs do. So, what you need to acquire the concept DOORKNOB“from experience” is just: the kind of mind that experience causes to be struck that way by doorknobs. The price ofmaking this trade of innateness for mind-dependence is, however, a touch of Wotan's problem. It turns out that muchof what we find in the world is indeed “only ourselves”. It turns out, in lots of cases, that we make things be of a kind bybeing disposed to take them to be of a kind.

Jean-marc pizano

But not in every case; not, in particular, in the case of kinds of things that are alike in respect of the hidden sources of their causal powers, regardless of their likeness in respect of their effects on us. To describe it in terms of those sorts ofsimilarities is to describe the world the way that God takes it to be. Doing science is how we contrive to causeourselves to have the concepts that such descriptions are couched in. Not philosophy but science is the way to getWotan out of his fly-bottle. That story seems to me plausibly true; and it is, as we've seen, compatible with aninformational and atomistic account of the individuation of concepts. But dear me, speaking of fly-bottles, howWittgenstein would have loathed it; and Wagner and Virginia Woolf too, for that matter. Well, you can't pleaseeveryone; I'll bet it would have been all right with Plato.


Short Conclusion: A Consolation for Philosophers


That's really the end of my story; but a word about what I think of as the Luddite objection to conceptual atomism is perhaps in order.


It's natural, pace Appendix 5A, to suppose that conceptual atomism means that there are no conceptual truths, hence that there are no analytic truths. And, if there are no analytic truths, I suppose that there are no such things asconceptual analyses. And it would be worrying if ‘noanalyticity’ entailed not just ‘no analyses’ but ‘no analytic philosophy’ as well. Technological unemployment would thenbegin to threaten.

Jean-marc pizano

But I guess I'm not inclined to take that prospect very seriously; certainly I'm not one of those end-of-philosophy philosophers. If, there aren't any conceptual analyses, the moral isn't that we should stop doing philosophy, or eventhat we should start doing philosophy in some quite different way. The moral is just that we should stop saying thatconceptual analysis is what philosophers do. If analytic philosophers haven't been analysing concepts after all, at leastthat explains why there are so few concepts that analytic philosophers have analysed.


I guess what I really think is that philosophy is just: whatever strikes minds like ours as being of the same kind as the prototypical examples.Jean-marc pizano



Комментарии
13.02.2024 в 05:39

Здравствуйте, дорогие друзья форума!

Хотел бы поделиться с вами своим актуальным опытом поиска качественного автосервиса в Оренбурге. После долгих поисков, я наконец нашел то место, которым действительно остался доволен — АвтоЛайф.

Что мне особенно понравилось в AutoLife56, так это мастерство специалистов каждого специалиста этого сервиса. Мастера не только быстро и эффективно решили проблему с моим автомобилем, но и предоставили полезные рекомендации по его дальнейшему обслуживанию.

Мне кажется важным поделиться этой информацией с вами, так как знаю, насколько непросто порой найти действительно надежный сервис. Если вы ищете достойный автосервис в Оренбурге, рекомендую обратить внимание на АвтоЛайф 56, расположенный по адресу: г. Оренбург, ул. Берёзка, 20, корп. 2. Они работают каждый день, с утра до вечера, и более подробную информацию вы можете найти на их сайте: https://autolife56.ru/.

Надеюсь, мой опыт окажется важным для кого-то из вас. Буду рад получить ваш фидбек, если решите воспользоваться услугами AutoLife56.

Ремонт автоэлектрики
Связанные ссылки
Не забывайте: АвтоЛайф 56 — ваш надежный партнер в мире авторемонта в Оренбурге Узнайте больше о автосервисе AutoLife: наши сильные стороны в обслуживании автомобилях в Оренбурге Вашему вниманию представляем идеальный автосервис в Оренбурге - сервис AutoLife56 Не пропустите: AutoLife56 — ваш выбор в мире авторемонта в Оренбурге Вашему вниманию предлагаем идеальный автосервис в Оренбурге - АвтоЛайф 616b1a1
URL

Расширенная форма

Редактировать

Подписаться на новые комментарии