18 ideas
16123 | Whenever you perceive a community of things, you should also hunt out differences in the group [Plato] |
Full Idea: The rule is that when one perceives first the community between the members of a group of many things, one should not desist until one sees in it all those differences that are located in classes. | |
From: Plato (The Statesman [c.356 BCE], 285b) | |
A reaction: He goes on to recommend the opposite as well - see community even when there appears to be nothing but differences. I take this to be analysis, just as much as modern linguistic approaches are. Analyse the world, not language. |
16124 | No one wants to define 'weaving' just for the sake of weaving [Plato] |
Full Idea: I don't suppose that anyone with any sense would want to hunt down the definition of 'weaving' for the sake of weaving itself. | |
From: Plato (The Statesman [c.356 BCE], 285d) | |
A reaction: The point seems to be that the definition brings out the connections between weaving and other activities and objects, thus enlarging our understanding. |
16125 | To reveal a nature, divide down, and strip away what it has in common with other things [Plato] |
Full Idea: Let's take the kind posited and cut it in two, .then follow the righthand part of what we've cut, and hold onto things that the sophist is associated with until we strip away everything he has in common with other things, then display his peculiar nature. | |
From: Plato (The Statesman [c.356 BCE], 264e) | |
A reaction: This seems to be close to Aristotle's account of definition, when he is trying to get at what-it-is-to-be some thing. But if you strip away everything the definiendum has in common with other things, will anything remain? |
12756 | Substance is a force for acting and being acted upon [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: The very substance in things consists of a force for acting and being acted upon. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §08) | |
A reaction: Garber places this text just before the spiritual notion of monads took a grip on Leibniz. He seems to have thought that only some non-physical entity, with appetite and perception, could generate force. Wrong. |
5961 | The soul gets its goodness from god, and its evil from previous existence. [Plato] |
Full Idea: From its composer the soul possesses all beautiful things, but from its former condition, everything that proves to be harsh and unjust in heaven. | |
From: Plato (The Statesman [c.356 BCE], 273b) | |
A reaction: A neat move to explain the origins of evil (or rather, to shift the problem of evil to a long long way from here). This view presumably traces back to the views of Empedocles on good and evil. Can the soul acquire evil in its current existence? |
12755 | Final causes can help with explanations in physics [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Final causes not only advance virtue and piety in ethics and natural theology, but also help us to find and lay bare hidden truths in physics itself. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §04) | |
A reaction: This rearguard action against the attack on teleology is certainly aimed at Spinoza. The notion of purpose still seems to have a role to play in evolutionary biology, but probably not in physics. |
12760 | Something rather like souls (though not intelligent) could be found everywhere [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Nor is there any reason why souls or things analogous to souls should not be everywhere, even if dominant and consequently intelligent souls, like human souls, cannot be everywhere. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §12) | |
A reaction: He is always flirting with panpsychism, though he doesn't seem to offer any account of how these little baby souls can be built up to create one intelligent soul, the latter being indivisible. 'Souls' are very different from things 'analous to souls'! |
283 | The question of whether or not to persuade comes before the science of persuasion [Plato] |
Full Idea: The science of whether one must persuade or not must rule over the science capable of persuading. | |
From: Plato (The Statesman [c.356 BCE], 304c) | |
A reaction: Plato probably thinks that reason has to be top of the pyramid, but there is always the Nietzschean/romantic question of why we should place such a value on what is rational. |
282 | Non-physical beauty can only be shown clearly by speech [Plato] |
Full Idea: The bodiless things, being the most beautiful and the greatest, are only shown with clarity by speech and nothing else. | |
From: Plato (The Statesman [c.356 BCE], 286a) | |
A reaction: Unfortunately this will be true of warped and ugly ideas as well. |
281 | The arts produce good and beautiful things by preserving the mean [Plato] |
Full Idea: It is by preserving the mean that arts produce everything that is good and beautiful. | |
From: Plato (The Statesman [c.356 BCE], 284b) |
22559 | Democracy is the worst of good constitutions, but the best of bad constitutions [Plato, by Aristotle] |
Full Idea: Plato judged that when the constitution is decent, democracy is the worst of them, but when they are bad it is the best. | |
From: report of Plato (The Statesman [c.356 BCE], 302e) by Aristotle - Politics 1289b07 | |
A reaction: Aristotle denies that a good oligarchy is superior. What of technocracy? The challenge is to set up institutions which ensure the health of the democracy. The big modern problem is populists who lie. |
12759 | There are atoms of substance, but no atoms of bulk or extension [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk [moles], that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §11) | |
A reaction: Leibniz has a constant battle for the rest of his career to explain what these 'atoms of substance' are, since they have location but no extension, they are self-sufficient yet generate force, and are non-physical but interact with matter. |
12718 | Secondary matter is active and complete; primary matter is passive and incomplete [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: I understand matter as either secondary or primary. Secondary matter is, indeed, a complete substance, but it is not merely passive; primary matter is merely passive, but it is not a complete substance. So we must add a soul or form... | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §12), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 4 | |
A reaction: It sounds as if primary matter is redundant, but Garber suggests that secondary matter is just the combination of primary matter with form. |
11854 | If there is some trace of God in things, that would explain their natural force [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: If the law of God does indeed leave some vestige of him expressed in things...then it must be granted that there is a certain efficacy residing in things, a form or force such as we usually designate by the name of nature, from which the phenomena follow. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §06) | |
A reaction: I wouldn't rate this as a very promising theory of powers, but it seems to me important that Leibniz recognises the innate power in things as needing explanation. If you remove divine power, you are left with unexplained intrinsic powers. |
12758 | It is plausible to think substances contain the same immanent force seen in our free will [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: If we attribute an inherent force to our mind, a force acting immanently, then nothing forbids us to suppose that the same force would be found in other souls or forms, or, if you prefer, in the nature of substances. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §10) | |
A reaction: This is the kind of bizarre idea that you are driven to, once you start thinking that God must have a will outside nature, and then that we have the same thing. Why shouldn't such a thing pop up all over the place? Only Leibniz spots the slippery slope. |
279 | Only divine things can always stay the same, and bodies are not like that [Plato] |
Full Idea: It is fitting for only the most divine things of all to be always the same and in the same state and in the same respects, and the nature of body is not of this ordering. | |
From: Plato (The Statesman [c.356 BCE], 269b) |
19408 | To say that nature or the one universal substance is God is a pernicious doctrine [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: To say that nature itself or the substance of all things is God is a pernicious doctrine, recently introduced into the world or renewed by a subtle or profane author. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], 8) | |
A reaction: The dastardly profane author is, of course, Spinoza, whom Leibniz had met in 1676. The doctrine may be pernicious to religious orthodoxy, but to me it is rather baffling, since in my understanding nature and God have almost nothing in common. |
7482 | Resurrection developed in Judaism as a response to martyrdoms, in about 160 BCE [Anon (Dan), by Watson] |
Full Idea: The idea of resurrection in Judaism seems to have first developed around 160 BCE, during the time of religious martyrdom, and as a response to it (the martyrs were surely not dying forever?). It is first mentioned in the book of Daniel. | |
From: report of Anon (Dan) (27: Book of Daniel [c.165 BCE], Ch.7) by Peter Watson - Ideas | |
A reaction: Idea 7473 suggests that Zoroaster beat them to it by 800 years. |