|
12750
|
The question is whether force is self-sufficient in bodies, and essential, or dependent on something [Lenfant]
|
|
Full Idea:
The whole question is to know if the force to act in bodies is in matter something distinct and independent of everything else that one conceives there. Without that, this force cannot be its essence, and will remain the result of some primitive quality.
|
|
From:
Jacques Lenfant (Letters to Leibniz [1693], 1693.11.07), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 8
|
|
A reaction:
This challenge to Leibniz highlights the drama of trying to simultaneously arrive at explanations of things, and to decide the nature of essence. Leibniz replied that force is primitive, because it is the 'principle' of behaviour and dispositions.
|
|
4993
|
If a bird captures a worm, we could say its behaviour is 'about' the worm [Kirk,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
When a bird pulls a worm from the ground, then swallows it piece by piece, there is a sense in which its behaviour can be said to be about the worm.
|
|
From:
Robert Kirk (Mind and Body [2003], §5.4)
|
|
A reaction:
This is preparing the ground for a possible behaviourist account of intentionality. Reply: you could say rain is about puddles, or you could say we have adopted Dennett's 'intentional stance' to birds, but it tells us nothing about their psychology.
|
|
4982
|
Dualism implies some brain events with no physical cause, and others with no physical effect [Kirk,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the mind causes brain events, then they are not caused by other brain events, and such causal gaps should be detectable by scientists; there should also be a gap of brain-events which cause no other brain events, because they are causing mind events.
|
|
From:
Robert Kirk (Mind and Body [2003], §2.5)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the double causation problem which Spinoza had spotted (Idea 4862). Expressed this way, it seems a screamingly large problem for dualism. We should be able to discover some VERY strange physical activity in the brain.
|
|
4991
|
Behaviourism seems a good theory for intentional states, but bad for phenomenal ones [Kirk,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
For many kinds of mental states, notably intentional ones such as beliefs and desires, behaviourism is appealing, ..but for sensations and experiences such as pain, it seems grossly implausible.
|
|
From:
Robert Kirk (Mind and Body [2003], §5.1)
|
|
A reaction:
The theory does indeed make a bit more sense for intentional states, but it still strikes me as nonsense that there is no more to my belief that 'Whales live in the Atlantic' than a disposition to say something. WHY do I say this something?
|
|
4994
|
Behaviourism offers a good alternative to simplistic unitary accounts of mental relationships [Kirk,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a temptation to think that 'aboutness', and the 'contents' of thoughts, and the relation of 'reference', are single and unitary relationships, but behaviourism offers an alternative approach.
|
|
From:
Robert Kirk (Mind and Body [2003], §5.5)
|
|
A reaction:
Personally I wouldn't touch behaviourism with a barge-pole (as it ducks the question of WHY certain behaviour occurs), but a warning against simplistic accounts of intentional states is good. I am sure there cannot be a single neat theory of refererence.
|
|
4984
|
All meaningful psychological statements can be translated into physics [Kirk,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
All psychological statements which are meaningful, that is to say, which are in principle verifiable, are translatable into propositions which do not involve psychological concepts, but only the concepts of physics.
|
|
From:
Robert Kirk (Mind and Body [2003], §3.8)
|
|
A reaction:
This shows how eliminativist behaviourism arises out of logical positivism (by only allowing what is verifiable). The simplest objection: we can't verify the mental states of others, because they are private, but they are still the best explanation.
|
|
4997
|
It seems unlikely that most concepts are innate, if a theory must be understood to grasp them [Kirk,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is widely accepted that for many concepts, if not all, grasping the concept requires grasping some theory, ...which makes difficulties for the view that concepts are not learned: for 'radical concept nativism', as Fodor calls it.
|
|
From:
Robert Kirk (Mind and Body [2003], §7.3)
|
|
A reaction:
Not a problem for traditional rationalist theories, where the whole theory can be innate along with the concept, but a big objection to modern more cautious non-holistic views (such as Fodor's). Does a bird have a concept AND theory of a nest?
|
|
4995
|
Behaviourists doubt whether reference is a single type of relation [Kirk,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
To most behaviourists it seems misguided to expect there to be a single relation that connects referring expressions with their referents.
|
|
From:
Robert Kirk (Mind and Body [2003], §5.5)
|
|
A reaction:
You don't need to be a behaviourist to feel this doubt. Think about names of real people, names of fictional people, reference to misunderstood items, or imagined items, or reference in dreams, or to mathematical objects, or negations etc.
|
|
5078
|
Kant and Mill both try to explain right and wrong, without a divine lawgiver [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
Kant and Mill were in total agreement in trying to give content to the distinction between moral right and wrong, without recourse to any divine lawgiver.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.14)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice analysis, in tune with MacIntyre and others, who see such attempts as failures. It is hard, however, to deny the claims of rational principles, or of suffering, in our moral framework. I agree with Taylor's move back to virtue, but it ain't simple.
|
|
5067
|
Morality based on 'forbid', 'permit' and 'require' implies someone who does these things [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
If morality is based on wrong (meaning 'forbidden'), right ('permitted'), and obligatory ('required'), we are led to ask 'Who is it that thus permits, forbids or requires that certain things be done or not done?'
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Clear reinforcement for Nietzsche's attack on conventional morals, which Taylor sees as a relic of medieval religious attitudes. Taylor says Kant offered a non-religious version of the same authority. I agree. Back to the Greek pursuit of excellence!
|
|
5079
|
Pleasure can have a location, and be momentary, and come and go - but happiness can't [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
Pleasures can be located in a particular part of the body, and can be momentary, and come and go, but this is not the case with happiness.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.16)
|
|
A reaction:
Probably no one ever thought that pleasure and happiness were actually identical - merely that pleasure is the only cause and source of happiness. These are good objections to that hypothesis. Pleasure simply isn't 'the good'.
|
|
5068
|
'Eudaimonia' means 'having a good demon', implying supreme good fortune [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
The word 'eudaimonia' means literally 'having a good demon', which is apt, because it suggests some kind of supreme good fortune, of the sort which might be thought of as a bestowal.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.5)
|
|
A reaction:
Beware of etymology. This implies that eudaimonia is almost entirely beyond a person's control, but Aristotle doesn't think that. A combination of education and effort can build on some natural gifts to create a fully successful life.
|
|
5077
|
The modern idea of obligation seems to have lost the idea of an obligation 'to' something [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
In modern moral thinking, obligation is something every responsible person is supposed to have, but it is not an obligation to the state, or society, or humanity, or even to God. It is an obligation standing by itself.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.12)
|
|
A reaction:
This nicely pinpoints how some our moral attitudes are relics of religion. Taylor wants a return to virtue, but one could respond by opting for the social contract (with very clear obligations) or Kantian 'contractualism' (answering to rational beings).
|
|
5066
|
If we are made in God's image, pursuit of excellence is replaced by duty to obey God [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
Once people are declared to be images of God, just by virtue of minimal humanity, they have, therefore, no greater individual excellence to aspire to, and their purpose became one of obligation, that is, obedience to God's will.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.2)
|
|
A reaction:
An interesting and plausible historical analysis. There is a second motivation for the change, though, in Grotius's desire to develop a more legalistic morality, focusing on actions rather than character. Taylor's point is more interesting, though.
|