Philosophy Concordance - online philosophical quotations

Some philosophers, like Quine and Davidson, rejected intensional logic in favour of the good, old, austere classical first-order logic.

We shall see later that there may be good reasons for approving only compositional relations and functions; and in such a case we must consider any non-compositional relation or function a mere approximative or incomplete representation of a compositional one. This poses the problem of 'compositionalization', of finding a relation (function) that could be considered a reasonable approximation of a given relation (function).

I think this is a good schematization (deliberately oversimplified, to be sure) of what science really does; but it provides no indication, not even the sketchiest, of how a statement of the form 'Quality q is at x; y; z; t' could ever be translated into Carnap's initial language of sense data and logic.

The question, "What is its verification?", is a good translation of "How can one know it?".

One symbolism is in fact as good as the next; no one symbolism is necessary.

What is the reason for using the word "good"?

When there is an argument about whether a thing is good, the discussion shows what we are talking about.

In view of the way we have learned the word "good" it would be astonishing if it had a general meaning covering all of its applications.

It is used in different contexts because there is a transition between similar things called "good", a transition which continues, it may be, to things which bear no similarity to earlier members of the series.

We cannot say "If we want to find out the meaning of 'good' let's find what all cases of good have in common".