Theo Todman's Web Page - Notes Pages
Supervisions
(Text as at 18/12/2010 12:00:00)
Supervision: Monday 16th June 2008; 10:30
- The purpose: of the supervision was to discuss an essay1 on "Fine (Kit) - A Counter-Example To Locke's Thesis".
- I’m writing up this note over 6 weeks after the supervision, and I’ve forgotten the discussion. However, I’ve got Jen’s partly legible marginal annotations, together with a few of my own. Lest these get lost, I have repeated them in the previous version of this note (follow the links below). In this file-note I expand on the comments in a manner that may or may not reflect the actual discussion, but which at least reconsiders the topics discussed.
- See the previous version of this note for a couple of administrative matters. Comments on the text follow.
- Bullet 4: “Won’t be criterial: same matter, different marks, different marks, different letter”.
- Bullet 9: Illegible objection – “But it ?? these ??”. My marginal annotations have “monists don’t believe in sorts”.
- Bullet 13 (Coincidence): “How does this possibility bear on the actual example”?
- Bullet 13 (Distinctness): “But given what the example is intended to show, the only relevant (false) identity statements concern letters”. Also, general query on the last sentence. I have an annotation “closeness of relation, not degree of distinctness”.
- Bullet 13 (Physical Things): “Abstract”. My annotation says “abstract object”.
- Bullet 14: “His or your ‘but’?” (“But, if asked of a computer image”). Comment at the end of the bullet: “depends!”
- Bullet 16: “What does this mean?” – against the “phase sortal” notion – underlined.
- Bullet 17: “Do the letters require this vocabulary and grammar to be the letters they are?” Double line next to the last sentence.
- Bullet 18: “Compare: a letter I wrote using English was actually in F
French”.
- Bullet 19: “Reference to what is said of author’s intentions”. I have a comment “no hope”.
- Bullet 20 (Bullet 1): My statement ‘more important than’ is underlined with a marginal exclamation mark and the comment “irreproducibility of persons”.
- Bullet 20 (Bullet 3): I have marginal annotations ‘Intensional types’; ‘Doesn’t work for biological kinds’; ‘3D photocopy’.
- Bullet 20 (Bullet 4): “Could there be (necessary) collocation of a person and her body. (While one doesn’t need legs. to Locke to demonstrate)? I have a marginal annotation – ‘X (ie. No!) – did consider it’.
- Bullet 21 (Bullet 1): My “Mass term notions go wrong” underlined. Jen’s “Explain” (crossed out).
- Bullet 21 (Bullet 2): Against last full line - “Why? Each letter weighs the same as the other”.
- Bullet 21 (Bullet 3): First few words underlined, with the comment “Why”.
Next Supervision: None. I am now intermitting the course, and intend to re-apply for a full-time place in two academic years’ time.
Previous Version of this Note:
| Date |
Length |
Title |
| 29/07/2008 11:22:34 |
3695 |
Jen_080616 |
| Note last updated |
Reading List for this Topic |
Parent Topic |
| 18/12/2010 12:00:00 |
None available |
None |
Summary of Notes Referenced by This Note
To access information, click on one of the links in the table above.
Summary of Notes Citing This Note
To access information, click on one of the links in the table above.
Authors, Books & Papers Citing this Note
| Author |
Title |
Medium |
Extra Links |
Read? |
| Fine (Kit) |
A Counter-Example To Locke's Thesis |
Paper  |
|
Yes |
References & Reading List
| Author |
Title |
Medium |
Source |
Read? |
| Fine (Kit) |
A Counter-Example To Locke's Thesis |
Paper - Cited |
Monist, Jul2000, Vol. 83 Issue 3, p357, 5p |
Yes |
| Fine (Kit) |
A Counter-Example To Locke's Thesis |
Paper - Referencing |
Monist, Jul2000, Vol. 83 Issue 3, p357, 5p |
Yes |
Text Colour Conventions
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026