I will AR Champing at 5:30pm, the fight # is 4217

Several 'new' types of explanation:

1. Analysis of components (objects, properties, events) 

2. Meaning/definition explanation; 
	arguably a version of (1),
	"analysis of meanings,"
	where the 'components' are other 
	meanings/concepts

3. Criterial/constitutional explanation:
	what makes X 'count as' (a) Y.


Definition:
-ostension
-construction (e.g., circle)
-recursive (combination of these)
-analysis of concept


*****

(notes fr. 9/2000:)

Add to your discussion of definitional analysis:

What is the difference between the ordinary dictionary,
"property list" type of definition, and recursive 
definition?

Dictionary definition is easy: it analyzes a concept 
into constituent concepts.

Recursive definition: I provide a *procedure* for 
delimiting the entities picked out (referred to) by
that concept.  

Compare w/ Spinoza's two types of definitions -- 
synthetic and analytic.  I can define a circle by 
stating a list of properties only circles have; or I
can specify a procedure that will generate all 
(and only) circles.

(Friedman on Cassirer on Kant on synthetic vs. analytic
definitions: according to Cassirer, Kant is basically
in line with Spinoza [and Leibniz?] on preferring 
synthetic to analytic definitions; what Kant adds is 
that such constructive definitions [constructions 
generally] can only apply to space-time.  The 
schematism gives constructive definitions of concepts 
of the understanding precisely by applying them to
space-time.)

Q: am I analyzing my concept of "circle," or providing
a referentially-equivalent functional *replacement*
for my concept?  What, anyway, is the difference 
between these two options?  (Kim 98 on 
'functionalization' as prerequisite for reduction.)


*****

(notes, 10/2000:)

B causes A and A causes B -- because time is looped -- 
B must come before A, and A must come before B.  

B supervenes upon A, and A supervenes upon B -- because space is 
looped -- like in the story "He Who Shrank" -- the atoms that make up 
this universe are each themselves universe, and each of their atoms 
is a universe, and ultimately one of those atoms is this original 
universe again.  Then something could be a proper part of itself 
-- mereological looping --and you'd get supervenience loops as 
a result.

*****


PHIL 417: SEMINAR IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.
06179   CONF PM    3-450      W        402 GREG HALL       MAHER



