|
19542
|
It is nonsense that understanding does not involve knowledge; to understand, you must know [Dougherty/Rysiew]
|
|
Full Idea:
The proposition that understanding does not involve knowledge is widespread (for example, in discussions of what philosophy aims at), but hardly withstands scrutiny. If you do not know how a jet engine works, you do not understand how it works.
|
|
From:
Dougherty,T/Rysiew,P (Experience First (and reply) [2014], p.24)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems a bit disingenuous. As in 'Theaetetus', knowing the million parts of a jet engine is not to understand it. More strongly - how could knowledge of an infinity of separate propositional truths amount to understanding on their own?
|
|
19541
|
Rather than knowledge, our epistemic aim may be mere true belief, or else understanding and wisdom [Dougherty/Rysiew]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we say our cognitive aim is to get knowledge, the opposing views are the naturalistic view that what matters is just true belief (or just 'getting by'), or that there are rival epistemic goods such as understanding and wisdom.
|
|
From:
Dougherty,T/Rysiew,P (Experience First (and reply) [2014], p.17)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed summary] I'm a fan of understanding. The accumulation of propositional knowledge would relish knowing the mass of every grain of sand on a beach. If you say the propositions should be 'important', other values are invoked.
|
|
19539
|
If knowledge is unanalysable, that makes justification more important [Dougherty/Rysiew]
|
|
Full Idea:
If knowledge is indeed unanalyzable, that could be seen as a liberation of justification to assume importance in its own right.
|
|
From:
Dougherty,T/Rysiew,P (What is Knowledge-First Epistemology? [2014], p.11)
|
|
A reaction:
[They cite Kvanvig 2003:192 and Greco 2010:9-] See Scruton's Idea 3897. I suspect that we should just give up discussing 'knowledge', which is a woolly and uninformative term, and focus on where the real epistemological action is.
|
|
23059
|
Self-interest is not rational, if the self is just a succession of memories and behaviour [Sidgwick, by Gray]
|
|
Full Idea:
Sidgwick said self-interest is not self-evidently rational. Unless we invoke a religious idea of the soul, human personality is no more than a succession of continuities in memory and behaviour. In that case, why should anyone favour their future self?
|
|
From:
report of Henry Sidgwick (The Methods of Ethics (7th edn) [1874]) by John Gray - Seven Types of Atheism 2
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds like Locke's account of the self, as psychological continuity. We can say that our continuous self is a fiction, the hero of our own narrative. Personally I think of the self as a sustained set of brains structures which change very little.
|
|
4129
|
It is self-evident (from the point of view of the Universe) that no individual has more importance than another [Sidgwick]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is a self-evident principle that the good of one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view of the Universe, than the good of any other, ..and as a rational being I am bound to aim at good generally, not merely at a particular part.
|
|
From:
Henry Sidgwick (The Methods of Ethics (7th edn) [1874], III.XIII.3)
|
|
A reaction:
Showing that even a very empirical theory like utilitarianism has an a priori basis. Of course, the principle is false. What about animals, the senile, criminals, androids? What bestows 'importance'?
|