92 ideas
| 14857 | The highest wisdom has the guise of simplicity [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Truth tends to reveal its highest wisdom in the guise of simplicity. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 609) |
| 14854 | Deep thinkers know that they are always wrong [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Whoever thinks more deeply knows that he is always wrong, whatever his acts and judgments. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 518) |
| 14833 | Comedy is a transition from fear to exuberance [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The transition from momentary fear to short-lived exuberance is called the 'comic'. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 169) |
| 14853 | Truth finds fewest champions not when it is dangerous, but when it is boring [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The champions of truth are hardest to find, not when it is dangerous to tell it, but rather when it is boring. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 506) |
| 24075 | Convictions, more than lies, are the great enemy of truth [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 483) | |
| A reaction: Love this one. Especially in western democracies in the 2020s. If we value truth, we must be fallibilists. |
| 18395 | Sets are mereological sums of the singletons of their members [Lewis, by Armstrong] |
| Full Idea: Lewis pointed out that many-membered classes are nothing more than the mereological wholes of the classes formed by taking the singleton of each member. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991]) by David M. Armstrong - Truth and Truthmakers 09.4 | |
| A reaction: You can't combine members to make the class, because the whole and the parts are of different type, but here the parts and whole are both sets, so they combine like waterdrops. |
| 15496 | We can build set theory on singletons: classes are then fusions of subclasses, membership is the singleton [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The notion of a singleton, or unit set, can serve as the distinctive primitive of set theory. The rest is mereology: a class is the fusion of its singleton subclasses, something is a member of a class iff its singleton is part of that class. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: This is a gloriously bold proposal which I immediately like, because it cuts out the baffling empty set (which many people think 'exists'!), and gets mathematics back to being about the real world of entities (as the Greeks thought). |
| 15500 | Classes divide into subclasses in many ways, but into members in only one way [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A class divides exhaustively into subclasses in many different ways; whereas a class divides exhaustively into members in only one way. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.2) |
| 15499 | A subclass of a subclass is itself a subclass; a member of a member is not in general a member [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Just as a part of a part is itself a part, so a subclass of a subclass is itself a subclass; whereas a member of a member is not in general a member. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: Lewis is showing the mereological character of sets, but this is a key distinction in basic set theory. When the members of members are themselves members, the set is said to be 'transitive'. |
| 15498 | We can accept the null set, but there is no null class of anything [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There is no such class as the null class. I don't mind calling some memberless thing - some individual - the null 'set'. But that doesn't make it a memberless class. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: The point is that set theory is a formal system which can do what it likes, but classes are classes 'of' things. Everyone assumes that sets are classes, reserving 'proper classes' for the tricky cases up at the far end. |
| 15502 | There are four main reasons for asserting that there is an empty set [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The null set is a denotation of last resort for class-terms that fail to denote classes, an intersection of x and y where they have no members in common, the class of all self-members, and the real numbers such that x^2+1=0. This is all mere convenience. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.4) | |
| A reaction: A helpful catalogue of main motivations for the existence of the null set in set theory. Lewis aims to undermine these reasons, and dispense with the wretched thing. |
| 15503 | We needn't accept this speck of nothingness, this black hole in the fabric of Reality! [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Must we accept the null set as a most extraordinary individual, a little speck of sheer nothingness, a sort of black hole in the fabric of Reality itself? Not really. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.4) | |
| A reaction: We can only dream of reaching the level of confidence that Lewis reached, to make such beautiful fun of a highly counterintuitive idea that is rooted in the modern techniques of philosophy. |
| 15497 | We can replace the membership relation with the member-singleton relation (plus mereology) [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Given the theory of part and whole, the member-singleton relation may replace membership generally as the primitive notion of set theory. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: An obvious question is to ask what the member-singleton relation is if it isn't membership. |
| 15506 | If we don't understand the singleton, then we don't understand classes [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Our utter ignorance about the nature of the singletons amounts to sheer ignorance about the nature of classes generally. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.1) |
| 15511 | If singleton membership is external, why is an object a member of one rather than another? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Suppose the relation of member to singleton is external. Why must Possum be a member of one singleton rather than another? Why isn't it contingent which singleton is his? | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: He cites Van Inwagen for raising this question, and answers it in terms of counterparts. So is the relation internal or external? I think of sets as pairs of curly brackets, not existing entities, so the question doesn't bother me. |
| 15513 | Maybe singletons have a structure, of a thing and a lasso? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Maybe the singleton of something x is not an atom, but consists of x plus a lasso. That gives a singleton an internal structure. ...But what do we know of the nature of the lasso, or how it fits? We are no better off. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: [second bit on p.45] |
| 15507 | Set theory has some unofficial axioms, generalisations about how to understand it [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Set theory has its unofficial axioms, traditional remarks about the nature of classes. They are never argued, but are passed heedlessly from one author to another. One of these says that the classes are nowhere: they are outside space and time. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: Why don't the people who write formal books on set theory ever say things like this? |
| 10191 | Set theory reduces to a mereological theory with singletons as the only atoms [Lewis, by MacBride] |
| Full Idea: Lewis has shown that set theory may be reduced to a mereological theory in which singletons are the only atoms. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991]) by Fraser MacBride - Review of Chihara's 'Structural Acc of Maths' p.80 | |
| A reaction: Presumably the axiom of extensionality, that a set is no more than its members, translates into unrestricted composition, that any parts will make an object. Difficult territory, but I suspect that this is of great importance in metaphysics. |
| 15508 | If singletons are where their members are, then so are all sets [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If every singleton was where its member was, then, in general, classes would be where there members were. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: There seems to be a big dislocation of understanding of the nature of sets, between 'pure' set theory, and set theory with ur-elements. I take the pure to be just an 'abstraction' from the more located one. The empty set has a puzzling location. |
| 15514 | A huge part of Reality is only accepted as existing if you have accepted set theory [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The preponderant part of Reality must consist of unfamiliar, unobserved things, whose existence would have gone unsuspected but for our acceptance of set theory. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.6) | |
| A reaction: He is referring to the enormous sets at the far end of set theory, of a size that had never been hitherto conceived. Excellent. Daft to believe in something entirely because you have accepted set theory, with no other basis. |
| 15523 | Set theory isn't innocent; it generates infinities from a single thing; but mathematics needs it [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Set theory is not innocent. Its trouble is that when we have one thing, then somehow we have another wholly distinct thing, the singleton. And another, and another....ad infinitum. But that's the price for mathematical power. Pay it. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.6) |
| 15525 | Plural quantification lacks a complete axiom system [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There is an irremediable lack of a complete axiom system for plural quantification. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 4.7) |
| 15518 | I like plural quantification, but am not convinced of its connection with second-order logic [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I agree fully with Boolos on substantive questions about plural quantification, though I would make less than he does of the connection with second-order logic. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.2 n2) | |
| A reaction: Deep matters, but my inclination is to agree with Lewis, as I have never been able to see why talk of plural quantification led straight on to second-order logic. A plural is just some objects, not some higher-order entity. |
| 15524 | Zermelo's model of arithmetic is distinctive because it rests on a primitive of set theory [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: What sets Zermelo's modelling of arithmetic apart from von Neumann's and all the rest is that he identifies the primitive of arithmetic with an appropriately primitive notion of set theory. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 4.6) | |
| A reaction: Zermelo's model is just endlessly nested empty sets, which is a very simple structure. I gather that connoisseurs seem to prefer von Neumann's model (where each number contains its predecessor number). |
| 15517 | Giving up classes means giving up successful mathematics because of dubious philosophy [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Renouncing classes means rejecting mathematics. That will not do. Mathematics is an established, going concern. Philosophy is as shaky as can be. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.8) | |
| A reaction: This culminates in his famous 'Who's going to tell the mathematicians? Not me!'. He has just given four examples of mathematics that seems to entirely depend on classes. This idea sounds like G.E. Moore's common sense against scepticism. |
| 15515 | To be a structuralist, you quantify over relations [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: To be a structuralist, you quantify over relations. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.6) |
| 15520 | Existence doesn't come in degrees; once asserted, it can't then be qualified [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Existence cannot be a matter of degree. If you say there is something that exists to a diminished degree, once you've said 'there is' your game is up. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.5) | |
| A reaction: You might have thought that this was so obvious as to be not worth saying, but as far as I can see it is a minority view in contemporary philosophy. It was Quine's view, and it is mine. |
| 15504 | Atomless gunk is an individual whose parts all have further proper parts [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A blob can represent atomless gunk: an individual whose parts all have further proper parts. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.8) | |
| A reaction: This is not the same as 'stuff', since gunk is a precise fusion of all those parts, whereas there is no such precision about stuff. Stuff is neutral as to whether it has atoms, or is endlessly divisible. My love of stuff grows. Laycock is a hero. |
| 15501 | We have no idea of a third sort of thing, that isn't an individual, a class, or their mixture [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: As yet we have no idea of any third sort of thing that is neither individual nor class nor mixture of the two. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: You can see that Lewis was a pupil of Quine. I quote this to show how little impression 'stuff' makes on the modern radar. His defence is that stuff may not be a 'thing', but then he seems to think that 'things' exhaust reality (top p.8 and 9). |
| 15516 | A property is any class of possibilia [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A property is any class of possibilia. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.7) |
| 14748 | The many are many and the one is one, so they can't be identical [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: What is true of the many is not exactly what is true of the one. After all they are many while it is one. The number of the many is six, whereas the number of the fusion is one. The singletons of the many are distinct from the singleton of the one. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.6) | |
| A reaction: I wouldn't take this objection to be conclusive. 'Some pebbles' seem to be many, but a 'handful of pebbles' seem to be one, where the physical situation might be identical. If they are not identical, then the non-identity is purely conceptual. |
| 6129 | Lewis affirms 'composition as identity' - that an object is no more than its parts [Lewis, by Merricks] |
| Full Idea: Lewis says that the parts of a thing are identical with the whole they compose, calling his view 'composition as identity', which is the claim that a physical object is 'nothing over and above its parts'. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], p.84-7) by Trenton Merricks - Objects and Persons §I.IV | |
| A reaction: The ontological economy of this view is obviously attractive, but I don't agree with it. You certainly can't say that all identity consists entirely of composition by parts, because the parts need identity to get the view off the ground. |
| 15512 | In mereology no two things consist of the same atoms [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: It is a principle of mereology that no two things consist of exactly the same atoms. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.3) | |
| A reaction: The problem with this is screamingly obvious - that the same atoms might differ in structure. Lewis did refer to this problem, but seems to try to wriggle out of it, in Idea 15444. |
| 15519 | Trout-turkeys exist, despite lacking cohesion, natural joints and united causal power [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A trout-turkey is inhomogeneous, disconnected, not in contrast with its surroundings. It is not cohesive, not causally integrated, not a causal unit in its impact on the rest of the world. It is not carved at the joints. That doesn't affect its existence. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.5) | |
| A reaction: A nice pre-emptive strike against all the reasons why anyone might think more is needed for unity than a mereological fusion. |
| 15521 | Given cats, a fusion of cats adds nothing further to reality [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Given a prior commitment to cats, a commitment to cat-fusions is not a further commitment. The fusion is nothing over and above the cats that compose it. It just is them. They just are it. Together or separately, the cats are the same portion of Reality. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.6) | |
| A reaction: The two extremes of ontology are that there are no objects, or that every combination is an object. Until reading this I thought Lewis was in the second camp, but this sounds like object-nihilism, as in Van Inwagen and Merricks. |
| 15522 | The one has different truths from the many; it is one rather than many, one rather than six [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: What's true of the many is not exactly what's true of the one. After all they are many while it is one. The number of the many is six, whereas the number of the fusion is one. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.6) | |
| A reaction: Together with Idea 15521, this nicely illustrates the gulf between commitment to ontology and commitment to truths. The truths about a fusion change, while its ontology remains the same. Possibly this is the key to all of metaphysics. |
| 10566 | Lewis prefers giving up singletons to giving up sums [Lewis, by Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: In the face of the conflict between mereology and set theory, Lewis has advocated giving up the existence of singletons rather than sums. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991]) by Kit Fine - Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' 1 |
| 14244 | Lewis only uses fusions to create unities, but fusions notoriously flatten our distinctions [Oliver/Smiley on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Lewis employs mereological fusion as his sole method of making one thing out of many, and fusion is notorious for the way it flattens out and thereby obliterates distinctions. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991]) by Oliver,A/Smiley,T - What are Sets and What are they For? 3.1 | |
| A reaction: I take this to be a key point in the discussion of mereology in ontological contexts. As a defender of intrinsic structural essences, I have no use for mereological fusions, and look for a quite different identity for 'wholes'. |
| 10660 | A commitment to cat-fusions is not a further commitment; it is them and they are it [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Given a prior commitment to cats, a commitment to cat-fusions is not a further commitment. The fusion is nothing over and above the cats that compose it. It just is them. They just are it. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], p.81), quoted by Achille Varzi - Mereology 4.3 | |
| A reaction: I take this to make Lewis a nominalist, saying the same thing that Goodman said about Utah in Idea 10657. Any commitment to cat-fusions being more than the cats, or Utah being more than its counties, strikes me as crazy. |
| 14858 | Being certain presumes that there are absolute truths, and means of arriving at them [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Conviction is the belief that in some point of knowledge one possesses absolute truth. Such a belief presumes, then, that absolute truths exists; likewise, that the perfect methods for arriving at them have been found. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 630) |
| 15509 | Some say qualities are parts of things - as repeatable universals, or as particulars [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Some philosophers propose that things have their qualities by having them as parts, either as repeatable universals (Goodman), or as particulars (Donald Williams). | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.1 n2) | |
| A reaction: He refers to 'qualities' rather than 'properties', presumably because this view makes them all intrinsic to the object. Is being 'handsome' a part of a person? |
| 14830 | Intuition only recognises what is possible, not what exists or is certain [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: 'To intuit' does not mean to recognise the existence of a thing to any extent, but rather to hold it to be possible, in that one wishes or fears it. 'Intuition' takes us not one step farther into the land of certainty. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 131) | |
| A reaction: I like this remark. I am sympathetic to the view that the actual world has modal properties (in opposition to Sider, for example). To apprehend dispositions is precisely to apprehend possibilities. Intuition is a thousand interwoven inductions. |
| 20378 | Just as skin hides the horrors of the body, vanity conceals the passions of the soul [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Just as the bones, flesh, intestines, and blood vessels are enclosed with skin, which makes the sight of a man bearable, so the stirrings and passions of the soul are covered up by vanity: it is the skin of the soul. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 082) | |
| A reaction: What a glorious analogy! None of us should underestimate our vanity. The least vain people you ever meet can reveal their vanity if you challenge them close to home. Try accusing them of vanity! Attack their essential character! (No, don't do that). |
| 14820 | People always do what they think is right, according to the degree of their intellect [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Socrates and Plato are right: whatever man does, he always acts for the good; that is, in a way that seems to him good (useful) according to the degree of his intellect, the prevailing measure of his rationality. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 102) | |
| A reaction: I associate this doctrine much more with Socrates than with Plato - but Nietzsche was a great classical scholar. |
| 14856 | Our judgment seems to cause our nature, but actually judgment arises from our nature [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: It seems that our thinking and judging are to be made the cause of our nature after the fact, but actually our nature causes us to think and judge one way or the other. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 608) |
| 14842 | Why are the strong tastes of other people so contagious? [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Why are likes and dislikes so contagious that one can scarcely live in proximity to a person of strong sensibilities without being filled like a vessel with pros and cons? | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 371) | |
| A reaction: I was on the receiving end of this when young, and I think it influenced me to propound stronger views about things than I could ever justify, since my natural disposition is to be cautious about all views. Nice question. Why? |
| 14835 | Artists are not especially passionate, but they pretend to be [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Artists are by no means people of great passion, but they often pretend to be. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 211) | |
| A reaction: Presumably people can gradually become what they consistently pretend to be. |
| 14807 | The history of morality rests on an error called 'responsibility', which rests on an error called 'free will' [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The history of moral feelings is the history of an error, an error called 'responsibility', which in turn rests on an error called 'freedom of the will'. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 039) | |
| A reaction: I totally agree with this, though I think the term 'responsible' is useful in ethics, though only in the sense that the lightning was responsible for the thunder. Nietzsche appears to have anticipated Mackie's error theory about morality. |
| 14823 | Ceasing to believe in human responsibility is bitter, if you had based the nobility of humanity on it [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Man's complete lack of responsibility, for his behaviour and for his nature, is the bitterest drop which the man of knowledge must swallow, if he had been in the habit of seeing responsibility and duty as humanity's claim to nobility. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 107) | |
| A reaction: If you were seeing humanity as little transient angels, living a moral life that was an echo of God's, then you needed cutting down to size. But if you ask if there is anything 'noble' in the universe, it will still be the fine deeds of humanity. |
| 14824 | It is absurd to blame nature and necessity; we should no more praise actions than we praise plants or artworks [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Man may no longer praise, no longer blame, for it is nonsensical to praise and blame nature and necessity. Just as he loves a work of art (or a plant) but does not praise it, because it can do nothing about itself, so he must regard human actions. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 107) | |
| A reaction: But humans can 'do something about themselves'. They can read the works of Nietzsche. He overestimates the importance of the loss of free will, when we grasp that there is no such thing. |
| 22473 | Nietzsche said the will doesn't exist, so it can't ground moral responsibility [Nietzsche, by Foot] |
| Full Idea: Nietzsche challenged belief in free will, on the ground that will itself …is non-existent. The will is in truth nothing but a complex of sensations, as of power and resistance, and it is illusion to think of it as a basis for 'moral responsibility'. | |
| From: report of Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 107) by Philippa Foot - Nietzsche's Immoralism p.153 | |
| A reaction: Modern neuroscience seems to support Nietzsche on this, though I will continue to use the concept of 'will' in philosophy, to mean the main brain events which normally combine in decision-making. That makes the will a process, not a entity. |
| 14812 | Intellect is tied to morality, because it requires good memory and powerful imagination [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: One must have a good memory to be able to keep the promises one has given. One must have strong powers of imagination to be able to have pity. So closely is morality bound to the quality of the intellect. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 059) | |
| A reaction: Nice to see him say that strong powers of imagination are an 'intellectual' quality, which I think is not properly understood by the more geeky sort of intellectual. |
| 14810 | Originally it was the rulers who requited good for good and evil for evil who were called 'good' [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: In the soul of the original ruling clans and castes, the man who has the power to requite goodness with goodness, evil with evil, and really does practice requital by being grateful and vengeful, is called 'good'. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 045) | |
| A reaction: The idea that evil should indeed repay evil was very much a feature of goodness until the philosophers came in on the act. In those days no one else had any power, so they had no scope for goodness. |
| 14831 | No one has ever done anything that was entirely for other people [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Never has a man done anything that was only for others and without any personal motivation. …How could the ego act without ego? | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 133) | |
| A reaction: This is only a denial of the purest of 'pure' altruism. It is hard to imagine anyone performing an altruistic action which permanently shamed the reputationof its performer - though it might be possible in a nicely contrived fiction. |
| 14855 | Simultaneous love and respect are impossible; love has no separation or rank, but respect admits power [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: It is impossible to be loved and respected by the same person. For the man who respects another acknowledges his power; his condition is one of awe. But love acknowledges no power, nothing that separates, differentiates, ranks higher or subordinates. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 603) | |
| A reaction: Depends what you mean by 'respect', but this looks like nonsense. Do we 'respect' someone because they point a gun at us? I would say love and respect are inseparable. |
| 14815 | We get enormous pleasure from tales of noble actions [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: How much pleasure we get from morality! Just think what a river of agreeable tears has flowed at tales of noble, generous actions. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 091) | |
| A reaction: How can anyone not adore Nietzsche? The pleasure of a noble deed is the most piercing and the deepest pleasure known to us. It isn't 'just' a pleasure. |
| 14849 | We can only achieve happy moments, not happy eras [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The destiny of men is designed for happy moments (every life has those), but not for happy eras. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 471) | |
| A reaction: The vicissitudes of life (my favourite word!) are such that even the most serene and well-adjusted person is going to be perturbed on several days of the week, even if only by the unhappiness of the people around them. |
| 14818 | First morality is force, then custom, then acceptance, then instinct, then a pleasure - and finally 'virtue' [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Force precedes morality; for a time morality itself is force, to which others acquiesce. Later it becomes custom, and then free obedience, and finally almost instinct; then it is coupled to pleasure, like all habitual things, and is now called 'virtue'. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 099) | |
| A reaction: How few philosophers delve into the history of the concepts they work with, and yet how revealing it can be. Richard Taylor was wonderful on 'duty'. You will never grasp the 'problem of free will' if you don't examine its history. |
| 20103 | You are mastered by your own virtues, but you must master them, and turn them into tools [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: You had to become your own master, and also the master of your own virtues. Previously, your virtues were your master; but they must be nothing more than your tools. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 006) | |
| A reaction: What on earth would Aristotle make of that? Nietzsche offers a sort of metatheory for virtues. I take this to be a form of particularism - that you live by your virtues, but occasionally you can discard a virtue if it seems right. Lie, steal... |
| 14817 | The 'good' man does the moral thing as if by nature, easily and gladly, after a long inheritance [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: We call 'good' the man who does the moral thing as if by nature, after a long history of inheritance - that is, easily, and gladly, whatever it is. …He is called 'good' because he is good 'for' something. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 096) | |
| A reaction: I am amazed at the brief and rather disrespectful remarks that Nietzsche makes about Aristotle's ethics, given how close this idea is to the ideal of Aristotle (though the latter who not emphasise 'inheritance'!). |
| 14809 | All societies of good men give a priority to gratitude [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Every society of good men (that is, originally, of powerful men) places gratitude among its first duties. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 044) | |
| A reaction: His reason here is that gratitude is a way of displaying the power of the powerful! |
| 14816 | Justice (fairness) originates among roughly equal powers (as the Melian dialogues show) [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Justice (fairness) originates among approximately equal powers, as Thucydides (in the horrifying conversation between the Athenian and Melian envoys) rightly understood. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 092) | |
| A reaction: The moral position of the powerless is a notorious problem for social contract theories of morality. They have nothing to offer in a mere contract. |
| 20112 | Pity consoles those who suffer, because they see that they still have the power to hurt [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The pity that the spectators express consoles the weak and suffering, inasmuch as they see that , despite all their weakness, they still have at least one power: the power to hurt. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 050) | |
| A reaction: This pinpoints how the will to power led to the inversion of values. |
| 14821 | Apart from philosophers, most people rightly have a low estimate of pity [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Aside from a few philosophers, men have always placed pity rather low in the hierarchy of moral feelings - and rightly so. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 103) | |
| A reaction: Presumably this includes Jesus among the 'philosophers'. |
| 14841 | Many people are better at having good friends than being a good friend [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: In many people the gift of having good friends is much greater than the gift of being a good friend. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 368) |
| 14843 | Women can be friends with men, but only some physical antipathy will maintain it [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Women can very well enter into a friendship with a man, but to maintain it - a little physical antipathy must help out. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 390) |
| 14811 | In Homer it is the contemptible person, not the harmful person, who is bad [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: In Homer, both the Trojan and the Greek are good. Not the man who inflicts harm on us, but the man who is contemptible, is bad. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 045) |
| 20111 | We could live more naturally, relishing the spectacle, and not thinking we are special [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: I can imagine a life much more simple...than the present one. ...One would live among men and with oneself as in nature, without praise, reproach, overzealousness, delighting in things as in a spectacle. One would no longer feel one was more than nature. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 034) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] Safranski says this passage is a big turning point for Nietzsche, replacing his earlier idea that art could be salvation. Eternal Recurrence puts a seal on this new view. Nietzsche adds that this life needs to be 'cheerful'. |
| 14844 | People do not experience boredom if they have never learned to work properly [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Many people, especially women, do not experience boredom, because they have never learned to work properly. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 391) | |
| A reaction: It certainly seems right that boredom is a response to expectations and past habits. Life in a medieval village looks like boredom verging on torture for your busy modern urban sophisticate, but I daresay it was quite absorbing. |
| 14808 | Over huge periods of time human character would change endlessly [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: If a man eighty thousand years old were conceivable, his character would in fact be absolutely variable. …The brevity of human life misleads us… | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 041) | |
| A reaction: This would be one of my many exhibits for claiming Nietzsche as an existentialist. I think he is largely right, and we do detect slow shifts in our characters over long periods of time. They may be as much a response to culture as a personal matter. |
| 14822 | If self-defence is moral, then so are most expressions of 'immoral' egoism [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: If we accept self-defense as moral, then we must also accept nearly all expressions of so-called immoral egoism. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 104) | |
| A reaction: I find this idea rather disconcerting, because I have always thought that the clearest possible 'natural right' was that of self-defence - but this implication (if it be so) had never struck me. Hm. |
| 14838 | The state aims to protect individuals from one another [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The state is a clever institution for protecting individuals from one another. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 235) | |
| A reaction: This is Nietzsche allying with Hobbes, and presumably aiming this remark at Hegel. |
| 14852 | Culture cannot do without passions and vices [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Culture absolutely cannot do without passions, vices and acts of malice. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 477) | |
| A reaction: I'm not sure how you test the truth of that aphorism, given that humanity is perpetually doomed to live with such things. If those qualities disappeared, I suppose we would drift apart. We are 'dependent' beings, as MacIntyre says. |
| 14846 | If we want the good life for the greatest number, we must let them decide on the good life [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: If the business of politics is to make life tolerable for the greatest number, this greatest number may also determine what they understand by a tolerable life. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 438) |
| 14819 | Slavery cannot be judged by our standards, because the sense of justice was then less developed [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The injustice of slavery, the cruelty in subjugating persons and peoples, cannot be measured by our standards. For the instinct for justice was not so widely developed then. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 101) | |
| A reaction: Why do we value the instinct for justic which we have subsequently developed? Why do we think it is important, and battle to preserve it? This is the sort of creepy relativism that Nietzsche drifted into, and for the worse. |
| 14847 | Laws that are well thought out, or laws that are easy to understand? [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Lawyers argue whether that law which is most thoroughly thought out, or that which is easiest to understand, should prevail in a people. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 459) | |
| A reaction: Our system of speed limits is radically simplified, to save money on road signs, and facilitate enforcement. But then its inflexibility brings it into disrepute. |
| 14814 | Execution is worse than murder, because we are using the victim, and really we are the guilty [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Why does execution offend us more than murder? It is the coldness of the judges, the painful preparation, the use of a man to deter others. For guilt is not being punished, which lies in the educators, parents, environment, in us, not in the murderer. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 070) | |
| A reaction: Someone was stabbed to death in Oxford Street yesterday (26 Dec 11), and we all feel horribly that London is responsible for producing this event, even if we try and load all the blame onto one youth with a knife. Oscar Wilde endorsed this idea. |
| 14836 | People will enthusiastically pursue an unwanted war, once sacrifices have been made [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: All things for which we have made sacrifices are in the right. This explains why, just as soon as sacrifices are made, people continue with enthusiasm a war that was begun against their wishes. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 229) |
| 14845 | Don't crush girls with dull Gymnasium education, the way we have crushed boys! [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: For heaven's sake, do not pass our Gymnasium education on to girls too! For it often turns witty, inquisitive, fiery youths - into copies of their teachers! | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 409) |
| 14839 | Interest in education gains strength when we lose interest in God [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Interest in education will gain great strength only at the moment when belief in a God and his loving care is given up. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 242) | |
| A reaction: This remark may well sum up the motivation of my entire life. What effect would it have had if I had read it when I was twenty? |
| 14848 | Education in large states is mediocre, like cooking in large kitchens [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The educational system in large states will always be mediocre at best, for the same reason that the cooking in large kitchens is at best mediocre. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 467) | |
| A reaction: I wish he had said what that 'same reason' is. Something to do with too many cooks, I suppose. Nothing seems harder than reaching a wide concensus on how the young should be educated. Like interior design by a committee. |
| 14834 | Teachers only gather knowledge for their pupils, and can't be serious about themselves [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: A teacher is incapable of doing anything of his own for his own good. He always thinks of the good of his pupils, and all new knowledge gladdens him only to the extent that he can teach it. He is a thoroughfare for learning, and has lost seriousness. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 200) | |
| A reaction: Oh dear. I look in the mirror. Do I only delight in finding all these quotations so that I can stick them in the database and pass them on to someone else? Are they actually impingeing on my life? Could I meet an idea that made me abandon this project? |
| 1748 | Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless [Archelaus, by Diog. Laertius] |
| Full Idea: Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless. | |
| From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 02.Ar.3 |
| 14825 | In religious thought nature is a complex of arbitrary acts by conscious beings [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: In the mind of religious men, all nature is the sum of actions of conscious and intentioned beings, an enormous complex of arbitrary acts. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 111) | |
| A reaction: This is the beginning of the process, I think, which then sees the gods as dictating through laws, and then the laws themselves doing the dictating, then seeing the laws as inhering in nature - and finally realising there aren't any laws! |
| 14826 | Modern man wants laws of nature in order to submit to them [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: In present times, man wishes to understand the lawfulness of nature in order to submit to it. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 111) | |
| A reaction: They don't make philosophers like Nietzsche any more (or at least, in the analytic tradition I am following!). No one who is trying to give an analysis of the laws of nature has any interest in why we are so keen to find them. Stoics 'live by nature'. |
| 5989 | Archelaus said life began in a primeval slime [Archelaus, by Schofield] |
| Full Idea: Archelaus wrote that life on Earth began in a primeval slime. | |
| From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Malcolm Schofield - Archelaus | |
| A reaction: This sounds like a fairly clearcut assertion of the production of life by evolution. Darwin's contribution was to propose the mechanism for achieving it. We should honour the name of Archelaus for this idea. |
| 14827 | The Greeks saw the gods not as their masters, but as idealised versions of themselves [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The Greeks did not see the Homeric gods above them as masters and themselves below them as servants, as did the Jews. They saw, as it were, only the reflection of the most successful specimens of their own caste - an ideal, not a contrast. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 114) |
| 14813 | Science rejecting the teaching of Christianity in favour of Epicurus shows the superiority of the latter [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: We can determine whether Christianity or Greek philosophy has the greater truth by noting that the awakening sciences have carried on point for point with the philosophy of Epicurus, but have rejected Christianity point for point. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 068) |
| 14832 | The Sermon on the Mount is vanity - praying to one part of oneself, and demonising the rest [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: This shattering of oneself, this scorn of one's own nature, is actually a high degree of vanity. The whole morality of the Sermon on the Mount belongs here; in ascetic morality man prays to one part of himself as a god, and has to diabolify the rest. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 137) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be the core of Nietzsche's objection to Christian teaching - that it doesn't provide a direction of life for the whole human being. The modern rejection of religions agrees with Nietzsche, especially in disputes over the place of sex. |
| 14850 | Christ was the noblest human being [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Christ was the noblest human being. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 475) | |
| A reaction: That one will come as a surprise to those who only know of Nietzsche's religion that 'God is dead'! |
| 14837 | Christ seems warm hearted, and suppressed intellect in favour of the intellectually weak [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Christ, whom we like to imagine as having the warmest of hearts, furthered men's stupidity, took the side of the intellectually weak, and kept the greatest intellect from being produced: and this was consistent. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 235) | |
| A reaction: Thomas Aquinas was a stupendous intellect. The surest way to be swept forward on a wave of popularity is to find some reason why the uneducated are superior to the educated. |
| 14828 | Religion is tempting if your life is boring, but you can't therefore impose it on the busy people [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: People who think their daily lives too empty and monotonous easily become religious: this is understandable and forgivable; however, they have no right to demand religiosity from those whose daily life does not pass in emptiness and monotony. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 115) | |
| A reaction: Well wicked, that Nietzsche. Richard Dawkins and the hated new atheists are a right bunch of wimps in comparison. |