|
17263
|
Why do rationalists accept Sufficient Reason, when it denies the existence of fundamental facts? [Correia/Schnieder]
|
|
Full Idea:
What is most puzzling about the rationalist tradition is the steadfast certainty with which the Principle of Sufficient Reason was often accepted, since it in effect denies that there are fundamental facts.
|
|
From:
Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
A very simple and interesting observation. The principle implies either a circle of reasons, or an infinite regress of reasons. Nothing can be labelled as 'primitive' or 'foundational' or 'given'. The principle is irrational!
|
|
5737
|
Predicate logic has connectives, quantifiers, variables, predicates, equality, names and brackets [Melia]
|
|
Full Idea:
First-order predicate language has four connectives, two quantifiers, variables, predicates, equality, names, and brackets.
|
|
From:
Joseph Melia (Modality [2003], Ch.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Look up the reference for the details! The spirit of logic is seen in this basic framework, and the main interest is in the ontological commitment of the items on the list. The list is either known a priori, or it is merely conventional.
|
|
17270
|
Is existential dependence by grounding, or do grounding claims arise from existential dependence? [Correia/Schnieder]
|
|
Full Idea:
We may take existential dependence to be a relation induced by certain cases of grounding, but one may also think that facts about existential dependence are prior to corresponding ground claims, and in fact ground those claims.
|
|
From:
Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 4.3)
|
|
A reaction:
I would vote for grounding, since dependence seems more abstract, and seems to demand explanation, whereas grounding seems more like a feature of reality, and to resist further intrinsic explanation (on the whole).
|
|
17267
|
The identity of two facts may depend on how 'fine-grained' we think facts are [Correia/Schnieder]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a disagreement on the issue of factual identity, concerning the 'granularity' of facts, the question of how fine-grained they are.
|
|
From:
Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 3.3)
|
|
A reaction:
If they are very fine-grained, then no two descriptions of a supposed fact will capture the same details. If we go broadbrush, facts become fuzzy and less helpful. 'Fact' was never going to be a clear term.
|
|
5746
|
The Identity of Indiscernibles is contentious for qualities, and trivial for non-qualities [Melia]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the Identity of Indiscernibles is referring to qualitative properties, such as 'being red' or 'having mass', it is contentious; if it is referring to non-qualitative properties, such as 'member of set s' or 'brother of a', it is true but trivial.
|
|
From:
Joseph Melia (Modality [2003], Ch.3 n 11)
|
|
A reaction:
I would say 'false' rather than 'contentious'. No one has ever offered a way of distinguishing two electrons, but that doesn't mean there is just one (very busy) electron. The problem is that 'indiscernible' is only an epistemological concept.
|
|
5732
|
'De re' modality is about things themselves, 'de dicto' modality is about propositions [Melia]
|
|
Full Idea:
In cases of 'de re' modality, it is a particular thing that has the property essentially or accidentally; where the modality attaches to the proposition, it is 'de dicto' - it is the whole truth that all bachelors are unmarried that is necessary.
|
|
From:
Joseph Melia (Modality [2003], Ch.1)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to me one of the most important distinctions in metaphysics (as practised by analytical philosophers, who like distinctions). The first type leads off into the ontology, the second type veers towards epistemology.
|
|
5734
|
Possible worlds make it possible to define necessity and counterfactuals without new primitives [Melia]
|
|
Full Idea:
In modal logic the concepts of necessity and counterfactuals are not interdefinable, so the language needs two primitives to represent them, but with the machinery of possible worlds they are defined by what is the case in all worlds, or close worlds.
|
|
From:
Joseph Melia (Modality [2003], Ch.1)
|
|
A reaction:
If your motivation is to reduce ontology to the barest of minimums (which it was for David Lewis) then it is paradoxical that the existence of possible worlds may be the way to achieve it. I doubt, though, whether a commitment to their reality is needed.
|
|
5748
|
We accept unverifiable propositions because of simplicity, utility, explanation and plausibility [Melia]
|
|
Full Idea:
Many philosophers now concede that it is rational to accept a proposition not because we can directly verify it but because it is supported by considerations of simplicity, theoretical utility, explanatory power and/or intuitive plausibility.
|
|
From:
Joseph Melia (Modality [2003], Ch.5)
|
|
A reaction:
This suggests how the weakness of logical positivism may have led us to the concept of epistemic virtues (such as those listed), which are, of course, largely a matter of community consensus, just as the moral virtues are.
|
|
6248
|
Reason is too slow and doubtful to guide all actions, which need external and moral senses [Hutcheson]
|
|
Full Idea:
We boast of our mighty reason above other animals, but its processes are too slow, too full of doubt, to serve us in every exigency, either for our preservation, without external senses, or to influence our actions for good without the moral sense.
|
|
From:
Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 2: Virtue or Moral Good [1725], §VII.III)
|
|
A reaction:
This idea was taken up by Hume, and it must have influence Hume's general scepticism about the importance of reason. What this idea misses is the enormous influence of prior reasoning on our quick decisions.
|
|
6239
|
We dislike a traitor, even if they give us great benefit [Hutcheson]
|
|
Full Idea:
Let us consider if a traitor, who would sell his own country to us, may not often be as advantageous to us, as an hero who defends us: and yet we can love the treason, and hate the traitor.
|
|
From:
Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 2: Virtue or Moral Good [1725], §I.VI)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice example, which certainly refutes any claim that morality is entirely and directly self-interested. High-minded idealism, though, is not the only alternative explanation. We admire loyalty, but not loyalty to, say, Hitler.
|
|
6240
|
The moral sense is not an innate idea, but an ability to approve or disapprove in a disinterested way [Hutcheson]
|
|
Full Idea:
The moral sense is not an innate idea or knowledge, but a determination of our minds to receive the simple ideas of approbation or condemnation, from actions observed, antecedent to any opinions of advantage or loss to redound to ourselves.
|
|
From:
Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 2: Virtue or Moral Good [1725], §I.VIII)
|
|
A reaction:
This may claim a pure moral intuition, but it is also close to Kantian universalising of the rules for behaviour. It is also a variation on Descartes' 'natural light' of reason. Of course, if we say the ideas are 'received', where are they received from?
|
|
6242
|
We cannot choose our moral feelings, otherwise bribery could affect them [Hutcheson]
|
|
Full Idea:
Neither benevolence nor any other affection or desire can be directly raised by volition; if they could, then we could be bribed into any affection whatsoever toward any object.
|
|
From:
Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 2: Virtue or Moral Good [1725], §II.IV)
|
|
A reaction:
Of course, notoriously, the vast mass of people have often been bribed to love a politician, by low taxes, or bread and circuses. Still, you cannot choose to love or admire someone, you just do. Not much free will there.
|
|
6244
|
Human nature seems incapable of universal malice, except what results from self-love [Hutcheson]
|
|
Full Idea:
Human nature seems scarce capable of malicious disinterested hatred, or an ultimate desire of the misery of others, when we imagine them not pernicious to us, or opposite to our interests; ..that is only the effect of self-love, not disinterested malice.
|
|
From:
Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 2: Virtue or Moral Good [1725], §II.VII)
|
|
A reaction:
I suppose it is true that even the worst criminals brooding in prison don't wish the entire population of some foreign country to die in pain. Only a very freakish person would wish the human race were extinct. A very nice observation.
|
|
6243
|
As death approaches, why do we still care about family, friends or country? [Hutcheson]
|
|
Full Idea:
How comes it that we do not lose, at the approach of death, all concern for our families, friends, or country?
|
|
From:
Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 2: Virtue or Moral Good [1725], §II.V)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice question. No doubt some people do cease to care, but on the whole it raises the 'last round' problem in social contract theory, which is why fulfil your part of a bargain if it is too late to receive the repayment afterwards?
|
|
6241
|
Contempt of danger is just madness if it is not in some worthy cause [Hutcheson]
|
|
Full Idea:
Mere courage, or contempt of danger, if we conceive it to have no regard to the defence of the innocent, or repairing of wrongs or self-interest, would only entitle its possessor to bedlam.
|
|
From:
Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 2: Virtue or Moral Good [1725], §II.I)
|
|
A reaction:
If many criminals would love to rob a bank, but only a few have the nerve to attempt it, we can hardly deny that the latter exhibit a sort of courage. The Greeks say that good sense must be involved, but few of them were so moral about courage.
|
|
6257
|
You can't form moral rules without an end, which needs feelings and a moral sense [Hutcheson]
|
|
Full Idea:
What rule of actions can be formed, without relation to some end proposed? Or what end can be proposed, without presupposing instincts, desires, affections, or a moral sense, it will not be easy to explain.
|
|
From:
Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 4: The Moral Sense [1728], §IV)
|
|
A reaction:
We have no reason to think that 'instincts, desires and affections' will give us the remotest guidance on how to behave morally well (though we would expect them to aid our survival). How could a moral sense give a reason, without spotting a rule?
|
|
6245
|
That action is best, which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest number [Hutcheson]
|
|
Full Idea:
That action is best, which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest number; and that worst, which, in like manner, occasions misery.
|
|
From:
Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 2: Virtue or Moral Good [1725], §III.VIII)
|
|
A reaction:
The first use of a phrase taken up by Bentham. This is not just an anticipation of utilitarianism, it is utilitarianism, with all its commitment to consequentialism (but see Idea 6246), and to the maximising of happiness. It is a brilliant idea.
|
|
6251
|
The loss of perfect rights causes misery, but the loss of imperfect rights reduces social good [Hutcheson]
|
|
Full Idea:
Perfect rights are necessary to the public good, and it makes those miserable whose rights are thus violated; …imperfect rights tend to the improvement and increase of good in a society, but are not necessary to prevent universal misery.
|
|
From:
Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 2: Virtue or Moral Good [1725], §VII.VI)
|
|
A reaction:
This is a very utilitarian streak in Hutcheson, converting natural law into its tangible outcome in actual happiness or misery. The distinction here is interesting (taken up by Mill), but there is a very blurred borderline.
|
|
6254
|
We are asked to follow God's ends because he is our benefactor, but why must we do that? [Hutcheson]
|
|
Full Idea:
The reasons assigned for actions are such as 'It is the end proposed by the Deity'. But why do we approve concurring with the divine ends? The reason is given 'He is our benefactor', but then, for what reason do we approve concurrence with a benefactor?
|
|
From:
Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 4: The Moral Sense [1728], §I)
|
|
A reaction:
Characteristic of what MacIntyre calls the 'Enlightenment Project', which is the application of Cartesian scepticism to proving the foundations of morals. Proof beyond proof is continually demanded. If you could meet God, you would obey without question.
|
|
6249
|
If goodness is constituted by God's will, it is a tautology to say God's will is good [Hutcheson]
|
|
Full Idea:
To call the laws of the supreme Deity good or holy or just, if these be constituted by laws, or the will of a superior, must be an insignificant tautology, amounting to no more than 'God wills what he wills' or 'His will is conformable to his will'.
|
|
From:
Francis Hutcheson (Treatise 2: Virtue or Moral Good [1725], §VII.V)
|
|
A reaction:
This argues not only against God as the source of morality, but also against any rules, such as those of the Categorical Imperative. Why should I follow the Categorical Imperative? What has value must dictate the rules. Is obedience the highest value?
|