Combining Philosophers

Ideas for Proclus, Anon (Ecc) and Robert van Gulick

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these philosophers

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers


4 ideas

1. Philosophy / A. Wisdom / 3. Wisdom Deflated
In much wisdom is much grief [Anon (Ecc)]
     Full Idea: In much wisdom is much grief.
     From: Anon (Ecc) (21: Book of Ecclesiastes [c.200 BCE], 01.18)
     A reaction: If this is true, then the question is of what there is in wisdom that will compensate for the grief. Personally I doubt the whole claim. Some wisdom involves grief, but most of it involves pleasure, even when understanding of evil is the target.
1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 5. Aims of Philosophy / a. Philosophy as worldly
Organisms understand their worlds better if they understand themselves [Gulick]
     Full Idea: Organisms come to better understand their worlds by coming to better understand themselves and the ways in which their own structures engage their worlds.
     From: Robert van Gulick (Mirror Mirror - Is That All? [2006], §III)
     A reaction: Van Gulick is defending a higher-order theory of consciousness, but this strikes me as a good rationale for the target of philosophy, which has increasingly (since Descartes) focused on understanding our own minds.
1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 8. Humour
Laughter is mad; of mirth, what doeth it? [Anon (Ecc)]
     Full Idea: I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, what doeth it?
     From: Anon (Ecc) (21: Book of Ecclesiastes [c.200 BCE], 02.02)
     A reaction: Not much of an argument, but an interesting support for the extreme anti-hedonistic puritanical view. Most people would praise laughter as an end in itself, so 'what doeth it?' seems to miss the point.
Sorrow is better than laughter [Anon (Ecc)]
     Full Idea: Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
     From: Anon (Ecc) (21: Book of Ecclesiastes [c.200 BCE], 07.03)
     A reaction: This writer fails to see the good in laughter. If he did, he would have a more balanced view, and we could take this opinion more seriously. Theatre audiences always seem keen to hunt out jokes where none are intended.