Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics', 'New Proof of Possibility of Well-Ordering' and 'talk'

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

4 ideas

1. Philosophy / E. Nature of Metaphysics / 1. Nature of Metaphysics
21959 Metaphysics is the most general attempt to make sense of things [Moore,AW]
     Full Idea: Metaphysics is the most general attempt to make sense of things.
     From: A.W. Moore (The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics [2012], Intro)
     A reaction: This is the first sentence of Moore's book, and a touchstone idea all the way through. It stands up well, because it says enough without committing to too much. I have to agree with it. It implies explanation as the key. I like generality too.
11. Knowledge Aims / C. Knowing Reality / 3. Idealism / b. Transcendental idealism
21958 Appearances are nothing beyond representations, which is transcendental ideality [Moore,AW]
     Full Idea: Appearances in general are nothing outside our representations, which is just what we mean by transcendental ideality.
     From: A.W. Moore (The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics [2012], B535/A507)
18. Thought / A. Modes of Thought / 6. Judgement / a. Nature of Judgement
17613 We should judge principles by the science, not science by some fixed principles [Zermelo]
     Full Idea: Principles must be judged from the point of view of science, and not science from the point of view of principles fixed once and for all. Geometry existed before Euclid's 'Elements', just as arithmetic and set theory did before Peano's 'Formulaire'.
     From: Ernst Zermelo (New Proof of Possibility of Well-Ordering [1908], §2a)
     A reaction: This shows why the axiomatisation of set theory is an ongoing and much-debated activity.
28. God / B. Proving God / 2. Proofs of Reason / b. Ontological Proof critique
7417 God can't have silly perfections, but how do we decide which ones are 'silly'? [Joslin]
     Full Idea: It is clear that God cannot have all conceivable perfections, because otherwise he would have absurd perfections (like being the perfect prawn sandwich), so a line must be drawn, and how are we to decide which perfections are appropriate and essential?
     From: Jack Joslin (talk [2006]), quoted by PG - Db (ideas)
     A reaction: This is an excellent question for curbing the absurdities of those who want to load God with every good thing that can possibly be conceived. Is the God who is also a perfect prawn sandwich more perfect than the one who isn't?