What does philosopher David Malet Armstrong believe?

Question

What does philosopher David Malet Armstrong believe?

Answer 1

David Malet Armstrong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

David Malet Armstrong Western Philosophy

20th-century philosophy

David M. Armstrong receiving his doctor of letters (h.c.) at the Nottingham University, UK on 13th December 2007

Full name David Malet Armstrong

Birth July 8, 1926

School/tradition Australian Realism, analytic philosophy

Main interests metaphysics, philosophy of mind

Influenced by[show]

John Anderson

David Malet Armstrong (born July 8, 1926), often D. M. Armstrong, is an Australian philosopher. He is well-known for his work on metaphysics and the philosophy of mind, and for his defence of a factualist ontology, a functionalist theory of the mind, and a necessitarian conception of the laws of nature.

For further information:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Malet...

Answer 2

David Malet Armstrong (born July 8, 1926), often D. M. Armstrong, is an Australian philosopher. He is well-known for his work on metaphysics and the philosophy of mind, and for his defence of a factualist ontology, a functionalist theory of the mind, and a necessitarian conception of the laws of nature. -- Wikipedia

Offhand, I would say that a factualist ontology would first posit that facts exist (in the way that numbers exist) and are the kinds of things that make statements true.  (So just as 2+2 = 4 would be true because of certain properties of the number 2, the statement that the earth is round would be true because there is a fact "in Plato's heaven" that amounts to the earth's being round.)  Then maybe a factualist ontology tries to explain other things by analyzing them into facts.  That's just an offhand answer.

A functionalist theory of mind is a theory that tries to understand the mind (I think) in terms of inputs and outputs of some kind.  I'm a bit hazy on this.  I suppose the mind would be a function that takes certain inputs to other outputs.

A necessitarian conception of the laws of nature -- well that might mean that the laws of nature, for instance, could not have been otherwise.

Someone will probably have a better answer than mine.  That answer possibly will contain statements to the effect that my own is misleading and wildly confused.