« Is it Ever Legitimate to Question Motives? | Main | Language and Intellectual Honesty »

Thursday, November 04, 2021

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks Dr. BV,

two points I have on this post.

First, it doesn't seem to me the case that conjunctions are always explained fully in terms of their conjuncts. In the case of the three bums, Pruss points out that there might be some further explanation for why all three are where they are, say they are terrorists about to detonate themselves in a coordinated attack. In that case, knowing that A is there, that B is there, and that C is there doesn't suffice to explain why all three are where they are at the same time.

Second, I had thought that maintaining that conjunctions are grounded in their conjuncts thereby removes the need for an 'outside' explanation of the series. Thus, we get to keep the PSR from the objection of modal collapse, yet this undermines the use of the PSR for arguing that there must be an 'outside' explanation (God) of the collection as a whole.

You seem to agree with me here, if I'm not mistaken, because your strategy to nonetheless argue for God involves saying that God's creating the world is not a proposition (which I agree with). But now you're moving beyond the PSR. Why not just avoid all this and adopt the unrestricted PSR? It is the PSR restricted to contingently true propositions that leads to all this hassle, as far as I can tell.

Thanks for your time!

First, don't confuse propositions with bums. If you have two propositions, p, q, then automatically, so to speak, you have their conjunction p & q. Nothing more is needed to explain the existence of the conjunction beyond the conjuncts. Now suppose both propositions are true. Nothing more is needed to explain the truth of the conjunctive proposition beyond the truth of the conjuncts.

Suppose you have a bolt and a nut. The existence of these two logically suffices for the existence of the set of the two, and for the mereological sum of the two. But it does not suffice for the existence of nut-threaded-onto-bolt. In this case, an additional explanatory factor must be invoked.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

December 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad