Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Philodemus, Lawrence B. Lombard and Mozi

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


7 ideas

7. Existence / B. Change in Existence / 4. Events / c. Reduction of events
An event is a change in or to an object [Lombard, by Mumford]
     Full Idea: Lombard holds that an event is a change in or to an object.
     From: report of Lawrence B. Lombard (Events [1986]) by Stephen Mumford - Laws in Nature 2.1
     A reaction: This strikes me as more plausible than Davidson's view that events are primitive, or Kim's that they are exemplifications of properties. Events then exist just insofar as we wish to (or are able to) discriminate them.
14. Science / C. Induction / 3. Limits of Induction
From the fact that some men die, we cannot infer that they all do [Philodemus]
     Full Idea: There is no necessary inference, from the fact that men familiar to us die when pierced through the heart, that all men do.
     From: Philodemus (On Signs (damaged) [c.50 BCE], 1.3)
     A reaction: This is scepticism about the logic of induction, long before David Hume. This is said to be a Stoic argument against Epicureans - though on the whole Stoics are not keen on scepticism.
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 1. Goodness / g. Consequentialism
Mohists desire wealth, population and social order as the best consequences [Mozi, by Norden]
     Full Idea: The consequentialist Mohists give a fairly objective characterisation of benefits as wealth, populousness, and social order, and harm as poverty, depopulation, and social chaos.
     From: report of Mozi (The Mozi [c.440 BCE]) by Bryan van Norden - Intro to Classical Chinese Philosophy 4.I
     A reaction: That is a formula favoured by many authoritarian leaders in modern times.
23. Ethics / B. Contract Ethics / 2. Golden Rule
If people regarded other states as they did their own, they would never attack them [Mozi]
     Full Idea: If people regarded other people's states in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own state to attack that of another?
     From: Mozi (The Mozi [c.440 BCE], 16), quoted by Bryan van Norden - Intro to Classical Chinese Philosophy 4.I
     A reaction: A nice case of the application of golden rule thinking to states, instead of to individuals. I can't see Putin (in 2022) being impressed by 'how would you like it if another country invaded Russia?'. The Golden Rule is an analogy argument.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / a. Virtues
Don't fear god or worry about death; the good is easily got and the terrible easily cured [Philodemus]
     Full Idea: Don't fear god, Don't worry about death; What is good is easy to get, What is terrible is easy to cure.
     From: Philodemus (Herculaneum Papyrus [c.50 BCE], 1005,4.9-14)
     A reaction: This is known as the Four-Part Cure, and is an epicurean prayer, probably formulated by Epicurus.
23. Ethics / D. Deontological Ethics / 3. Universalisability
Mozi condemns partiality, which is the cause of all the great harms in the world [Mozi]
     Full Idea: It is those who are partial in their dealings with others who are the real cause of all the great harms in the world. That is why our teacher Mozi says 'I condemn partiality'.
     From: Mozi (The Mozi [c.440 BCE], 16), quoted by Bryan van Norden - Intro to Classical Chinese Philosophy 4.II
     A reaction: This is morality as the rule of law, rather than as the result of human affections. He is on the same wavelength as Kant. Mozi was criticising Confucius, who favoured family over strangers.
Those who are against impartiality still prefer impartial protectors [Mozi]
     Full Idea: Even though one may not advocate impartiality, one would certainly want to entrust one's family to the person who is impartial.
     From: Mozi (The Mozi [c.440 BCE], 16), quoted by Bryan van Norden - Intro to Classical Chinese Philosophy 4.II
     A reaction: In the modern world his example would be the police, so he effectively he wants the impartiality of the law. But who wants legal impartiality within the affairs of a family?