|
9576
|
Multiplicity in general is just one and one and one, etc. [Husserl]
|
|
Full Idea:
Multiplicity in general is no more than something and something and something, etc.; ..or more briefly, one and one and one, etc.
|
|
From:
Edmund Husserl (Philosophy of Arithmetic [1894], p.85), quoted by Gottlob Frege - Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic'
|
|
A reaction:
Frege goes on to attack this idea fairly convincingly. It seems obvious that it is hard to say that you have seventeen items, if the only numberical concept in your possession is 'one'. How would you distinguish 17 from 16? What makes the ones 'multiple'?
|
|
9575
|
Husserl identifies a positive mental act of unification, and a negative mental act for differences [Husserl, by Frege]
|
|
Full Idea:
Husserl identifies a 'unitary mental act' where several contents are connected or related to one another, and also a difference-relation where two contents are related to one another by a negative judgement.
|
|
From:
report of Edmund Husserl (Philosophy of Arithmetic [1894], p.73-74) by Gottlob Frege - Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' p.322
|
|
A reaction:
Frege is setting this up ready for a fairly vicious attack. Where Hume has a faculty for spotting resemblances, it is not implausible that we should also be hard-wired to spot differences. 'You look different; have you changed your hair style?'
|
|
9851
|
Husserl wanted to keep a shadowy remnant of abstracted objects, to correlate them [Dummett on Husserl]
|
|
Full Idea:
Husserl saw that abstracted units, though featureless, must in some way retain their distinctness, some shadowy remnant of their objects. So he wanted to correlate like-numbered sets, not just register their identity, but then abstractionism fails.
|
|
From:
comment on Edmund Husserl (Philosophy of Arithmetic [1894]) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.12
|
|
A reaction:
Abstractionism is held to be between the devil and the deep blue sea, of depending on units which are identifiable, when they are defined as devoid of all individuality. We seem forced to say that the only distinction between them is countability.
|
|
5078
|
Kant and Mill both try to explain right and wrong, without a divine lawgiver [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
Kant and Mill were in total agreement in trying to give content to the distinction between moral right and wrong, without recourse to any divine lawgiver.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.14)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice analysis, in tune with MacIntyre and others, who see such attempts as failures. It is hard, however, to deny the claims of rational principles, or of suffering, in our moral framework. I agree with Taylor's move back to virtue, but it ain't simple.
|
|
5067
|
Morality based on 'forbid', 'permit' and 'require' implies someone who does these things [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
If morality is based on wrong (meaning 'forbidden'), right ('permitted'), and obligatory ('required'), we are led to ask 'Who is it that thus permits, forbids or requires that certain things be done or not done?'
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Clear reinforcement for Nietzsche's attack on conventional morals, which Taylor sees as a relic of medieval religious attitudes. Taylor says Kant offered a non-religious version of the same authority. I agree. Back to the Greek pursuit of excellence!
|
|
5079
|
Pleasure can have a location, and be momentary, and come and go - but happiness can't [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
Pleasures can be located in a particular part of the body, and can be momentary, and come and go, but this is not the case with happiness.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.16)
|
|
A reaction:
Probably no one ever thought that pleasure and happiness were actually identical - merely that pleasure is the only cause and source of happiness. These are good objections to that hypothesis. Pleasure simply isn't 'the good'.
|
|
5068
|
'Eudaimonia' means 'having a good demon', implying supreme good fortune [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
The word 'eudaimonia' means literally 'having a good demon', which is apt, because it suggests some kind of supreme good fortune, of the sort which might be thought of as a bestowal.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.5)
|
|
A reaction:
Beware of etymology. This implies that eudaimonia is almost entirely beyond a person's control, but Aristotle doesn't think that. A combination of education and effort can build on some natural gifts to create a fully successful life.
|
|
5077
|
The modern idea of obligation seems to have lost the idea of an obligation 'to' something [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
In modern moral thinking, obligation is something every responsible person is supposed to have, but it is not an obligation to the state, or society, or humanity, or even to God. It is an obligation standing by itself.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.12)
|
|
A reaction:
This nicely pinpoints how some our moral attitudes are relics of religion. Taylor wants a return to virtue, but one could respond by opting for the social contract (with very clear obligations) or Kantian 'contractualism' (answering to rational beings).
|
|
5066
|
If we are made in God's image, pursuit of excellence is replaced by duty to obey God [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
Once people are declared to be images of God, just by virtue of minimal humanity, they have, therefore, no greater individual excellence to aspire to, and their purpose became one of obligation, that is, obedience to God's will.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.2)
|
|
A reaction:
An interesting and plausible historical analysis. There is a second motivation for the change, though, in Grotius's desire to develop a more legalistic morality, focusing on actions rather than character. Taylor's point is more interesting, though.
|