|
16236
|
Maybe our persistence conditions concern bodies, rather than persons [Olson, by Hawley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Instead of attributing person-like persistence conditions to bodies, we could attribute body-like persistence conditions to persons, …so human persons are identical with human organisms.
|
|
From:
report of Eric T. Olson (The Human Animal [1997]) by Katherine Hawley - How Things Persist 5.10
|
|
A reaction:
In the case of pre-birth and advanced senility, Olson thinks we could have the body without the person, so person is a 'phase sortal' of bodies. A good theory, which seems to answer a lot of questions. 'Person' may be an abstraction.
|
|
6669
|
For 'animalism', I exist before I became a person, and can continue after it, so I am not a person [Olson, by Lowe]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to 'animalism', I existed before I was a person and I may well go one existing for some time after I cease to be a person; hence, I am not essentially a person, but a human organism.
|
|
From:
report of Eric T. Olson (The Human Animal [1997]) by E.J. Lowe - Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind Ch.10
|
|
A reaction:
There is a very real sense in which an extremely senile person has 'ceased to exist' (e.g. as the person I used to love). On the whole, though, I think that Olson is right, and yet 'person' is an important concept. Neither concept is all-or-nothing.
|
|
6217
|
Natural law is supplied to the human mind by reality and human nature [Cumberland]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some truths of natural law, concerning guides to moral good and evil, and duties not laid down by civil law and government, are necessarily supplied ot the human mind by the nature of things and of men.
|
|
From:
Richard Cumberland (De Legibus Naturae [1672], Ch.I.I)
|
|
A reaction:
I agree that some moral truths have the power of self-evidence. If you say they are built into the mind, we now ask what did the building, and evolution is the only answer, and hence we distance ourselves from the truths, seeing them as strategies.
|
|
6221
|
If there are different ultimate goods, there will be conflicting good actions, which is impossible [Cumberland]
|
|
Full Idea:
If there be posited different ultimate ends, whose causes are opposed to each other, then there will be truly good actions likewise opposed to each other, which is impossible.
|
|
From:
Richard Cumberland (De Legibus Naturae [1672], Ch.V.XVI)
|
|
A reaction:
A very interesting argument for there being one good rather than many, and an argument which I don't recall in any surviving Greek text. A response might be to distinguish between what is 'right' and what is 'good'. See David Ross.
|
|
6220
|
The happiness of all contains the happiness of each, and promotes it [Cumberland]
|
|
Full Idea:
The common happiness of all contains the greatest happiness for each, and most effectively promotes it. …There is no path leading anyone to his own happiness, other than the path which leads all to the common happiness.
|
|
From:
Richard Cumberland (De Legibus Naturae [1672], Ch.I.VI)
|
|
A reaction:
I take this as a revolutionary idea, which leads to utilitarianism. It is doing what seemed to the Greeks unthinkable, which is combining hedonism with altruism. There is no proof for it, but it is a wonderful clarion call for building a civil society.
|
|
6216
|
Natural law is immutable truth giving moral truths and duties independent of society [Cumberland]
|
|
Full Idea:
Natural law is certain propositions of immutable truth, which guide voluntary actions about the choice of good and avoidance of evil, and which impose an obligation to act, even without regard to civil laws, and ignoring compacts of governments.
|
|
From:
Richard Cumberland (De Legibus Naturae [1672], Ch.I.I)
|
|
A reaction:
Not a popular view, but I am sympathetic. If you are in a foreign country and find a person lying in pain, there is a terrible moral deficiency in anyone who just ignores such a thing. No legislation can take away a person's right of self-defence.
|
|
13222
|
The Boundless cannot exist on its own, and must have something contrary to it [Aristotle on Anaximander]
|
|
Full Idea:
Those thinkers are in error who postulate ...a single matter, for this cannot exist without some 'perceptible contrariety': this Boundless, which they identify with the 'original real', must be either light or heavy, either hot or cold.
|
|
From:
comment on Anaximander (fragments/reports [c.570 BCE]) by Aristotle - Coming-to-be and Passing-away (Gen/Corr) 329a10
|
|
A reaction:
A dubious objection, I would say. If there has to be a contrasting cold thing to any hot thing, what happens when the cold thing is removed?
|