Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Hermarchus, Nicholas of Autrecourt and Moritz Schlick

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these philosophers


3 ideas

1. Philosophy / E. Nature of Metaphysics / 7. Against Metaphysics
The empiricist says that metaphysics is meaningless, rather than false [Schlick]
     Full Idea: The empiricist does not say to the metaphysician 'what you say is false', but 'what you say asserts nothing at all!' He does not contradict him, but says 'I don't understand you'.
     From: Moritz Schlick (Positivism and Realism [1934], p.107), quoted by Jonathan Schaffer - On What Grounds What 1.1
     A reaction: I take metaphysics to be meaningful, but at such a high level of abstraction that it is easy to drift into vague nonsense, and incredibly hard to assess what is meant, and whether it is correct. The truths of metaphysics are not recursive.
9. Objects / E. Objects over Time / 10. Beginning of an Object
Generation is when local motions aggregate to become a single subject [Nicholas of Autrecourt]
     Full Idea: In the case of natural things there is only local motion. When from such motion there follows an aggregation of natural bodies that are gathered to one another and acquire the nature of a single subject, this is called generation.
     From: Nicholas of Autrecourt (Tractatus [1335], Ch. 1)
     A reaction: This is explosive atomistic corpuscularianism, three centuries before its appointed date. He was duly suppressed. Can he give an account of the 'nature of a single subject' in this way?
25. Social Practice / F. Life Issues / 6. Animal Rights
Animals are dangerous and nourishing, and can't form contracts of justice [Hermarchus, by Sedley]
     Full Idea: Hermarchus said that animal killing is justified by considerations of human safety and nourishment and by animals' inability to form contractual relations of justice with us.
     From: report of Hermarchus (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by David A. Sedley - Hermarchus
     A reaction: Could the last argument be used to justify torturing animals? Or could we eat a human who was too brain-damaged to form contracts?