91 ideas
20771 | Six parts: dialectic, rhetoric, ethics, politics, physics, theology [Cleanthes, by Diog. Laertius] |
Full Idea: Cleanthes says there are six parts: dialectic, rhetoric, ethics, politics, physics, and theology. | |
From: report of Cleanthes (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 07.41 | |
A reaction: This was a minority view, as most stoics agreed with Zeno and Chrysippus that there are three main topics. Nowadays there is little discussion of the 'parts' of philosophy, but the recent revival of meta-philosophy should encourage it. |
14912 | There is no test for metaphysics, except devising alternative theories [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The metaphysician has no test for the truth of her beliefs except that other metaphysicians can't think of obviously superior alternative beliefs. (They can always think of possibly superior ones, in profusion). | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.7) | |
A reaction: [they cite Van Fraassen for this view] At least this seems to concede that some metaphysical views can be rejected by the observation of beliefs that are superior. Almost everyone has rejected Lewis on possible worlds for this reason. |
14904 | Metaphysics builds consilience networks across science [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Metaphysics is the enterprise of critically elucidating consilience networks across the sciences. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3) | |
A reaction: I don't disagree with this. The issue, I think, is how abstract you are prepared to go. At high levels of abstraction, it is very hard to keep in touch with the empirical research. There are truths, though, at that high level. It is clearest in logic. |
14907 | Progress in metaphysics must be tied to progress in science [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: To the extent that metaphysics is closely motivated by science, we should expect to make progress in metaphysics iff we can expect to make progress in science. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3) | |
A reaction: To defer to and respect science does not necessitate that metaphysics cannot do independent work. I take there to be truths at a high-level of abstraction that are independent of the physical sciences, just as there are truths of chess or economics. |
14908 | Metaphysics must involve at least two scientific hypotheses, one fundamental, and add to explanation [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Principle of Naturalist Closure: A serious metaphysical claim must involve at least two scientific hypotheses, at least one from fundamental physics, and explain more than what the two hypotheses explain separately. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3) | |
A reaction: [compressed, from their longer qualified version] The idea that metaphysics should add to explanation is close to my heart. I am musing over whether essences add to explanation, which would be total anathema to Ladyman and Ross. |
14910 | Some science is so general that it is metaphysical [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Some scientific propositions are sufficiently general as themselves to be metaphysical. Our notion of metaphysics is thus recursive, and requires no attempt to identify a boundary between metaphysical and scientific propositions. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.5 n45) | |
A reaction: Note that this still leaves room for some metaphysics which is not science, though see Idea 14904 for their views on that. |
14940 | Cutting-edge physics has little to offer metaphysics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: There is little positive by way of implications for metaphysics that we can adduce from cutting-edge physics. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.2) | |
A reaction: My personal suspicion is that this will always be the case, even though there may be huge advances in physics, and I offer that as a reason why metaphysicians do not (pace Ladyman and Ross) need to study physics. They grasp 'negative' lessons. |
14945 | The aim of metaphysics is to unite the special sciences with physics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The demand to unify the special sciences with physics is, according to us, the motivation for having any metaphysics at all. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.1) | |
A reaction: The crunch question is whether metaphysicians are allowed to develop their own concepts for this task, or whether they can only make links between the concepts employed by the scientists. I vote for the former. |
14898 | Modern metaphysics pursues aesthetic criteria like story-writing, and abandons scientific truth [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The criteria of adequacy for metaphysics have come apart from anything to do with truth. Rather they are internal and peculiar to philosophy, they are semi-aesthetic, and they have more in common with the virtues of story-writing than with science. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.1) | |
A reaction: Part of a sustained polemic against contemporary analytic metaphysics. I love metaphysics, but they may be right. Writers like Sider, Fine, Lowe, Lewis, Stalnaker, Kripke, Armstrong, Dummett seem to tell independent stories, that really are works of art. |
14899 | Why think that conceptual analysis reveals reality, rather than just how people think? [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Why should we think that the products of conceptual analysis reveal anything about the deep structure of reality, rather than telling us about how some class of people think about and categorize reality? | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.2) | |
A reaction: One line, associated with Jackson, is that analysis tells you not about reality, but about what to make of your experiences of reality when you have them. It would be a foolish scientist who paid no attention to his or her conceptual scheme. |
14936 | A metaphysics based on quantum gravity could result in almost anything [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: We cannot say what the metaphysical implications of quantum gravity are, but they range from eleven dimensions to two, from continuous fundamental structure to a discrete one, and from universal symmetries to no symmetries. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.2) | |
A reaction: I offer this observation as a good reason for doubting whether the project of building our metaphysics directly onto our fundamental physics has much prospect of success. Quantum gravity is the unified theory they are all hoping for. |
14897 | We should abandon intuitions, especially that the world is made of little things, and made of something [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Abandoning intuitions is usually regarded as a cost rather than a benefit. By contrast, as naturalists we are not concerned with preserving intuitions at all (especially that the world is composed of little things, and that it must be made of something). | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.1) |
14905 | The supremacy of science rests on its iterated error filters [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The epistemic supremacy of science rests on repeated iteration of institutional error filters. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3) | |
A reaction: You could add repeated iteration of institutional error filters to journals about astrology, but it wouldn't thereby acquire epistemic supremacy. It is the tangible nature of the evidence which bestows the authority. |
14943 | Maybe mathematical logic rests on information-processing [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is claimed that mathematical logic can be understood in terms of information-processing. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.5) | |
A reaction: [They cite Chaitin 1987] I don't understand how this would work, but it is still worth quoting. This would presumably make logic rest on processes rather than on entities. I quite like that. |
14948 | To be is to be a real pattern [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: To be is to be a real pattern. ....Real patterns carry information about other real patterns. ...It's patterns all the way down. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.4) | |
A reaction: I've plucked these bleeding from context, but they are obviously intended as slogans. Is there pattern 'inside' an electron? Are electrons all exterior? |
14942 | Only admit into ontology what is explanatory and predictive [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: We reject any grounds other than explanatory and predictive utility for admitting something into our ontology. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.3) | |
A reaction: Now you are talking. This is something like my thesis (which I take to be Aristotelian) - that without the drive for explanation we wouldn't even think of metaphysics, and so metaphysics should be understood in that light. |
14947 | Any process can be described as transfer of measurable information [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Reference to transfer of some (in principle) quantitatively measurable information is a highly general way of describing any process. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.3) | |
A reaction: That does not, of course, mean that that is what a process is. A waterfall is an archetypal process, but it is a bit more than a bunch of information. Actually its complexity may place its information beyond measurement. |
14941 | We say there is no fundamental level to ontology, and reality is just patterns [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The tentative metaphysical hypothesis of this book, which is open to empirical falsification, is that there is no fundamental level, that the real patterns criterion of reality is the last word in ontology. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.3) | |
A reaction: I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the empirical falsification to arrive (or vanish). Their commitment to real patterns (or structures) leaves me a bit baffled. |
10493 | If concrete is spatio-temporal and causal, and abstract isn't, the distinction doesn't suit physics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is said that concrete objects have causal powers while abstract ones do not, or that concrete objects exist in space and time while abstract ones do not, but these categories seem crude and inappropriate for modern physics. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.6) | |
A reaction: I don't find this convincing. He gives example of peculiar causation, but I don't believe modern physics proposes any entities which are totally acausal and non-spatiotemporal. Maybe the distinction needs a defence. |
14934 | Concrete and abstract are too crude for modern physics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The categories of concrete and abstract seem crude and inappropriate for modern physics. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.6) | |
A reaction: They don't persuade me of this idea. At some point physicists need to decide the ontological status of the basic stuffs they are investigating. I'll give them a thousand years, and then I want an answer. Do they only deal in 'ideal' entities? |
14909 | Physicalism is 'part-whole' (all parts are physical), or 'supervenience/levels' (dependence on physical) [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: There is part-whole physicalism, that everything is exhausted by basic constituents that are themselves physical, or supervenience or levels physicalism, that the putatively non-physical is dependent on the physical. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3) | |
A reaction: The cite Hüttemann and Papineau 2005. I am not convinced by this distinction. Ladyman and Ross oppose the first one. I'm thinking the second one either collapses into the first one, or it isn't physicalism. Higher levels are abstractions. |
14926 | Relations without relata must be treated as universals, with their own formal properties [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The best sense that can be made of a relation without relata is the idea of a universal. Thus the relation 'larger than' has formal properties that are independent of the contingencies of their instantiation. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.4) | |
A reaction: Russell was keen on the idea that relations are universals, and presumably for this reason. I struggle to grasp uninstantiated but nevertheless real 'greater than' relations. They are abstractions from things, not separate universals. |
14929 | A belief in relations must be a belief in things that are related [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Many philosophers say that one cannot intelligibly subscribe to the reality of relations unless one is also committed to the fact of some things that are related. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.5) | |
A reaction: Ladyman and Ross try to argue against this view, but the idea makes a strong impression on me. Your ontology seems to be rather strange if you have a set of structural relations that await things to slot into the structure. |
14925 | The normal assumption is that relations depend on properties of the relata [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The idea that there could be relations which do not supervene on the properties of their relata runs counter to a deeply entrenched way of thinking. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.4) | |
A reaction: Ladyman and Ross are trying to defend the idea of 'structure' which is independent of the objects that occupy the nodes of the structure. Tricky. |
14931 | That there are existent structures not made of entities is no stranger than the theory of universals [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Is the main metaphysical idea we propose (of existent structures that are not composed out of more basic entities) any more obscure or bizarre than the instantiation relation in the theory of universals? | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.5) | |
A reaction: No, it is not more bizarre than that, but that isn't much of a reason to believe their theory. See Idea 8699, and many ideas about structure in mathematics. Ladyman and Ross still smack of platonism, even if they are rooted in particle physics. |
14932 | Causal essentialism says properties are nothing but causal relations [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Causal essentialism is the doctrine that the causal relations that properties bear to other properties exhaust their natures. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.5 n50) | |
A reaction: [They cite Shoemaker, Mumford and Bird for this] Personally I don't see this view as offering relations as fundamental. The whole point is to explain everything. The only plausible primitive notion is of a power - which then generates the relations. |
14920 | If science captures the modal structure of things, that explains why its predictions work [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: If theorists are able sometimes to capture the objective modal structure of the world then it is no surprise that successful novel prediction sometimes works. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.4) | |
A reaction: This is a rather important idea, particularly for my approach. I say we should demand more explanations, and explanations of successful prediction are far from obvious in a regularity account of nature. |
14952 | Things are constructs for tracking patterns (and not linguistic, because animals do it) [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Individual things are constructs built for second-best tracking of real patterns. They are not necessarily linguistic constructions, since some non-human animals almost certainly cognitively construct them. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.5) | |
A reaction: Delighted to see animals making an appearance. Fans of language-based metaphysics please note. If they are fictional constructs, why do they do such a good job of tracking? What generates the 'superficial' appearance that there are objects? |
14950 | Maybe individuation can be explained by thermodynamic depth [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Scientists have developed principles for understanding individuation in terms of the production of thermodynamic depth. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.5) | |
A reaction: [They cite J.Collier for this view] Interesting, even though I don't really understand 'thermodynamic depth'. Ladyman and Ross reject it, but there is a whiff of a theory of individuation from within physics. |
14927 | Physics seems to imply that we must give up self-subsistent individuals [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: There is growing convergence among philosophers of physics that physics motivates abandonment of a metaphysics that posits fundamental self-subsistent individuals. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.4) | |
A reaction: They cite fermions as an example, which only seem to be given an identity by the relations into which they enter. It is a bit cheeky to simultaneously offer this idea, and despise van Inwagen and Merricks for the same object nihilism. |
14944 | There is no single view of individuals, because different sciences operate on different scales [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: There is no single account of what individuals there are because, we argue, the special sciences may disagree about the bounds and status of individuals since they describe the world at different scales. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.8) | |
A reaction: This seems to deny that nature has actual joints, and so seems to me to be a form of anti-realism (which they would deny). Why shouldn't there be a single view which unites all of these special sciences? |
14946 | There are no cats in quantum theory, and no mountains in astrophysics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: At the quantum scale there are no cats; at scales appropriate for astrophysics there are no mountains. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.2) | |
A reaction: I don't find this convincing. Since cats are made of quantised entities, they do exist in that world, but are of little interest when trying to understand it. Similarly, astrophysicists hardly deny the existence of mountains! |
14928 | Things are abstractions from structures [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Individual things are locally focused abstractions from modal structure. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.4) | |
A reaction: I am a fan of the role of abstraction in our understanding of the world, despite my limited progress in trying to explicate the idea. I can't decide whether or not there are any things. A bit basic, that! |
14892 | The idea of composition, that parts of the world are 'made of' something, is no longer helpful [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is no longer helpful to conceive of either the world, or particular systems of the world that we study in partial isolation, as 'made of' anything at all. …Our target here is the metaphysical idea of composition. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.1) | |
A reaction: This is argued by them from the point of view of fundamental physics as the provider of our basic metaphysics about the world. Personally I really really want to know what electrons are made of, but I know no one is going to tell me. They may even laugh. |
14949 | A sum of things is not a whole if the whole does not support some new generalisation [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: A nostril, a city and a trumpet solo is not a real pattern, because identification of it supports no generalisations not supported by identification of the three conjuncts considered separately. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.4) | |
A reaction: This is a nice try at offering a criterion for unity, but I doubt whether it will work, because an ingenious person could come up with wild generalisations. These three combined make possible a charming new line of poetry. |
14951 | We treat the core of a pattern as an essence, in order to keep track of it [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: We focus on diagnostic features of real patterns that we can treat as 'core', which reliably predict that our attention is still tracking the same real pattern. These are Locke's 'essence of particulars', or Putnam's 'hidden structures'. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.5) | |
A reaction: They seemed to be ashamed of themselves for proposing this, and call it a 'second-best' epistemological device. They seem to imply that they are useful fictions, but why shouldn't the hidden structures be real? They might both identify and explain. |
14958 | A continuous object might be a type, with instances at each time [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Why should not 'Napoleon' be a type, of which 'Napoleon in 1805' and 'Napoleon in 1813' are instances? | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 5.6) | |
A reaction: That is very nice. That might be a view that suits presentism, where the timed instances never co-exist, and so have the sort of abstract existence that we associate with types. |
14903 | Quantum mechanics seems to imply single-case probabilities [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Quantum mechanics seems to imply single-case probabilities. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.3) | |
A reaction: I know they keep telling us about such things, but I remain cautious. I think all the physicists have done is delved a bit deeper into something they don't understand. |
14923 | In quantum statistics, two separate classical states of affairs are treated as one [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: In quantum statistics, what would be regarded as two possible states of affairs classically is treated as one possible state of affairs. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.1) |
14955 | Rats find some obvious associations easier to learn than less obvious ones [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Contrary to early behaviourist dogma, associations are not all equally learnable. Rats learn to associate eating with nausea, and a flash with a shock, much more easily than either complementary pairing. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 5.2) | |
A reaction: That looks like an argue for some sort of innate knowledge, but experiments to disentangle eating from nausea must be rather hard to set up. |
14918 | The doctrine of empiricism does not itself seem to be empirically justified [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: If to be an empiricist is to believe that 'experience is the sole source of information about the world', the problem is that this does not itself seem to be justifiable by experience. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.3.1) | |
A reaction: [The quotation is from Van Fraassen 1985 p.253] This is the classic 'turning the tables' move in argument, invented by the Greeks. It is hard to offer anything other than intuition in the first move of any metaphysical theory. |
14891 | There is no reason to think our intuitions are good for science or metaphysics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: There is no reason to imagine that our habitual intuitions and inferential responses are well designed for science or for metaphysics. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.1) |
14915 | The theory of evolution was accepted because it explained, not because of its predictions [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Darwin's theory of evolution was accepted by the scientific community because of its systematizing and explanatory power, and in spite of its lack of novel predictive success. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.1.3) | |
A reaction: I am keen on the centrality of explanation to all of our thinking, metaphysical as well as physical, so I like this one. In general I like accounts of science that pay more attention to biology, and less to physics. |
14916 | What matters is whether a theory can predict - not whether it actually does so [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: We suggest a modal account of novel prediction. That a theory could predict some unknown phenomenon is what matters, not whether it actually did so predict. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.1.3) | |
A reaction: They also emphasise predicting new types of thing, rather than particular items. Some theories are powerful on explanation, but not so concerned with prediction. See Idea 14915. |
14922 | The Ramsey sentence describes theoretical entities; it skips reference, but doesn't eliminate it [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is a mistake to think that the Ramsey sentence allows us to eliminate theoretical entities, for it still states that they exist. It is just that they are referred to not directly, by means of theoretical terms, but by description. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.4.1) |
14921 | The Ramsey-sentence approach preserves observations, but eliminates unobservables [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: If one replaces the assertions of a first-order theory with its Ramsey sentence (giving a quantified predicate variable for a theoretical term), the observational consequences are carried over, but direct reference to unobservables is eliminated. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.4.1) | |
A reaction: Thus this rewriting of theories is popular with empiricists, and this draws attention to the way you can change the ontological commitments simply by paraphrase. ...However, see Idea 14922. |
14953 | Induction is reasoning from the observed to the unobserved [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Induction is any form of reasoning that proceeds from claims about observed phenomena to claims about unobserved phenomena. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.5) | |
A reaction: Most accounts of induction seem to imply that they lead to generalisations, rather than just some single unobserved thing. This definition is in line with David Lewis's. |
14914 | Inductive defences of induction may be rule-circular, but not viciously premise-circular [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The inductive defence of induction may be circular but not viciously so, because it is rule circular (defending the rule being used) but not premise circular (where the conclusion is in one of the premises). | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: [They cite Braithwaite 1953 and Carnap 1952 for this] This strikes me as clutching at straws, when the whole procedure of induction is inescapably precarious. It is simply all we have available. |
14913 | We explain by deriving the properties of a phenomenon by embedding it in a large abstract theory [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Theoretical explanation is the derivation of the properties of a relatively concrete and observable phenomenon by means of an embedding into some larger, relatively abstract and unobservable theoretical structure. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.1.1) | |
A reaction: [they are citing Michael Friedman 1981 p.1] This sounds like covering law explanation, but the theoretical structure will be a set of intersecting laws, rather than a single law. How do you explain the theoretical structure? |
14930 | Maybe the only way we can think about a domain is by dividing it up into objects [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Speculating cautiously about psychology, it is possible that dividing a domain up into objects is the only way we can think about it. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.5) | |
A reaction: Typical physicists - they speculate about psychology instead of studying it. Have they no respect for science? Neverthless my speculative psychology agrees with theirs. This fact may well be the key to all of metaphysics. |
14939 | Two versions of quantum theory say that the world is deterministic [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: In the Bohm version of quantum theory, and the Everett approach, the world comes out deterministic after all. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.2) | |
A reaction: This is just in case anyone wants to trumpet the idea that quantum theory has established indeterminism. It is particularly daft to think that quantum indeterminacy makes free will possible (or even actual). |
6028 | Bodies interact with other bodies, and cuts cause pain, and shame causes blushing, so the soul is a body [Cleanthes, by Nemesius] |
Full Idea: Cleanthes says no incorporeal interacts with a body, but one body interacts with another body; the soul interacts with the body when it is sick and being cut, and the body feels shame and fear, and turns red or pale, so the soul is a body. | |
From: report of Cleanthes (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by Nemesius - De Natura Hominis 78,7 | |
A reaction: This is precisely the interaction problem with dualism, or, as we might now say, the problem of mental causation. The standard Stoic view is that the soul is a sort of rarefied fire, which disperses at death. |
14911 | Science is opposed to downward causation [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: When someone pronounces for downward causation they are in opposition to science. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.6 n54) | |
A reaction: Downward causation is the key issue in any debate about whether minds exhibit excitingly 'emergent' properties that somehow put them outside the realm of normal physics. I take that to be nonsense, and I side with science here. |
20831 | The soul suffers when the body hurts, creates redness from shame, and pallor from fear [Cleanthes] |
Full Idea: Nothing incorporeal shares an experience with a body …but the soul suffers with the body when it is ill and when it is cut, and the body suffers with the soul - when the soul is ashamed the body turns red, and pale when the soul is frightened. | |
From: Cleanthes (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]), quoted by Nemesius - De Natura Hominis 2 | |
A reaction: Aha - my favourite example of the corporeal nature of the mind - blushing! It is the conscious content of the thought which brings blood to the cheeks. |
22849 | Rawls's theory cannot justify liberalism, since it presupposes free and equal participants [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Rawls's theory presupposes that the contractors are conceived, and conceive themselves, to be free and equal persons. Consequently, the theory cannot be presented as a justificatory theory of liberalism. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 14) | |
A reaction: Nice. If you imagine diverse groups with many strong beliefs coming together to form a society, Rawls is asking them all to become liberals before they all decide how to live together. |
22848 | People with strong prior beliefs would have nothing to do with a veil of ignorance [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Why would a group of people with strong beliefs (e.g. religious beliefs) agree to debate the problem of what norms should govern their association from behind a veil of ignorance? …They would not accept the veil of ignorance as fair. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 14) | |
A reaction: Nice. Rawls's experiment assumes liberal people with very few beliefs. No racial supremacist is going to enter a society in which they may be of a different race. Charvet says the entrants would all need to be pluralists about the good. |
22838 | Societies need shared values, so conservatism is right if rational discussion of values is impossible [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Were it true that rational discussion of values is impossible, then a conservative attitude would seem to be the only viable position. Some set of common values is necessary to maintain the unity of a political society. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 07) | |
A reaction: Better to say that the less values can be both discussed and changed the stronger is the case for a degree of conservatism. Conservatives tend to favour values asserted by authority, rather than by popular (undiscussed) consensus. |
22846 | The universalism of utilitarianism implies a world state [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Utilitarianism is a universalist ethic, so the political realisation of this ethic would seem to be a world state seeking to maximise happiness for the world's population. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 12) | |
A reaction: It certainly doesn't seem to favour the citizens of the state where it is implemented, since miserable people just across the border would have priority, and all miserable migrants must be welcomed. There is no loyalty to citizens. |
22835 | Liberals value freedom and equality, but the society itself must decide on its values [Charvet] |
Full Idea: While freedom and equality are liberal values …they are fundamental regulative ideas of an independent society that is self-regulating …and decides what its own social and political arrangements should be. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 06) | |
A reaction: So the central political activity is persuasion, not enforcement. Illiberal societies all contain liberal individuals. |
22831 | Modern libertarian societies still provide education and some housing [Charvet] |
Full Idea: No society today is libertarian in the extreme sense. Even the freest economically, such as Singapore have their governments provide education services and public housing. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 05) | |
A reaction: There is a good argument that many other services should be provided by a libertarian state, on the grounds that it is more efficient, and the services must otherwise paid for by much higher salaries. |
22839 | Liberalism needs people to either have equal autonomy, or everyone to have enough autonomy [Charvet] |
Full Idea: To get a liberal society one would have to claim that either everyone possesses autonomy to an equal degree or that everyone possesses a threshold level of the capacity that entitles them to enjoy the full liberal rights. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 07) | |
A reaction: This leaves out the more right-wing attitude that people can increase their capacity for autonomy if they are forced to stand on their own feet. A liberal society must decide how to treat persons incapable of proper autonomy. |
22847 | Kant places a higher value on the universal rational will than on the people asserting it [Charvet] |
Full Idea: For Kant what is of absolute worth is the universal rational will which become an individual's actual will. Insofar as the individual fails to will the universal, they have no absolute worth, so whether or not they exist is unimportant. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 14) | |
A reaction: A lovely demolition of the claims of Kant to be the patriarch of liberalism! Liberalism must place supreme value on each individual, not on some abstracted realm of pure reason and moral good. Liberals are motivated by love, not reason. |
22821 | Liberalism asserts maximum freedom, but that must be equal for all participants [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Liberalism attaches fundamental value to leaving individuals as free as possible … - but there is another fundamental value implicit in this idea - the equal status of the participants in the practice. By this I mean that they all have the same rights. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], Intro) | |
A reaction: Libertarian liberalism (e.g. Nozick) only asserts the fundament principle of freedom, but such a society swiftly deprives most of its members of those very freedoms. Egalitarian Liberalism should be our default political ideology. |
22834 | Egalitarian liberals prefer equality (either of input or outcome) to liberty [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Rather than libertarianism, egalitarian liberals promote equality, either of outcomes (of happiness or of well-being), or of inputs (such as opportunities, capacities or resources), which they favour ahead of freedom. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 06) | |
A reaction: This is my team, I think. I think I'm a liberal who thinks liberty is a bit overrated. Equal outcome according to capacity (promoted by Nussbaum) seems attractive. |
22822 | Liberals promote community and well-being - because all good societies need them [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Community and well-being are not specifically liberal values. They are values any independent political society must pursue whether it is a liberal society or not. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], Intro) | |
A reaction: This seems, at a stroke, to undermine the familiar debate between liberals and communitarians. I've switched to the former from the latter, because communitarians is potentially too paternalistic and conservative. Persuade individuals to be communal! |
22841 | Identity multiculturalism emerges from communitarianism, preferring community to humanity [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Identity-based multiculturalism developed from communitarianism. …People come to consciousness of themselves as members of some community before they identify themselves as members of the human race. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 08) | |
A reaction: This is 'identity politics', which Carvet sees as a problem from liberalism. Is it more important to be a woman or a Muslim or a Scot than to be a human being? It seems to create institutional antagonisms. |
22842 | For communitarians it seems that you must accept the culture you are born into [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Communitarians have difficulty avoiding the relativist trap. It seems they must claim that if one is born into a liberal society one cannot but be a liberal, and if one is born into a communist society one cannot but be a communist. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 08) | |
A reaction: Anyone who accepts the Hegelian view of history and culture seems doomed to such relativism, and Hegel is a communitarian precursor. This is a good reason for me to reject communitarianism, after a long flirtation. We can criticise our own culture. |
22830 | Give by ability and receive by need, rather than a free labour market [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Only the most extreme collective socialism denies the freedom to sell one's labour power and buy that of others, under the communist slogan 'from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs'. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 05) | |
A reaction: [He cites Marx 'Critique of the Gotha Programme'] I would guess that this practice is not abnormal in old traditional villages, though a community would be tempted to reward highly a very successful member. |
22829 | Allowing defamatory speech is against society's interests, by blurring which people are trustworthy [Charvet] |
Full Idea: The argument for restricting defamatory speech is that unrestricted speech makes it impossible, or too difficult, to distinguish between those who deserve a trustworthy reputation and those who don't - a distinction in society's best interests. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 03) | |
A reaction: A nice example of appeal to the common good, in opposition to the normal freedoms of liberalism. An example of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Should assertion of the common good of a group be a prime value of liberalism? |
22836 | 'Freedom from' is an empty idea, if the freedom is not from impediments to my desires [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Berlin's distinction of 'freedom from' and 'freedom to' is worthless …because to say that I want to be free from something for absolutely no reason makes no sense. Unfreedom is being blocked from what I want to do, which ceases if I no longer want it. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 07) | |
A reaction: [compressed] The government could guarantee us against attacks by albatrosses, but we would hardly have a national holiday to celebrate the freedom. Still, there is freedom from incoming troubles, and freedom to output things. |
22837 | Positive freedom can lead to coercion, if you are forced to do what you chose to do [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Berlin saw positive freedom as a justification for illiberal coercion. If I am positively free only in doing X, then if I am forced to do X, I will still be free. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 07) | |
A reaction: I suppose Berlin is thinking of Russian farmers, who wanted to farm, but then found they were forced to do what they were going to do anyway. It's better than being forced to do what you didn't want to do. Forcing clearly isn't freedom. |
22844 | First level autonomy is application of personal values; second level is criticising them [Charvet] |
Full Idea: First level autonomy is being able to apply one's scheme of values to one's actions and life; second level autonomy is being able to subject those values to critical evaluation. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 10) | |
A reaction: Charvet sees this as a key issue for liberalism. How do you treat citizens who cannot advance beyond the first level? He mentions the elitism of Plato's Republic that results. |
22840 | Mere equality, as in two trees being the same height, has no value at all [Charvet] |
Full Idea: That the relation of equality might be considered a value in itself is an absurdity. Would the equality of blinding the only sighted person in a blind society be good? Is it inherently good that two trees are the same height? This is nonsense. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 08) | |
A reaction: He cites Temkin 1993 as defending the blinding example! Obviously equality is only possible in certain respects (though electrons might be equal in all respects). So the point is to identify the important respects. The rest is rhetoric. |
22843 | Inequalities are worse if they seem to be your fault, rather than social facts [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Inequality is worse in a meritocracy than in a stratified society, because everyone enjoys a formal equality of status and your position in the social order is due to your merit or lack of merit, so you have only yourself to blame for being at the bottom. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 10) | |
A reaction: This is the simple point that it is worse to lack some good if you might have possessed it, rather than it being entirely out of reach. It also makes the false assumption that people are largely responsible for their merit or lack of it (ignoring luck). |
22845 | Money allows unlimited inequalities, and we obviously all agree to money [Charvet] |
Full Idea: The introduction of money allows people to accumulate wealth without limit. Since money only works through everyone's agreement …everyone can be taken to have agreed to the consequences of money in the unequal distribution of wealth. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 11) | |
A reaction: [Locke] Presumably large inequalities of possessions and territory were possible before money, but there was at least an upper limit. The current owner of Amazon may end up with more wealth than the whole of the rest of humanity combined. |
22823 | The rule of law is mainly to restrict governments [Charvet] |
Full Idea: The rule of law is directed at the restriction of the power of governments as much, if not more, then the power of private individuals. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 02) | |
A reaction: The more powerful you are the more restricting is the rule of law. Every government is tempted to change the law to expand its powers. The UK government has just legislated to restrict public demonstrations. Law is the people's weapon against autocrats. |
22825 | The 1689 Bill of Rights denied the monarch new courts, or the right to sit as judge [Charvet] |
Full Idea: The 1689 Bill of Rights said the monarch could not create new courts of law, or act as a judge at law. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 02) | |
A reaction: The background was the abolition of the court of Star Chamber in 1641, which had been secret, severe, and controlled by the monarch. Is it possible to create a new type of court, or are we stuck with the current ones? |
22826 | From 1701 only parliament could remove judges, whose decisions could not be discussed [Charvet] |
Full Idea: In 1701 UK judges were given secure tenure, being removable only by parliament which at the same time undertook to follow a convention not to discuss particular judicial decisions. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 02) | |
A reaction: In recent years the UK Daily Mail published the pictures of three judges, and labelled them 'traitors' because of their verdict about leaving the European Union. |
22827 | Justice superior to the rule of law is claimed on behalf of the workers, or the will of the nation [Charvet] |
Full Idea: Communist leaders justify themselves as the embodiment of the people's will as workers, and fascist leaders as expressing the will of the nation. Both believe their policies contain a superior justice on this basis. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 02) | |
A reaction: [compressed] A neat summary of why the rule of law might be rejected (other than by simple tyrrany justified only by force). In modern democracies recent right-wing governments have pushed back the law and attacked justice on this basis. |
22828 | The rule of law mainly benefits those with property and liberties [Charvet] |
Full Idea: A rule of law regime will primarily benefit those possessing property and liberty rights. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 02) | |
A reaction: Important. It's no good fighting for the law if the law doesn't protect what you have got, or if you have got nothing to protect. Important steps must precede assertion of the rule of law. |
22832 | Welfare is needed if citizens are to accept the obligations of a liberal state [Charvet] |
Full Idea: The welfare state provides the background conditions under which it is reasonable to expect one's fellow citizens to commit to liberal principles of interaction, even if those conditions can only be achieved through a degree of compulsion. | |
From: John Charvet (Liberalism: the basics [2019], 05) | |
A reaction: You cannot expect people to accept the role of 'free' citizen if that is likely to result in swift misery. A liberal state will only command loyalty if it has a safety net. Fully committed liberalism implies modest socialism. |
14956 | Explanation by kinds and by clusters of properties just express the stability of reality [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Philosophers sometimes invoke natural kinds as if they explain the possibility of explanation. This is characteristically neo-scholastic. That anything can be explained, and that properties cluster together, express one fact: reality is relatively stable. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 5.6) | |
A reaction: Odd idea. I would have thought that if there are indeed kinds and clusters, this would explain a great deal more than mere stability. Or, more accurately, they would invite a more substantial explanation than mere stability would seem to need. |
14957 | There is nothing more to a natural kind than a real pattern in nature [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Everything that a naturalist could legitimately want from the concept of a natural kind can be had simply by reference to real patterns. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 5.6) | |
A reaction: I think I agree with this, and with the general idea that natural kinds are overrated. There are varying degrees of stability in nature, and where there is a lot of stability our inductive reasoning can get to work. And that's it. |
14954 | Causation is found in the special sciences, but may have no role in fundamental physics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The idea of causation, as it is used in science, finds its exemplars in the special sciences, and it is presently open empirical question whether that notion will have any ultimate role to play in fundamental physics. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.5) | |
A reaction: Note that they seem to always have a notion of 'ultimate' physics hovering over their account. I wonder. There is nothing in this idea to make me think that I should eliminate the idea of causation from my metaphysics. |
14902 | Science may have uninstantiated laws, inferred from approaching some unrealised limit [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is possible that uninstantiated laws can be established in science, and consequently bear explanatory weight, ..if we need reasons for thinking that the closer conditions get to some limit, the more they approximate to some ideal. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.3) | |
A reaction: [The cite Hüttemann 2004] I am dubious about laws, but I take this to be a point in favour of inference to the best explanation, and against accounts of laws as supervenient of how things actually are. |
14937 | That the universe must be 'made of' something is just obsolete physics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is a metaphysical residue of obsolete physics to suppose that the universe is 'made of' anything. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.2) | |
A reaction: They quote Smolin as saying that it is 'processes' which are fundamental. And yet surely there must be something there to undergo a process? Surely we don't have eternal platonic processes? |
14900 | In physics, matter is an emergent phenomenon, not part of fundamental ontology [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Physics has taught us that matter in the sense of extended stuff is an emergent phenomenon that has no counterpart in fundamental ontology. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.3) | |
A reaction: They contrast this point with futile debates among philosopher between atomists (partless particles) and gunkists (parts all the way down). |
14924 | If spacetime is substantial, what is the substance? [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is fair to ask: if spacetime is a substance, what is the substance in question? | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.2) | |
A reaction: Personally I love the question 'If it exists, what is it made of?', though physicists seem to think that this reveals a gormless misunderstanding. To my question Keith Hossack retorted 'What are the atoms made of?' |
14901 | Spacetime may well be emergent, rather than basic [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Contemporary physics takes very seriously the idea that spacetime itself is emergent from some more fundamental structure. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.3) |
14938 | A fixed foliation theory of quantum gravity could make presentism possible [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It has been pointed out that presentism is an open question in so far as a fixed foliation theory of quantum gravity has not been ruled out. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.2 n75) | |
A reaction: [They cite B.Monton for this point] I don't understand this idea, but I'll have it anyway. Google 'fixed foliation' for me, as I'm too busy. |
5993 | The ascending scale of living creatures requires a perfect being [Cleanthes, by Tieleman] |
Full Idea: Cleanthes tried to prove the existence of God, arguing that the ascending scale of living creatures requires there to be a perfect being. | |
From: report of Cleanthes (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by Teun L. Tieleman - Cleanthes | |
A reaction: Not a very good argument. Even if you accept its basic claim, it is not clear what has to exist. A perfect tree? If the being transcends the physical (in order to achieve perfection), does it cease to be a 'being'? |