|
20772
|
Three branches of philosophy: first logic, second ethics, third physics (which ends with theology) [Chrysippus]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are three kinds of philosophical theorems, logical, ethical, and physical; of these the logic should be placed first, ethics second, and physics third (and theology is the final topic in physics).
|
|
From:
Chrysippus (fragments/reports [c.240 BCE]), quoted by Plutarch - 70: Stoic Self-contradictions 1035a
|
|
A reaction:
[in his lost 'On Lives' Bk 4] 'Theology is the final topic in physics'! That should create a stir in theology departments. Is this an order of study, or of importance? You come to theology right at the end of your studies.
|
|
15209
|
Like disastrous small errors in navigation, small misunderstandings can wreck intellectual life [Harré/Madden]
|
|
Full Idea:
Just as the tiniest error in navigation may lead to a landfall even on the wrong continent, so the acceptance of apparently innocuous principles can lead to doctrines which, if accepted, would render intellectual life impossible.
|
|
From:
Harré,R./Madden,E.H. (Causal Powers [1975], 1.I.A)
|
|
A reaction:
If one lived life by an axiom system, and one of the axioms was a bit off kilter, then this idea would be a powerful one. Note that it is only 'intellectual' life that is screwed up, but even there a plurality of ideas keep correcting one another.
|
|
15212
|
Analysis of concepts based neither on formalism nor psychology can arise from examining what we know [Harré/Madden]
|
|
Full Idea:
Adequate accounts of those concepts which are neither purely formal nor simply psychological can be achieved by attention to ....the content of our knowledge, content which goes beyond the reports of immediate experience.
|
|
From:
Harré,R./Madden,E.H. (Causal Powers [1975], 1.I.A)
|
|
A reaction:
I like this one. Most proponents of analysis are either bogged down in trying to reduce all of our talk to formal logic, or else they think that they are just analysing how we think. It's neither, because the concepts arise from the world.
|
|
15210
|
Humeans see analysis in terms of formal logic, because necessities are fundamentally logical relations [Harré/Madden]
|
|
Full Idea:
The Humean view has led philosophers to suppose that their task is to provide an analysis of key concepts and relations wholly in terms drawn from formal logic, since relations of necessity are, in their view, fundamentally logical relations
|
|
From:
Harré,R./Madden,E.H. (Causal Powers [1975], 1.I.A)
|
|
A reaction:
A very sharp observation about why logic has become central to contemporary philosophy. As far as I can see, logic steadily increases its dominance, to the point where ordinary metaphysical thought is being squeezed out.
|
|
9297
|
You can't understand love in terms of 'if and only if...' [Svendsen]
|
|
Full Idea:
I once began reading a philosophical article on love. The following statement soon came up: 'Bob loves Kate if and only if...' At that point I stopped reading. Such a formalized approach was unsuitable, because the actual phenomenon would be lost.
|
|
From:
Lars Svendsen (A Philosophy of Boredom [2005], Pref)
|
|
A reaction:
It is hard to disagree! However, if your best friend comes to you and says, 'I can't decide whether I am really in love with Kate; what do you think?', how are you going to respond. You offer 'if and only if..', but in a warm and sympathetic way!
|