Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Zoroaster, Lukes and Robert van Gulick

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


26 ideas

1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 5. Aims of Philosophy / a. Philosophy as worldly
Organisms understand their worlds better if they understand themselves [Gulick]
     Full Idea: Organisms come to better understand their worlds by coming to better understand themselves and the ways in which their own structures engage their worlds.
     From: Robert van Gulick (Mirror Mirror - Is That All? [2006], §III)
     A reaction: Van Gulick is defending a higher-order theory of consciousness, but this strikes me as a good rationale for the target of philosophy, which has increasingly (since Descartes) focused on understanding our own minds.
11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 2. Understanding
In contrast with knowledge, the notion of understanding emphasizes practical engagement [Gulick]
     Full Idea: In contrast with standard notions of knowledge, the concept of understanding emphasizes the element of practical engagement from the outset.
     From: Robert van Gulick (Mirror Mirror - Is That All? [2006], §II)
     A reaction: This could be the very interesting germ of a huge revolution in our approach to epistemology, which I find rather appealing. Plato's desire that knowledge should have 'logos' seems to me in the same area. It sounds rather internalist, which is good.
11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 6. Knowing How
Knowing-that is a much richer kind of knowing-how [Gulick]
     Full Idea: Knowing-that is a much richer kind of knowing-how.
     From: Robert van Gulick (Mirror Mirror - Is That All? [2006], §II)
     A reaction: This thought could rather rapidly revive the discredited notion of knowing-how. I think it might slot into an account of the mind in terms of levels, so that my internalist view of knowledge emerges at higher levels, built on more basic responses.
15. Nature of Minds / B. Features of Minds / 1. Consciousness / b. Essence of consciousness
Is consciousness a type of self-awareness, or is being self-aware a way of being conscious? [Gulick]
     Full Idea: Is consciousness just a special type of self-awareness, or is being self-aware a special way of being conscious?
     From: Robert van Gulick (Mirror Mirror - Is That All? [2006], Intro)
     A reaction: This is a really good key question, which has hovered over the debate since Locke's definition of a person (as 'self-aware'). I take the self to be a mechanism of most brains, which is prior to consciousness. Maybe the two are inseparable.
15. Nature of Minds / B. Features of Minds / 1. Consciousness / f. Higher-order thought
Higher-order theories divide over whether the higher level involves thought or perception [Gulick]
     Full Idea: Higher-order thought (HOT) models treat metastates as thought-like, and higher-order perception (HOP) models regard them as at least quasi-perceptual and resulting from some form of inner monitoring or inner sense.
     From: Robert van Gulick (Mirror Mirror - Is That All? [2006], §I)
     A reaction: I would understand 'thought' to at least partially involve judgements. The HOT theory (Carruthers) seems to suit epistemological foundationalists, who want truth to enter on the ground floor. This pushes me towards the HOP model (Lycan) as more plausible.
Higher-order models reduce the problem of consciousness to intentionality [Gulick]
     Full Idea: Higher-order models would effectively reduce the problem of consciousness to that of intentionality.
     From: Robert van Gulick (Mirror Mirror - Is That All? [2006], §I)
     A reaction: This gives the bigger picture - that higher-order theories are the cutting edge of attempts to give a naturalistic, reductivist account of consciousness. That seems to be the only way to go, so we should encourage them in the enterprise.
Maybe qualia only exist at the lower level, and a higher-level is needed for what-it-is-like [Gulick]
     Full Idea: Some higher-order theorists say we have qualitative but unconscious mental states of color or pain (qualia), but there is nothing it is like to be in such a state, which needs higher-order awareness. The meta-states are devoid of qualia.
     From: Robert van Gulick (Mirror Mirror - Is That All? [2006], §I.5)
     A reaction: He calls this the 'stranded qualia' problem. Clearly one begins to sharpen Ockham's Razor at this point, if the higher-level state isn't contributing something. I don't rule out unconscious qualia. The strength of a real pain is distorted in a dream.
20. Action / A. Definition of Action / 1. Action Theory
There is collective action, where a trend is manifest, but is not attributable to individuals [Lukes]
     Full Idea: There is a phenomenon of collective action, where the policy or action of a collectivity is manifest, but not attributable to particular individuals' decisions or behaviour.
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], 1.4)
     A reaction: This observation of Lukes is seen as important in the understanding of social power, but it is also significant for the understanding of the theory of action. Small racial slights by individuals can indicate institutional racism.
24. Political Theory / C. Ruling a State / 1. Social Power
Power can be exercised to determine a person's desires [Lukes]
     Full Idea: A may exercise power over B by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but also by influencing, shaping or determining his very wants.
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], 1.4)
     A reaction: The classic modern instances of this are advertising and control of the media. This was apparently a new idea from Lukes, but it seems fairly obvious now. This is his third dimension of power.
Hidden powers are the most effective [Lukes]
     Full Idea: Power is at its most effective when it is least observable.
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], Intro)
     A reaction: Kind of common sense, though his account has been very influential. We must be cautious about asserting the existence of powers which are massive but totally undetectable.
The pluralist view says that power is restrained by group rivalry [Lukes]
     Full Idea: In the 1950s 'pluralism' was a common idea about power - that the concentration of power in America is not excessive because one group always balances the power of others.
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], Intro)
     A reaction: [He cites Alan Wolfe's 2000 intro to C. Wright Mills] There must be something to this idea. In the UK we encourage the existence of an official opposition to the government for that reason.
Power is a capacity, which may never need to be exercised [Lukes]
     Full Idea: Power is a capacity not the exercise of that capacity (it may never be, and never need to be, exercised); and you can be powerful by satisfying and advancing others' interests.
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], Intro)
     A reaction: A school teacher could, in extremis, bring in the army to control a wildly anarchic class of kids. You control kids by making them want to do what you want them to do.
The two-dimensional view of power recognises the importance of controlling the agenda [Lukes]
     Full Idea: The two-dimensional view of power is a major advance over the one-dimensional view. It incorporates the question of the control of the agenda in politics.
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], 1.4)
     A reaction: So One-D is controlling what happens in conflicts, and Two-D is controlling the nature of the conflicts. If we keep digging we may come to the power which no one knows exists.
One-dimensionsal power is behaviour in observable conflicts of interests [Lukes]
     Full Idea: The one-dimensional view of power involves a focus on behaviour in the making of decisions on issues over which there is an observable conflict of (subjective) interests, revealed by political participation.
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], 1.2)
     A reaction: It seems unbalanced to give this the pejorative label 'one-dimensional', as if it wasn't really power at all. Watching police beating demonstrators looks like real power to me. His point that power runs deeper is, of course, a good one.
Political organisation brings some conflicts to the fore, and suppresses others [Lukes]
     Full Idea: All forms of political organisation have a bias in favour of the exploitation of some kinds of conflict and the suppression of others, because organisation is the mobilisation of bias. Some issues are organised into politics while others are organised out
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], 1.3)
     A reaction: [He cites Schattschneider 1960] This is what Lukes calls the two-dimensional theory of power. The point is that students of power should observe what does not happen, as well as what does.
The evidence for the exertion of power need not involve a grievance of the powerless [Lukes]
     Full Idea: It is inadequate to insist that nondecision-making power only exists where there are grievances which are denied entry into the political process in the form of issues.
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], 1.4)
     A reaction: A simple example would be where they tricked you into thinking you couldn't vote in an election, or where the women didn't realise the men were paid more. Part of his third dimension of power.
Power is affecting a person in a way contrary to their interests [Lukes]
     Full Idea: I have defined the concept of power by saying that A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B's interests
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], 1.6)
     A reaction: I assume he is not referring to when I accidentally spill your beer. His point is, I think, that neither A nor B may be fully, or even partly, aware of what is going on. Presumably A can also exert power over B which is in B's interests. Dentists.
Power is the capacity of a social class to realise its interests [Lukes]
     Full Idea: Poulantzas (1968) defined his concept of power as the capacity of a social class to realise its specific objective interests.
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], 1.8)
     A reaction: Lukes offers this as an account of power in terms of structures, rather than of the actions of individuals. Lukes says that power must include the ability of the agent to act differently. Power must involve responsibility. Power is not fate.
Supreme power is getting people to have thoughts and desires chosen by you [Lukes]
     Full Idea: Is it not the supreme exercise of power to get another or others to have the desires you want them to have - that is, to secure their compliance by controlling their thoughts and desires?
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], p.27), quoted by Andrew Shorten - Contemporary Political Theory 06
     A reaction: This seems to be beyond dispute. When the operation is successful, those under your power not only do not need to be intimidated, but they don't even need to be guided. But if two people are in perfect harmony, which one has the power?
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 1. Ideology
In the 1950s they said ideology is finished, and expertise takes over [Lukes]
     Full Idea: In the 1950s there was talk of the 'end of ideology' - that grand passions over ideas were exhausted, and in future problems would be solved by technical expertise.
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], Intro)
     A reaction: An understandable thought, once fascism and communism seemed to have burned themselves out. Political commentators always try to grip the crowds with simplistic labels, but fewer people will now read up an ideology. Tacit ideology.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 6. Liberalism / a. Liberalism basics
Liberals take people as they are, and take their preferences to be their interests [Lukes]
     Full Idea: Liberals take people as they are, and relates their interests to what they actually want or prefer.
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], 1.6)
     A reaction: He contrasts this with 'reformists' and 'radicals'. I don't see why liberals should be so uncritical of people's desires. Liberals aren't going to implement harmful policies, simply because people want them. He treats liberals as one-dimensional.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 11. Capitalism
Anyone who thinks capitalism can improve their lives is endorsing capitalism [Lukes]
     Full Idea: Wage earners consent to capitalist organisation of society when they act as if they could improve their material conditions within the confines of capitalism.
     From: Steven Lukes (Power: a Radical View (2nd ed) [2005], Intro)
     A reaction: [He is citing Przeworski 1985] Not plausible as it stands. Does a prisoner who tries to improve their life within a hideous prison thereby endorse the prison system? In Auschwitz? Slaves can go along with the system for years, then suddenly rebel.
27. Natural Reality / G. Biology / 2. Life
From the teleopragmatic perspective, life is largely an informational process [Gulick]
     Full Idea: From the teleopragmatic perspective, life itself is largely an informational process.
     From: Robert van Gulick (Mirror Mirror - Is That All? [2006])
     A reaction: From the cynical perspective a human is just 'blood and foul smell in a bag', but that may not give you whole story. The point here is that the informational view will cover both the genetic and the mental levels of human life. True but unilluminating?
29. Religion / B. Monotheistic Religion / 1. Monotheistic Religion
Zoroaster and the Hebrew prophets evolved different versions of monotheism [Zoroaster, by Armstrong,K]
     Full Idea: Zoroaster and the Hebrew prophets evolved different versions of monotheism.
     From: report of Zoroaster (The Gathas (seventeen hymns) [c.900 BCE]) by Karen Armstrong - A History of God Ch.1
     A reaction: This seems to be the consensus on the origins of monotheism, which places the development much earlier than the appearance of the idea in Greek philosophy.
29. Religion / B. Monotheistic Religion / 3. Zoroastrianism
Zoroastrianism saw the world as a battle between good evil gods [Zoroaster, by Harari]
     Full Idea: Zoroastrianism saw the world as a cosmic battle between the good god Ahura Mazda and the evil god Angra Mainyu.
     From: report of Zoroaster (The Gathas (seventeen hymns) [c.900 BCE]) by Yuval Noah Harari - Sapiens: brief history of humankind 12 'Battle'
     A reaction: Hm. This contradicts the impression I had gained that it was monotheist.
Zarathustra was the first to present a god who is an abstract concept [Zoroaster]
     Full Idea: Zarathustra's achievement was for the first time to present a god who is an abstract concept - he broke with the tradition of a pantheon of gods.
     From: Zoroaster (The Gathas (seventeen hymns) [c.900 BCE]), quoted by Peter Watson - Ideas Ch.05
     A reaction: The more abstract the gods become, the harder it is to challenge their existence.