[Wittrs] [quickphilosophy] Re: An Anscombe Error Regarding Negation?

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 01:19:29 -0000


--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Martin N Brampton <martin.lists@...> 
wrote:
>
> The summary of that paper certainly suggests an eclectic approach!
> 
> I'm none too expert on Bradley (although I possess a selection of his 
> work in "Writings on Logic and Metaphysics") but from what I have read 
> I'd be very reluctant to simply dismiss him.  He was soon eclipsed by 
> the logical positivists, but their ideas didn't really come to much, did 
> they?
> 

I don't want to cast my lot with the positivists, but I do think that Russell 
and Moore were essential right that a single pun lies at the base of Bradley's 
system. Nearly every argument in his "masterwork," "Appearance and Reality" is 
of the following form--

Sugar is sweet.
Sugar is white.
Therefore, sweet is white.

That is, he confuses the "'is' of predication" with the "'is' of identity."  
And he commits this same fallacy over and over again.  So many times, in fact, 
that at the end of the day he's "proven" that there is nothing in the universe 
but one single "Absolute" mind.  He's easier and clearer than Hegel, and so 
more fun to read, but, as a result of those merits the errors in his work are 
more obvious.



> Certainly I'm influenced by Quine's "Two Dogmas" and although I'm aware 
> of arguments made against him, he still seems to me to be making valid 
> points.  He is also persuasive on the problem of meaning, so far as I'm 
> concerned.
> 

I agree with you about Quine.  I think he was a great philosopher,  one of the 
greatest of the last century, IMHO.

W




Other related posts: