44 ideas
| 8093 | Seek wisdom rather than truth; it is easier [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: To seek wisdom rather than truth. It is more within our grasp. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1797) | |
| A reaction: A nice challenge to the traditional goal of philosophy. The idea that we should 'seek truth' only seems to have emerged during the Reformation. The Greeks may well never have dreamed of such a thing. |
| 8095 | We must think with our entire body and soul [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: Everything we think must be thought with our entire being, body and soul. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1798) | |
| A reaction: Not just that thinking must be a whole-hearted activity, but that the very contents of our thinking will be better if it arises out of being a physical creature, and not just a disembodied reasoner. Maybe the bowels are not needed to analyse set theory. |
| 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. |
| 8107 | The love of certainty holds us back in metaphysics [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: What stops or holds us back in metaphysics is a love of certainty. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1814) | |
| A reaction: This is a prominent truth from the age of Descartes, but may have diminished in the twenty-first century. The very best metaphysicians (e.g. Aristotle and Lewis) always end in a trail of dots when things become unsure. |
| 8099 | The truths of reason instruct, but they do not illuminate [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: There are truths that instruct, perhaps, but they do not illuminate. In this class are all the truths of reasoning. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1800) | |
| A reaction: A rather romantic view, which strikes me as false. An inspiring truth can suddenly collapse when you see why it must be false. Equally a line of reasoning can lead to a truth which need becomes an illumination. |
| 8098 | Truth consists of having the same idea about something that God has [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: Truth consists of having the same idea about something that God has. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1800) | |
| A reaction: Presumably sceptics about the existence of objective truth must also be sceptical about the possibility of such a God. I think Joubert is close to the nature of truth here. It is a remote and barely imaginable ideal. |
| 9672 | Free logic is one of the few first-order non-classical logics [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: Free logic is an unusual example of a non-classical logic which is first-order. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], Pref) |
| 9697 | X1 x X2 x X3... x Xn indicates the 'cartesian product' of those sets [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: X1 x X2 x X3... x Xn indicates the 'cartesian product' of those sets, the set of all the n-tuples with its first member in X1, its second in X2, and so on. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.0) |
| 9685 | <a,b&62; is a set whose members occur in the order shown [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: <a,b> is a set whose members occur in the order shown; <x1,x2,x3, ..xn> is an 'n-tuple' ordered set. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.10) |
| 9675 | a ∈ X says a is an object in set X; a ∉ X says a is not in X [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: a ∈ X means that a is a member of the set X, that is, a is one of the objects in X. a ∉ X indicates that a is not in X. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
| 9674 | {x; A(x)} is a set of objects satisfying the condition A(x) [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: {x; A(x)} indicates a set of objects which satisfy the condition A(x). | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
| 9673 | {a1, a2, ...an} indicates that a set comprising just those objects [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: {a1, a2, ...an} indicates that the set comprises of just those objects. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
| 9677 | Φ indicates the empty set, which has no members [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: Φ indicates the empty set, which has no members | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.4) |
| 9676 | {a} is the 'singleton' set of a (not the object a itself) [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: {a} is the 'singleton' set of a, not to be confused with the object a itself. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.4) |
| 9679 | X⊂Y means set X is a 'proper subset' of set Y [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: X⊂Y means set X is a 'proper subset' of set Y (if and only if all of its members are members of Y, but some things in Y are not in X) | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
| 9678 | X⊆Y means set X is a 'subset' of set Y [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: X⊆Y means set X is a 'subset' of set Y (if and only if all of its members are members of Y). | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
| 9681 | X = Y means the set X equals the set Y [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: X = Y means the set X equals the set Y, which means they have the same members (i.e. X⊆Y and Y⊆X). | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
| 9683 | X ∩ Y indicates the 'intersection' of sets X and Y, the objects which are in both sets [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: X ∩ Y indicates the 'intersection' of sets X and Y, which is a set containing just those things that are in both X and Y. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
| 9682 | X∪Y indicates the 'union' of all the things in sets X and Y [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: X ∪ Y indicates the 'union' of sets X and Y, which is a set containing just those things that are in X or Y (or both). | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
| 9684 | Y - X is the 'relative complement' of X with respect to Y; the things in Y that are not in X [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: Y - X indicates the 'relative complement' of X with respect to Y, that is, all the things in Y that are not in X. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
| 9694 | The 'relative complement' is things in the second set not in the first [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: The 'relative complement' of one set with respect to another is the things in the second set that aren't in the first. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
| 9693 | The 'intersection' of two sets is a set of the things that are in both sets [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: The 'intersection' of two sets is a set containing the things that are in both sets. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
| 9692 | The 'union' of two sets is a set containing all the things in either of the sets [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: The 'union' of two sets is a set containing all the things in either of the sets | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
| 9698 | The 'induction clause' says complex formulas retain the properties of their basic formulas [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: The 'induction clause' says that whenever one constructs more complex formulas out of formulas that have the property P, the resulting formulas will also have that property. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.2) |
| 9688 | A 'singleton' is a set with only one member [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A 'singleton' is a set with only one member. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.4) |
| 9687 | A 'member' of a set is one of the objects in the set [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A 'member' of a set is one of the objects in the set. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
| 9695 | An 'ordered pair' (or ordered n-tuple) is a set with its members in a particular order [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: An 'ordered pair' (or ordered n-tuple) is a set with its members in a particular order. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.10) |
| 9696 | A 'cartesian product' of sets is the set of all the n-tuples with one member in each of the sets [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A 'cartesian product' of sets is the set of all the n-tuples with one member in each of the sets. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.10) |
| 9686 | A 'set' is a collection of objects [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A 'set' is a collection of objects. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
| 9689 | The 'empty set' or 'null set' has no members [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: The 'empty set' or 'null set' is a set with no members. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.4) |
| 9690 | A set is a 'subset' of another set if all of its members are in that set [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A set is a 'subset' of another set if all of its members are in that set. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
| 9691 | A 'proper subset' is smaller than the containing set [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A set is a 'proper subset' of another set if some things in the large set are not in the smaller set | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
| 9680 | The empty set Φ is a subset of every set (including itself) [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: The empty set Φ is a subset of every set (including itself). | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
| 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) |
| 8101 | To know is to see inside oneself [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: To know: it is to see inside oneself. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1800) | |
| A reaction: Extreme internalism about justification! Personally I am becoming convinced that 'know' (unlike 'believe' and 'true') is an entirely social concept. Fools spend a lot of time instrospecting; wise people ask around, and check in books. |
| 8094 | The imagination has made more discoveries than the eye [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: The imagination has made more discoveries than the eye. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1797) | |
| A reaction: As a fan of the imagination, I love this one. I suspect that imagination, which was marginalised by Descartes, is actually the single most important aspect of thought (in slugs as well as humans). Abstraction requires imagination. |
| 8103 | A thought is as real as a cannon ball [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: A thought is a thing as real as a cannon ball. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1801) | |
| A reaction: Nice. The realisation of a thought can strike someone as if they have been assaulted, and hearing some remarks can be as bad as being stabbed. That is quite apart from political consequences. Joubert is good on the physicality of thinking. |
| 8100 | Where does the bird's idea of a nest come from? [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: The idea of the nest in the bird's mind, where does it come from? | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1800) | |
| A reaction: I think this is a very striking example in support of innate ideas. Most animal behaviour can be explained as responses to stimuli, but the bird seems to hold a model in its mind while it collects its materials. |
| 8096 | He gives his body up to pleasure, but not his soul [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: He gives his body up to pleasure, but not his soul. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1799) | |
| A reaction: A rather crucial distinction in the world of hedonism. There seems something sincere about someone who pursues pleasure body and soul, and something fractured about the pursuit of pleasure without real commitment. The split seems possible. |
| 8104 | What will you think of pleasures when you no longer enjoy them? [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: What will you think of pleasures when you no longer enjoy them? | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1802) | |
| A reaction: A lovely test question for aspiring young hedonists! It doesn't follow at all that we will despise past pleasures. The judgement may be utilitarian - that we regret the pleasures that harmed others, but love the harmless ones. Shame is social. |
| 8097 | Virtue is hard if we are scorned; we need support [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: It would be difficult to be scorned and to live virtuously. We have need of support. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1800) | |
| A reaction: He seems to have hit on what I take to be one of the keys to Aristotle: that virtue is a social matter, requiring both upbringing and a healthy culture. But we can help to create that culture, as well as benefiting from it. |
| 8106 | In raising a child we must think of his old age [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: In raising a child we must think of his old age. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1809) | |
| A reaction: Very nice, and Aristotle would approve. If educators think much about the future, it rarely extends before the child's first job. We should be preparing good grand-parents, as well as parents and employees. Educate for retirement! |
| 8105 | We can't exactly conceive virtue without the idea of God [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: If we exclude the idea of God, it is impossible to have an exact idea of virtue. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1808) | |
| A reaction: I suspect that an 'exact' idea is impossible even with an idea of God. This is an interesting defence of the importance of God in moral thinking, but it only requires the concept of a supreme being, and not belief. |
| 8102 | We cannot speak against Christianity without anger, or speak for it without love [Joubert] |
| Full Idea: We cannot speak against Christianity without anger, or speak for it without love. | |
| From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1801) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be rather true at the present time, when a wave of anti-religious books is sweeping through our culture. Presumably this remark used to be true of ancient paganism, but it died away. Christianity, though, is very personal. |