Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Brainstorms:Essays on Mind and Psychology', 'Dialogue on human freedom and origin of evil' and 'Review of Frege's 'Grundlagen''

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


7 ideas

6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 2. Geometry
Circles must be bounded, so cannot be infinite [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: An infinite circle is impossible, since any circle is bounded by its circumference.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (Dialogue on human freedom and origin of evil [1695], p.114)
     A reaction: This is interesting if one is asking what the essence of a circle must be. If is tempting to say merely that the radii must be equal, but can they have the length of some vast transfinite number? The circumference must be 2π bigger.
6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 5. Definitions of Number / c. Fregean numbers
The 'extension of a concept' in general may be quantitatively completely indeterminate [Cantor]
     Full Idea: The author entirely overlooks the fact that the 'extension of a concept' in general may be quantitatively completely indeterminate. Only in certain cases is the 'extension of a concept' quantitatively determinate.
     From: George Cantor (Review of Frege's 'Grundlagen' [1885], 1932:440), quoted by William W. Tait - Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind
     A reaction: Cantor presumably has in mind various infinite sets. Tait is drawing our attention to the fact that this objection long precedes Russell's paradox, which made the objection more formal (a language Frege could understand!).
15. Nature of Minds / B. Features of Minds / 4. Intentionality / b. Intentionality theories
Theories of intentionality presuppose rationality, so can't explain it [Dennett]
     Full Idea: Intentional theory is vacuous as psychology because it presupposes and does not explain rationality or intelligence.
     From: Daniel C. Dennett (Brainstorms:Essays on Mind and Psychology [1978], p.15?)
     A reaction: Virtually every philosophical theory seems to founder because it presupposes something like the thing it is meant to explain. I agree that 'intentionality' is a slightly airy concept that would probably reduce to something better.
16. Persons / F. Free Will / 6. Determinism / b. Fate
Sloth's Syllogism: either it can't happen, or it is inevitable without my effort [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: The ancient Sloth's Syllogism says that if something is foreseen and infallible, it will happen without my effort, and if it is not foreseen, it will not happen, even though I am able to do it.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (Dialogue on human freedom and origin of evil [1695], p.113)
     A reaction: Presumable the foreseeing is to be done by the oracle, and not by the slothful person.
17. Mind and Body / B. Behaviourism / 3. Intentional Stance
Beliefs and desires aren't real; they are prediction techniques [Dennett]
     Full Idea: Intentional systems don't really have beliefs and desires, but one can explain and predict their behaviour by ascribing beliefs and desires to them. This strategy is pragmatic, not right or wrong.
     From: Daniel C. Dennett (Brainstorms:Essays on Mind and Psychology [1978], p.7?)
     A reaction: If the ascription of beliefs and desires explains behaviour, then that is good grounds for thinking they might be real features of the brain, and even if that is not so, they are real enough as abstractions from brain events, like the 'economic climate'.
29. Religion / D. Religious Issues / 3. Problem of Evil / a. Problem of Evil
Evil is a negation of good, which arises from non-being [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: The cause of good is positive, but evil is a defect, that is, a privation or negation, and consequently, it arises from nothingness or nonbeing.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (Dialogue on human freedom and origin of evil [1695], p.114)
     A reaction: He goes on to illustrate his idea from mathematics. He is modifying Augustine's view that evil is an absence of good, by adding nonbeing as the driving force behind it. Doesn't sound very persuasive to me.
God only made sin possible because a much greater good can be derived from it [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: We must believe that God would not have allowed sin nor would he have created things he knows will sin, if he could not derive from them a good incomparably greater than the resulting evil.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (Dialogue on human freedom and origin of evil [1695], p.115)
     A reaction: Why 'must' we believe this? Do we have to imagine all the genocides shrinking to insignificance once we grasp the wonderful goods that can be derived from them? The end justifies the means. Genocide is actually a good thing. Hm.