|
16726
|
Why can't we deduce secondary qualities from primary ones, if they cause them? [Buridan]
|
|
Full Idea:
The entire difficulty in this question is why through a knowledge of the primary tangible qualities we cannot come to a knowledge of flavors or odors, since these are their causes, since we often go from knowledge of causes to knowing their effects.
|
|
From:
Jean Buridan (Questions on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics [1344], I.28c), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 22.2
|
|
A reaction:
He is commenting on Idea 16725. Still a nice puzzle in the philosophy of mind. Will neuroscientists ever be able to infer to actual character of some quale, just from the structures of the neurons?
|
|
23674
|
If an attempted poisoning results in benefits, we still judge the agent a poisoner [Reid]
|
|
Full Idea:
If a man should give to his neighbour a potion which he really believes will poison him, but which, in the event, proves salutary, and does much good; in moral estimation, he is a poisoner, and not a benefactor.
|
|
From:
Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 3: Princs of action [1788], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
I take Reid to mean that morality concerns how we assess the agent, and not the results of his actions. Mill and Bentham concede that we judge people this way, but don't think morality mainly concerns judging people.
|
|
23673
|
Every worthy man has a principle of honour, and knows what is honourable [Reid]
|
|
Full Idea:
I presume it will be granted, that, in every man of real worth, there is a principle of honour, a regard to what is honourable or dishonourable, very distinct from a regard to his interest.
|
|
From:
Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 3: Princs of action [1788], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
Note that there is a 'principle' of honour in a person's character, and there are also actions which are intrinsically honourable or not. I fear that only the worthy are honourable, and only the honourable are worthy!
|