|
13453
|
Perhaps second-order quantifications cover concepts of objects, rather than plain objects [Rayo/Uzquiano]
|
|
Full Idea:
If one thought of second-order quantification as quantification over first-level Fregean concepts [note: one under which only objects fall], talk of domains might be regimented as talk of first-level concepts, which are not objects.
|
|
From:
Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
That is (I take it), don't quantify over objects, but quantify over concepts, but only those under which known objects fall. One might thus achieve naïve comprehension without paradoxes. Sound like fun.
|
|
13448
|
The domain of an assertion is restricted by context, either semantically or pragmatically [Rayo/Uzquiano]
|
|
Full Idea:
We generally take an assertion's domain of discourse to be implicitly restricted by context. [Note: the standard approach is that this restriction is a semantic phenomenon, but Kent Bach (2000) argues that it is a pragmatic phenomenon]
|
|
From:
Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.1)
|
|
A reaction:
I think Kent Bach is very very right about this. Follow any conversation, and ask what the domain is at any moment. The reference of a word like 'they' can drift across things, with no semantics to guide us, but only clues from context and common sense.
|
|
6237
|
Fear of God is not conscience, which is a natural feeling of offence at bad behaviour [Shaftesbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Conscience is to find horribly offensive the reflection of any unjust action or behaviour; to have awe and terror of the Deity, does not, of itself, imply conscience; …thus religious conscience supposes moral or natural conscience.
|
|
From:
3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (Inquiry Concerning Virtue or Merit [1699], II.II.I)
|
|
A reaction:
The reply from religion would be that the Deity has implanted natural conscience in each creature, though this seems to deny our freedom of moral judgment. Personally I am inclined to think that values are just observations of the world - such as health.
|
|
4366
|
We can't accept Aristotle's naturalism about persons, because it is normative and unscientific [Williams,B, by Hursthouse]
|
|
Full Idea:
Williams has expressed pessimism about the project of Aristotelian naturalism on the grounds that his conception of nature, and thereby of human nature, was normative, and that, in a scientific age, this is not a conception that we can take on board.
|
|
From:
report of Bernard Williams (works [1971]) by Rosalind Hursthouse - On Virtue Ethics Ch.11
|
|
A reaction:
I think there is a compromise here. The existentialist denial of intrinsic human nature seems daft, but Aristotelians must grasp the enormous flexibility that is possible to human behaviour because of the open nature of rationality.
|
|
6234
|
If an irrational creature with kind feelings was suddenly given reason, its reason would approve of kind feelings [Shaftesbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
If a creature wanting reason has many good qualities and affections, it is certain that if you give this creature a reflecting faculty, it will at the same instant approve of gratitude, kindness and pity.
|
|
From:
3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (Inquiry Concerning Virtue or Merit [1699], I.III.III)
|
|
A reaction:
A wonderful denunciation of the authority of reason, which must have influenced David Hume. I think, though, that the inverse of this case must be considered (if suddenly given feelings, they would fall in line with reasoning). We reason about feelings.
|
|
6233
|
A person isn't good if only tying their hands prevents their mischief, so the affections decide a person's morality [Shaftesbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
We do not say that he is a good man when, having his hands tied up, he is hindered from doing the mischief he designs; …hence it is by affection merely that a creature is esteemed good or ill, natural or unnatural.
|
|
From:
3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (Inquiry Concerning Virtue or Merit [1699], I.II.I)
|
|
A reaction:
Note that he more or less equates being morally 'ill' with being 'unnatural'. We tend to reserve 'unnatural' for extreme or perverse crimes. Personally I would place more emphasis on evil judgements, and less on evil feelings.
|
|
6235
|
Self-interest is not intrinsically good, but its absence is evil, as public good needs it [Shaftesbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Though no creature can be called good merely for possessing the self-preserving affections, it is impossible that public good can be preserved without them; so that a creature wanting in them is wanting in natural rectitude, and may be esteemed vicious.
|
|
From:
3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (Inquiry Concerning Virtue or Merit [1699], II.I.III)
|
|
A reaction:
Aristotle held a similar view (Idea 92). I think maybe Shaftesbury was the last call of the Aristotelians, before being engulfed by utilitarians and Kantians. This idea is at the core of capitalism.
|