PSR

PSR

Lock IN ANSWER FOR KANT ESSAY Qsn: Does reason entail freedom? consciosuness of outer things: involves the understanding and reason

to be affected by that which is ready to hand (equipment; given to us in bare nature) is possible only bc of how dasein is i=determined in its nature

Facticity#

problem: probability of a die throw is not actually equal

(1). reasonable to assume that there are beings (but starting to argue that nothingness is imporbable from this claim seems to beg the question.) (2) Very reasonable because the properties of thinga can vary infinitleyy (imo the most plausible premise of this argument) (3) There's at most one possible world where there could be nothing again, plausible, bc theres only one way for there to be nothing, implied in its essence of being nothing. (4) *apparently disputed prem: for any 2 possible worlds, probability of their being actual is equal why? bc the mode of disticntion between the two possible worlds is completely arbitrary

Robert Nozick: Philosopjical explanations Jim Holt: Nothing Ventured November 1994: Harper's Robin collisn grad paper

Weaker thesis than original one not impossible for there to be nothing, but imporobable why? to avoid the implication of the PSR that every truth is a necessary truth (bc every truth has an explanation, thus couldnt have been otherwise

read originasl paper

??? cicrular claim

isn't this just begging the question??

existence of contingent beings implies existence of non-contingent (necessary beings) we cannot postulate one w/o the other, as one implies the other

thus, any objectors would have to show wwhy contingency can exist w/o necesiity

i. property of necessity exists ii. property of entity/ concrescence exists iii. necessity & concrescence are compatible- possible for a being/ thing to have both properties iv. if its not metaphysically impossible for sth to have both of them, then there's sth that has both of them V. a necessary being is sth that has both necessity and concreteness, and there is a necessary being

Problem: why do we accept premise 3 that they're compatible? consider counterexamples proving this to be false

central thesis: moving from proving that there's a necessary being from which it logically folllows that there cannot be nothing

the truth that concrete beings exist is inextricable from the truth that theree are necessary beings.

if there was a world of only abstract objects, unlike concrete objects this would be a world of nothing.

Lewis: Genuine Modal realism

What's Lewis' genuine modal realism? What's abstract realism?

needed formulation to the argument from causal overdetermination against dualism

what are the implications of adding P4: For mental events to be causally relevant in the physical domain, mental events must cause physical events

this is shown to be necessaary bc w/o p4 above, it is shown that mental events can be causally relevant even if they arent causes

Further, we could disagree with her premise that double preventors or enabling events are not causes.

n1- neuron firing in fred brain (physical event, immediate cause) b1-fred's arm moving (effect) firing of n1 & so on & contraction of muscle fibres-> reciprocal disposition partners. together, they cause the movement of fred's arm i.e the mutual manifestation

Double prevention: preventor-> freds desire to keep still (m2) double preventor-> stronger desire to move arm (m1) this overriding derire= enabling event & is the double preventor So far, causal chain: n1 -> n2 --> b1 thus: M1 prevents m2 from preventing n2 from causing b1 thus, m1 <- m2; <- n2 -->b1

So for an event to occur: i. complete cause ii. double preventer-> the enabling event mental events are double preventers bring about events that were prevented from occurring to occur by enabling the preventing event (other physical or mental events) from occuring.

so, like lowe, she's avoided the no gaps critique by positing relations between causes and different events so in her model: mental events, physical events physical causes and enabling events (mental events)

powers theory of causation!

thus, this is only a defensible thesis if we take the powers of causation approach

so to critique it, we must hold a different account of causation

right, so the double preventer is not a cause of the breakin bc the breaking is a mutual manifestation of the dispositional properties of the objects so the cause is the fact of being fragile, and that of being hard, not the explosive device destroying the barrier but this is just a runabout way of saying it's an indirect cause???

why? what supports the fact that this isnt a cause?

types of events on this account: i. causes ii. causal enablers Proof: double prevention account s

Thus effect: breaking of vase Causes: vase's fragility & surface's hardness the causes -> reciprocal disposition partners effect-> mutual manifestation so like a combined cause from the vases dispositional proerty of fragility, and the surface's dispositional property of hardness*

like dispositional properties

Argument from causal overdetermination against dualism.

main thesis

her thesis, new model of psycho causation

so,truth cant be analysed in reference to facts but only to beliefs, because facts are true (bc of the isomorphic relation) truth is mapped to facts and thus cannot be separated

form of logical atomism@

Strawson accepted the description (facts and corresponds don't occur as a description of the conditions that must be satisfied) but contended that saying a statement is true is not asserting that conditions are satisfied, but to endorse it.

that's just another way of saying 'corresponds to truth or doesnt' this is a very circular explanation truth comes in many forms correct= true in regard to the nature of thing or historic event x

problem lies in what type of thing truth is to begin with. Is it a property? a predicate? we need to understand it ontological status to be able to make claims about what is or isnt true

doesn't this risk relativism about truth

theory of speech acts

There's no need for words in making a true statement (truthmakers) to mirror any feature of the situation or event

to be true, a statement foes not meed to reproduce the multiplicity/structure/form of reality

moving the goal post, by changing/narrowing the definition to avoid too much committment to a theory

deflationary approach

no independent access theory?

isn't he collapsing correspondence to deflationism?

may be substituted without altering the truth value of the sentence

strategy seems to be restricting the definition of facts to the atomic

Structural isomorphism is a mathematical concept that describes when two structures have the same properties and can be mapped onto each other while preserving their structure

Isomorphism: one-to-one mapping; mapping of truth to facts/state of affiars w/o either losing structure;; disambiguation

supports sub-thesis that correspondence as a theory is an insufficient account

weak objection?

take the 2 definition of facts and truth (i.e a state of affairs that obtains

locutionary: the utterance itself illocutionary: the meaning behind a sentence (the speaker's intention; illocutionary act ~ illocutionary force

it can, but negative existentials are not part of this bc if we complicate it, we can see that it describes the state of affairs of my idea of an abstract entity or system

depending on the one word sentence, the meaning may be implicit eg ' actually, cant find examples in english so, more inclined to say that they can't correspond to states of affairs and thus have no truth value, because the meaning is insufficient. meaning is derived from a relation between objects, and in a one word sentence, there is no relation unless that otherwise assumed.

the 'sum' example is a weak cop-out because in our understanding of its meaning, we get a 2 word sentence 'i am' whose meaning is derived from the relation between 'me' and 'being'

what are the implications for negative existentials in this four state structure? change 'the cat is on the mat' to include non-existing, abstract objects in a proposition: 'harry, ron and hermione are in the invisible cloak/ or in gryffindor' this is true, but only corresponds to 'non-facts; a state of affairs' in an abstract system thus, correspondence can only work if facts are broadened to include abstract entiites and situations

or we can just say that they're false in this world but true in others but that just diminishes the idea of universal truth

Situations wherein expressions mirror the facts in the world are a linguistic efficiency but are not necessary eg 'sum' which means 'i am' has a truth value even when they're not isomorphic (i.e correspond to or share the same structure?*) But is this true??? I am does correspond to my being in the world??

There's no need for words in a true statement to mirror any feature of a situation/event. The correspondence is conventional

solution: maybe the true fact that this corresponds to is an abstract one, like, the idea of santa claus is a man with a white beard (thus, the idea is true). seems like he's conflating belief with existence (or equivocating?)

how does he move from the explanation of how russels theory allows for false beliefs to this? criticism

test conditions: free recall vs cued recall testing was unexpected

1. Appearance/physical structure
2. Phonemic level of analysis
3. semantic analysis

Memory trace-> byproduct of perceptual processing

DV

IV

So its: Experimental design: Independent sample t-test or Mann Whitney u if non p Wrong: Correlational

We do not all have the same capacity to correctly or accurately judge works of art/engage in aestgetic judgement hence we need true judges/

Prejudice encumber sound judgement

Because the works of art are no longer self-referential and thus may be contrasted to one another for a judgement to ve made

In our practice, we must learn to reformulate our opinions and position as things reveal themselves to us more clearly. Thus practice allows us to appraise the true nature, and must be done often to equate to true judgement

So the true judges, had they been in the case described from Don quixote, would instantly be able to identify both the leather and the iron and thus present the truth/reality of the wine more accurately and completely.

they were both right, but one aspect, either the leather or the iron was ignored or not noticed by them. What explaisn this disparity?

If there were a consensus on what we consider beautiful, then a perfect beauty, a standard which is objectivwly definable and appraisable can be reached;;;; true judges.

Amidst the undeniable subjectivism governing our capacity for beauty, there are some general principles (objective) that guide our judgements, not just sentiment. This is governed by our faculty for reason and rationality.

Basically, if we believe inequality to be intrinsically bad, it's irrelevant who this inequality affects, it will still be bad It is simillarly irellevant how the inequality begun, how it plays out eg in health, money, opportunity etc. Its bad in all possible ways, cases