3 ideas
16567 | Scientists know everything about nothing, philosophers nothing about everything [Sagan,D] |
Full Idea: The scientist learns more and more about less and less, until she knows everything about nothing, whereas a philosopher learns less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything. | |
From: Dorion Sagan (Cosmic Apprentice [2013]) | |
A reaction: [Came via Twitter] Not sure if this is true, but it is too nice to miss. |
12887 | A whole must have one characteristic, an internal relation, and a structure [Rescher/Oppenheim] |
Full Idea: A whole must possess an attribute peculiar to and characteristic of it as a whole; there must be a characteristic relation of dependence between the parts; and the whole must have some structure which gives it characteristics. | |
From: Rescher,N/Oppenheim,P (Logical Analysis of Gestalt Concepts [1955], p.90), quoted by Peter Simons - Parts 9.2 | |
A reaction: Simons says these are basically sensible conditions, and tries to fill them out. They seem a pretty good start, and I must resist the temptation to rush to borderline cases. |
20558 | Your representative owes you his judgement, and betrays you if he gives your opinion instead [Burke] |
Full Idea: Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion | |
From: Edmund Burke (Address to the Voters of Bristol [1774]), quoted by Adam Swift - Political Philosophy (3rd ed) | |
A reaction: Nice rhetoric, but I'm not sure about the logic of it. Do I betray you if I give my stupid judgement rather than your wise one? Am I so arrogant as to think my judgement is always preferable? His audience was entirely of property owners. |