display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
6 ideas
| 23652 | We must first conceive things before we can consider them [Reid] |
| Full Idea: No man can consider a thing which he does not conceive. | |
| From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 5: Abstraction [1785], 6) | |
| A reaction: This seems to imply concepts, but we should not take this to be linguistic, since animals obviously consider things and make judgements. |
| 23656 | The structure of languages reveals a uniformity in basic human opinions [Reid] |
| Full Idea: What is common in the structure of languages, indicates an uniformity of opinion in those things upon which that structure is grounded. | |
| From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 6: Judgement [1785], 4) | |
| A reaction: Reid was more interested than his contemporaries in the role of language in philosophy. The first idea sounds like Chomsky. I would add to this that the uniformity of common opinion reflects uniformities in the world they are talking about. |
| 23630 | Only philosophers treat ideas as objects [Reid] |
| Full Idea: The vulgar allow that an 'idea' implies a mind that thinks, an act of mind which we call thinking, and an object about which we think. But the philosopher conceives a fourth - the idea, which is the immediate object. …I believe this to be a mere fiction. | |
| From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 1: Preliminary [1785], 1) | |
| A reaction: Another example, to add to Yablo's list, of abstract objects invented by philosophers to fill holes in their theories. This one is illuminating, because we all say 'I've got an idea'. Cf discussions of the redundancy of truth. Cf propositions. |
| 23648 | First we notice and name attributes ('abstracting'); then we notice that subjects share them ('generalising') [Reid] |
| Full Idea: First we resolve or analyse a subject into its known attributes, and give a name to each attribute. Then we observe one or more attributes to be common to many subjects. The first philosophers call 'abstraction', and the second is 'generalising'. | |
| From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 5: Abstraction [1785], 3) | |
| A reaction: It is very unfashionable in analytic philosophy to view universals in this way, but it strikes me as obviously correct. There are not weird abstract entities awaiting a priori intuition. There are just features of the world to be observed and picked out. |
| 23653 | If you can't distinguish the features of a complex object, your notion of it would be a muddle [Reid] |
| Full Idea: If you perceive an object, white, round, and a foot in diameter, if you had not been able to distinguish the colour from the figure, and both from the magnitude, your senses would only give you one complex and confused notion of all these mingled together | |
| From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 6: Judgement [1785], 1) | |
| A reaction: His point is that if you reject the 'abstraction' of these qualities, you still cannot deny that distinguishing them is an essential aspect of perceiving complex things. Does this mean that animals distinguish such things? |
| 23640 | Only mature minds can distinguish the qualities of a body [Reid] |
| Full Idea: I think it requires some ripeness of understanding to distinguish the qualities of a body from the body; perhaps this distinction is not made by brutes, or by infants. | |
| From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 2: Senses [1785], 19) | |
| A reaction: I'm glad the brutes get a mention in his assessment of these questions. I take such thinking to arise from what can be labelled the faculty of abstraction, which presumably only appears in a mature brain. It is second-level thinking. |