41 ideas
18290 | But what is the reasoning of the body, that it requires the wisdom you seek? [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: There is more reason in your body than in your best wisdom. For who knows for what purpose your body requires precisely your best wisdom? | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.05) | |
A reaction: Lovely question. For years I've paid lip-service to wisdom as the rough aim of all philosophy. Not quite knowing what wisdom is doesn't bother me, but knowing why I want wisdom certainly does, especially after this idea. |
18303 | Reject wisdom that lacks laughter [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: Let that wisdom be false to us that brought no laughter with it! | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 3.12.23) |
20923 | We take part in objective truth, rather than observe it from a distance [Zimmermann,J] |
Full Idea: Hermeneutic thinkers insist that we need to redefine objective truth as something we take part in rather than something we merely observe from a distance. | |
From: Jens Zimmermann (Hermeneutics: a very short introduction [2015], 1 'Truth') | |
A reaction: Don't get it. If I objectively judge that there are some cows in a field, I judge that they will probably still be there if I turn away and forget them, so any passionate involvement I have with cows is irrelevant to the objective facts. Am I wrong? |
20926 | Hermeneutic knowledge is not objective, but embraces interpretations [Zimmermann,J] |
Full Idea: In the hermeneutic ideal of knowledge, not distance but involvement, not impersonal observation but personal interaction, not thinking against prejudice or tradition but accessing knowledge through them, characterizes our perception of the world. | |
From: Jens Zimmermann (Hermeneutics: a very short introduction [2015], 3 'Beyond') | |
A reaction: To make this stick it will have to challenge scientific knowledge which results from mathematical summaries of measurements done by instruments. Is a stop watch an interpretation? |
18305 | To love truth, you must know how to lie [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: Inability to lie is far from being love of truth. ....He who cannot lie does not know what truth is. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 4.13.9) |
13076 | Scholastics treat relations as two separate predicates of the relata [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: The scholastics treated it as a step in the right explanatory direction to analyze a relational statement of the form 'aRb' into two subject-predicate statements, attributing different relational predicates to a and to b. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 2.2.1) | |
A reaction: The only alternative seems to be Russell's view of relations as pure universals, having a life of their own, quite apart from their relata. Or you could take them as properties of space, time (and powers?), external to the relata? |
13102 | If you individuate things by their origin, you still have to individuate the origins themselves [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: If we go for the necessity-of-origins view, A and B are different if the origin of A is different from the origin of B. But one is left with the further question 'When is the origin of A distinct from the origin of B?' | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.4.1) | |
A reaction: There may be an answer to this, in a regress of origins that support one another, but in the end the objection is obviously good. You can't begin to refer to an 'origin' if you can't identify anything in the first place. |
13103 | Numerical difference is a symmetrical notion, unlike proper individuation [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: Scholastics distinguished criteria of numerical difference from questions of individuation proper, since numerical difference is a symmetrical notion. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.4.1) | |
A reaction: This apparently old-fashioned point appears to be conclusively correct. Modern thinkers, though, aren't comfortable with proper individuation, because they don't believe in concepts like 'essence' and 'substance' that are needed for the job. |
13104 | Haecceity as property, or as colourless thisness, or as singleton set [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: There is a contemporary property construal of haecceities, ...and a Scotistic construal as primitive, 'colourless' thisnesses which, unlike singleton-set haecceities, are aimed to do some explanatory work. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.4.4) | |
A reaction: [He associates the contemporary account with David Kaplan] I suppose I would say that individuation is done by properties, but not by some single property, so I take it that I don't believe in haecceities at all. What individuates a haecceity? |
13100 | Maybe 'substance' is more of a mass-noun than a count-noun [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: We could think of 'substance' on the model of a mass noun, rather than a count noun. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.3) | |
A reaction: They offer this to help Leibniz out of a mess, but I think he would be appalled. The proposal seems close to 'prime matter' in Aristotle, which never quite does the job required of it. The idea is nice, though, and should be taken seriously. |
13068 | We can ask for the nature of substance, about type of substance, and about individual substances [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: In the 'blueprint' approach to substance, we confront at least three questions: What is it for a thing to be an individual substance? What is it for a thing to be the kind of substance that it is? What is it to be that very individual substance? | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 1.1.1) | |
A reaction: My working view is that the answer to the first question is that substance is essence, that the second question is overrated and parasitic on the third, and that the third is the key question, and also reduces to essence. |
13069 | The general assumption is that substances cannot possibly be non-substances [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: There is a widespread assumption, now and in the past, that substances are essentially substances: nothing is actually a substance but possibly a non-substance. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 1.1.2) | |
A reaction: It seems to me that they clearly mean, in this context, that substances are 'necessarily' substances, not that they are 'essentially' substances. I would just say that substances are essences, and leave the necessity question open. |
13072 | Modern essences are sets of essential predicate-functions [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: The modern view of essence is that the essence of a particular thing is given by the set of predicate-functions essential to it, and the essence of any kind is given by the set of predicate-functions essential to every possible member of that kind. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 1.2.2) | |
A reaction: Thus the modern view has elided the meanings of 'essential' and 'necessary' when talking of properties. They are said to be 'functions' from possible worlds to individuals. The old view (and mine) demands real essences, not necessary properties. |
17080 | Modern essentialists express essence as functions from worlds to extensions for predicates [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: The modern essentialist gives the same metaphysical treatment to every grammatical predicate - by associating a function from worlds to extensions for each. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 2.2) | |
A reaction: I take this to mean that essentialism is the view that if some predicate attaches to an object then that predicate is essential if there is an extension of that predicate in all possible worlds. In English, essential predicates are necessary predicates. |
13101 | Necessity-of-origin won't distinguish ex nihilo creations, or things sharing an origin [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: A necessity-of-origins approach cannot work to distinguish things that come into being genuinely ex nihilo, and cannot work to distinguish things sharing a single origin. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 7.4.1) | |
A reaction: Since I am deeply suspicious of essentiality or necessity of origin (and they are not, I presume, the same thing) I like these two. Twins have always bothered me with the second case (where order of birth seems irrelevant). |
13081 | Even extreme modal realists might allow transworld identity for abstract objects [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: It might be suggested that even the extreme modal realist can countenance transworld identity for abstract objects. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 3.2.2 n46) | |
A reaction: This may sound right for uncontroversial or well-defined abstracta such as numbers and circles, but even 'or' is ambiguous, and heaven knows what the transworld identity of 'democracy' is! |
20924 | In phenomenology, all perception is 'seeing as' [Zimmermann,J] |
Full Idea: That human perception is always a 'seeing as' was the cardinal insight of what Husserl called 'phenomenology'. | |
From: Jens Zimmermann (Hermeneutics: a very short introduction [2015], 2 'Husserl's') | |
A reaction: I presume that 'cardinal insight' means there is no possibility of Husserl being wrong about this. What's happening before you figure out what it is you are looking at? |
13071 | We can go beyond mere causal explanations if we believe in an 'order of being' [Cover/O'Leary-Hawthorne] |
Full Idea: The philosopher comfortable with an 'order of being' has richer resources to make sense of the 'in virtue of' relation than that provided only by causal relations between states of affairs, positing in addition other sorts of explanatory relationships. | |
From: Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J (Substance and Individuation in Leibniz [1999], 1.1.2) | |
A reaction: This might best be characterised as 'ontological dependence', and could be seen as a non-causal but fundamental explanatory relationship, and not one that has to depend on a theistic world view. |
20757 | The powerful self behind your thoughts and feelings is your body [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: Behind your thoughts and feelings stands a powerful commander, an unknown wise man - he is called a self. He lives in your body; he is your body. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], I.4), quoted by Kevin Aho - Existentialism: an introduction 5 'Creature' | |
A reaction: I find Nietzsche's view of the self very congenial, though I tend to see the self as certain central functions of the brain. The brain is enmeshed in the body (as in the location of pains). |
18289 | Forget the word 'I'; 'I' is performed by the intelligence of your body [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: You say 'I' and you are proud of this word. But greater than this - although you will not believe in it - is your body and its great intelligence, which does not say 'I' but performs 'I'. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.05) | |
A reaction: I'm not sure if I understand this, but I offer it as a candidate for the most profound idea ever articulated about personal identity. |
18299 | The will is constantly frustrated by the past [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: Powerless against that which has been done, the will is an angry spectator of all things past. The will cannot will backwards; that it cannot break time and time's desire - that is the will's most lonely affliction. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 2.20) |
20927 | The hermeneutic circle is between the reader's self-understanding, and the world of the text [Zimmermann,J] |
Full Idea: The 'hermeneutic circle' of understanding is not between the author and the reader, but between my understanding myself in my own world, and the world projected by the text, with its possibilities for life. | |
From: Jens Zimmermann (Hermeneutics: a very short introduction [2015], 4 'How texts') | |
A reaction: I'm not much of a fan of hermeneutics, but this idea seems quite important. Readings of Dickens in1860, 1930 and 2020 are very different events. For example, which parts catch the reader's interest, or jar with their sensibilities? |
18297 | We created meanings, to maintain ourselves [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: Man first implanted values into things to maintain himself - he first created the meaning of things, a human meaning! | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.16) | |
A reaction: It is certainly hard to see anything resembling values or meaning in the cosmos, if you remove the human beings. We should expect an evolutionary grounding in their explanation. |
18293 | The noble man wants new virtues; the good man preserves what is old [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: The noble man wants to create new things and a new virtue. The good man wants the old things and that the old things shall be preserved. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.09) | |
A reaction: There is a limit to how many plausible virtues the noble men can come up with. We may already have run out. Are we going to have to re-run the Iliad? |
18301 | We only really love children and work [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: One loves from the very heart only one's child and one's work. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 3.03) | |
A reaction: Very Nietzchean (and masculine?) to cite one's work. Rachmaninov said he was 85% musician and 15% human being, so I guess he loved music from the very heart. |
18307 | I want my work, not happiness! [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: Do I aspire after happiness? I aspire after my work! | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 4.20) | |
A reaction: I empathise with aspiring to do something, rather than be something. But what do we wish for our children? Happiness first, then achievement? |
18291 | Virtues can destroy one another, through jealousy [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: Every virtue is jealous of the others, and jealousy is a terrible thing. Even virtues can be destroyed through jealousy. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.07) | |
A reaction: How much more subtle and plausible than the picture of accumulating virtues, like medals! Zarathustra says it is best to have just one virtue. |
18287 | People now find both wealth and poverty too much of a burden [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: Nobody grows rich or poor any more: both are too much of a burden. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.01) | |
A reaction: True. Most people I know are just puzzled by people who actually seem to want to be extremely wealthy. |
18295 | If you want friends, you must be a fighter [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: If you want a friend, you must be willing to wage war for him: and to wage war, you must be capable of being an enemy. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.15) |
18286 | The greatest experience possible is contempt for your own happiness, reason and virtue [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: What is the greatest thing you can experience? It is the hour of the great contempt. The hour in which even your happiness grows loathsome to you, and your reason and your virtue also. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.01) | |
A reaction: This would be a transient state for Nietzsche, in which you realise the hollowness of those traditional ideas, and begin to seek something else. |
18296 | An enduring people needs its own individual values [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: No people could live without evaluating; but if it wishes to maintain itself it must not evaluate as its neighbour evaluates. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.16) | |
A reaction: Political philosophers say plenty about a 'people', but little about what unifies them, or about what keeps one people distinct from another. Most people's are proud of their local values. |
18294 | The state coldly claims that it is the people, but that is a lie [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and this lie creeps from its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people'. It is a lie! | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.12) | |
A reaction: This strikes me as just as true even after everyone gets the vote. Rulers can't help gradually forgetting about the people. |
18304 | Saints want to live as they desire, or not to live at all [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: 'To live as I desire to live or not to live at all': that is what I want, that is what the most saintly man wants. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 4.09) | |
A reaction: [spoken by Zarathustra] |
20933 | Natural law theorists fear that without morality, law could be based on efficiency [Zimmermann,J] |
Full Idea: Natural law theorists fear that by denying the intrinsic connection between law and morality, positivists could encourage the validation of law based on efficiency alone. | |
From: Jens Zimmermann (Hermeneutics: a very short introduction [2015], 6 'Natural') | |
A reaction: The law's the law. The issue can only be whether one can ever be justified in breaking a law, and that isn't a legal question. I am sympathetic to the positiviists. |
18300 | Whenever we have seen suffering, we have wanted the revenge of punishment [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: The spirit of revenge: my friends, that, up to now, has been mankind's chief concern; and where there was suffering, there was always supposed to be punishment. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 2.20) |
18302 | Man and woman are deeply strange to one another! [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: Who has fully conceived how strange man and woman are to one another! | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 3.10.2) |
18292 | I can only believe in a God who can dance [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: I should believe only in a God who understood how to dance. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.08) |
18298 | There can't be gods, because that leaves us nothing to create! [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: If there were gods, how could I endure not to be a god! Therefore there are no gods. ...For what would there be to create if gods - existed! | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 2.02) | |
A reaction: [Zarathustra says this, not Nietzsche!] |
20929 | Traditionally, God dictated the Torah to Moses, unlike the later biblical writings [Zimmermann,J] |
Full Idea: Jewish traditionalists hold that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (the 'Torah') were dictated word for word by God to Moses, while the remaining sacred writings were more generally inspired. | |
From: Jens Zimmermann (Hermeneutics: a very short introduction [2015], 5 'Inspiration') | |
A reaction: This gives the Torah a similar status to the Quran, and presumably also to the actual words which are ascribed to Jesus in the four gospels. |
18306 | We don't want heaven; now that we are men, we want the kingdom of earth [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: We certainly do not want to enter into the kingdom of heaven: we have become men, so we want the kingdom of earth. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 4.18.2) |
18288 | Heaven was invented by the sick and the dying [Nietzsche] |
Full Idea: It was the sick and dying who despised the body and the earth and invented the things of heaven and the redeeming drops of blood. | |
From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra [1884], 1.04) |