|
5893
|
A wise man has integrity, firmness of will, nobility, consistency, sobriety, patience [Cicero]
|
|
Full Idea:
The wise man does nothing of which he can repent, nothing against his will, does everything nobly, consistently, soberly, rightly, not looking forward to anything as bound to come, is not astonished at any novel occurrence, abides by his own decisions.
|
|
From:
M. Tullius Cicero (Tusculan Disputations [c.44 BCE], V.xxviii)
|
|
A reaction:
Notice that the wise man never exhibits weakness of will (an Aristotelian virtue), and is consistent (as Kant proposed), and is patient (as the Stoics proposed). But Cicero doesn't think he should busy himself maximising happiness.
|
|
5884
|
How can one mind perceive so many dissimilar sensations? [Cicero]
|
|
Full Idea:
Why is it that, using the same mind, we have perception of things so utterly unlike as colour, taste, heat, smell and sound?
|
|
From:
M. Tullius Cicero (Tusculan Disputations [c.44 BCE], I.xx.47)
|
|
A reaction:
This leaves us with the 'binding problem', of how the dissimilar sensations are pulled together into one field of experience. It is a nice simple objection, though, to anyone who simplistically claims that the mind is self-evidently unified.
|
|
5887
|
The soul has a single nature, so it cannot be divided, and hence it cannot perish [Cicero]
|
|
Full Idea:
In souls there is no mingling of ingredients, nothing of two-fold nature, so it is impossible for the soul to be divided; impossible, therefore, for it to perish either; for perishing is like the separation of parts which were maintained in union.
|
|
From:
M. Tullius Cicero (Tusculan Disputations [c.44 BCE], I.xxix.71)
|
|
A reaction:
Cicero knows he is pushing his luck in asserting that perishing is a sort of division. Why can't something be there one moment and gone the next? He appears to be in close agreement with Descartes about being a 'thinking thing'.
|
|
5886
|
Like the eye, the soul has no power to see itself, but sees other things [Cicero]
|
|
Full Idea:
The soul has not the power of itself to see itself, but, like the eye, the soul, though it does not see itself, yet discerns other things.
|
|
From:
M. Tullius Cicero (Tusculan Disputations [c.44 BCE], I.xxvii)
|
|
A reaction:
The soul is a complex item which contributes many layers of interpretation to what it sees, so there is scope for parts of the soul seeing other parts. Somewhere in the middle Cicero seems to be right - there is an elusive something we can't get at.
|
|
5885
|
Souls contain no properties of elements, and elements contain no properties of souls [Cicero]
|
|
Full Idea:
No beginnings of souls can be found on earth; there is no combination in souls that could be born from earth, nothing that partakes of moist or airy or fiery; for in those elements there is nothing to possess the power of memory, thought, or reflection.
|
|
From:
M. Tullius Cicero (Tusculan Disputations [c.44 BCE], I.xxvi.66)
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting, but I think magnetism is an instructive analogy, which has weird properties which we never perceive in elements (though it is there, buried deep - suggesting panpsychism). Cicero would be disconcerted to find that fire isn't an element.
|
|
20014
|
Actions include: the involuntary, the purposeful, the intentional, and the self-consciously autonomous [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are different levels of action, including at least: unconscious and/or involuntary behaviour, purposeful or goal-directed activity, intentional action, and the autonomous acts or actions of self-consciously active human agents.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
The fourth class is obviously designed to distinguish us from the other animals. It immediately strikes me as very optimistic to distinguish four (at least) clear categories, but you have to start somewhere.
|
|
20019
|
Maybe bodily movements are not actions, but only part of an agent's action of moving [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some say that the movement's of agent's body are never actions. It is only the agent's direct moving of, say, his leg that constitutes a physical action; the leg movement is merely caused by and/or incorporated as part of the act of moving.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1.2)
|
|
A reaction:
[they cite Jennifer Hornsby 1980] It seems normal to deny a twitch the accolade of an 'action', so I suppose that is right. Does the continual movement of my tongue count as action? Only if I bring it under control? Does it matter? Only in forensics.
|
|
20021
|
Is the action the arm movement, the whole causal process, or just the trying to do it? [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some philosophers have favored the overt arm movement the agent performs, some favor the extended causal process he initiates, and some prefer the relevant event of trying that precedes and 'generates' the rest.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1.2)
|
|
A reaction:
[Davidson argues for the second, Hornsby for the third] There seems no way to settle this, and a compromise looks best. Mere movement won't do, and mere trying won't do, and whole processes get out of control.
|
|
20022
|
To be intentional, an action must succeed in the manner in which it was planned [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
If someone fires a bullet to kill someone, misses, and dislodges hornets that sting him to death, this implies that an intentional action must include succeeding in a manner according to the original plan.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[their example, compressed] This resembles Gettier's problem cases for knowledge. If the shooter deliberately and maliciously brought down the hornet's nest, that would be intentional murder. Sounds right.
|
|
20023
|
If someone believes they can control the lottery, and then wins, the relevant skill is missing [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
If someone enters the lottery with the bizarre belief that they can control who wins, and then wins it, that suggest that intentional actions must not depend on sheer luck, but needs competent exercise of the relevant skill.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice companion to Idea 20022, which show that a mere intention is not sufficient to motivate and explain an action.
|
|
20025
|
We might intend two ways to acting, knowing only one of them can succeed [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
If an agent tries to do something by two different means, only one of which can succeed, then the behaviour is rational, even though one of them is an attempt to do an action which cannot succeed.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[a concise account of a laborious account of an example from Bratman 1984, 1987] Bratman uses this to challenge the 'Simple View', that intention leads straightforwardly to action.
|
|
20031
|
On one model, an intention is belief-desire states, and intentional actions relate to beliefs and desires [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
On the simple desire-belief model, an intention is a combination of desire-belief states, and an action is intentional in virtue of standing in the appropriate relation to these simpler terms.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the traditional view found in Hume, and is probably endemic to folk psychology. They cite Bratman 1987 as the main opponent of the view.
|
|
20028
|
Groups may act for reasons held by none of the members, so maybe groups are agents [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Rational group action may involve a 'collectivising of reasons', with participants acting in ways that are not rationally recommended from the individual viewpoint. This suggests that groups can be rational, intentional agents.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[Pettit 2003] is the source for this. Gilbert says individuals can have joint commitment; Pettit says the group can be an independent agent. The matter of shared intentions is interesting, but there is no need for the ontology to go berserk.
|
|
20027
|
If there are shared obligations and intentions, we may need a primitive notion of 'joint commitment' [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
An account of mutual obligation to do something may require that we give up reductive individualist accounts of shared activity and posit a primitive notion of 'joint commitment'.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[attributed to Margaret Gilbert 2000] If 'we' are trying to do something, that seems to give an externalist picture of intentions, rather like all the other externalisms floating around these days. I don't buy any of it, me.
|
|
20018
|
Strong Cognitivism implies a mode of 'practical' knowledge, not based on observation [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Strong Cognitivists say intentions/beliefs are not based on observation or evidence, and are causally reliable in leading to appropriate actions, so this is a mode of 'practical' knowledge that has not been derived from observation.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1.1)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed - Stanford unnecessarily verbose!] I see no mention in this discussion of 'hoping' that your action will turn out OK. We are usually right to hope, but it would be foolish to say that when we reach for the salt we know we won't knock it over.
|