Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Brainstorms:Essays on Mind and Psychology', 'No Understanding without Explanation' and 'Intro to Classical Chinese Philosophy'

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

8 ideas

1. Philosophy / B. History of Ideas / 2. Ancient Thought
23392 The Dao (Way) first means the road, and comes to mean the right way to live [Norden]
     Full Idea: The 'Dao' (tr 'Way) has five meanings: 1) path or road, 2) mode of doing something, 3) account of how to do something, 4) the right way to live, and 5) the ultimate metaphysical entity responsible for nature, and how it should be.
     From: Bryan van Norden (Intro to Classical Chinese Philosophy [2011], 1.III)
     A reaction: [compressed] So it is essentially metaphorical, just like the English 'way to do a thing'. Number 5 seems a rather large leap from the others, and most discussion seems to centre on number 4. The Chinese hoped for consensus on the Dao.
1. Philosophy / H. Continental Philosophy / 3. Hermeneutics
23408 The hermeneutic circle is either within the text, or between text and biased reader [Norden]
     Full Idea: The first type of hermeneutic circle operates inside the text, studying relationships between sentences. …The second type is between the text and the reader, …who brings assumptions about what it means.
     From: Bryan van Norden (Intro to Classical Chinese Philosophy [2011], App A.I)
     A reaction: The first kind is an essential aspect of reading well. Readers are biased, but I get very tired of those who do nothing but search for bias, and ignore the truth a text has to offer. If everything is bias, intellectual life is dead.
23407 Heremeneutics is either 'faith' (examining truth) or 'suspicion' (looking for hidden motives) [Norden]
     Full Idea: A 'hermeneutics of faith' treat a text as a candidate for truth. ….A 'hermeneutics of suspicion' looks not for truth but for explanations of why someone makes certain claims, …particularly to serve their ulterior interests.
     From: Bryan van Norden (Intro to Classical Chinese Philosophy [2011], App I.1)
     A reaction: As far as I can see, the suspicious approach was a legitimate development in sociology, which studies the sources of ideas, but is absurdly offered by some philosophers as a total replacement of the faith approach.
11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 2. Understanding
14365 Scientific understanding is always the grasping of a correct explanation [Strevens]
     Full Idea: I defend what I call the 'simple view', that scientific understanding is that state produced, and only produced, by grasping a correct explanation.
     From: Michael Strevens (No Understanding without Explanation [2011], Intro)
     A reaction: I like this because it clearly states what I take to be the view of Aristotle, and the key to understanding the whole of that philosopher's system. I take the view to be correct.
14368 We may 'understand that' the cat is on the mat, but not at all 'understand why' it is there [Strevens]
     Full Idea: 'Understanding why' is quite separate from 'understanding that': you might be exquisitely, incandescently aware of the cat's being on the mat without having the slightest clue how it got there. My topic is understanding why.
     From: Michael Strevens (No Understanding without Explanation [2011], 2)
     A reaction: Can't we separate 'understand how' from 'understand why'? I may know that someone dropped a cat through my letterbox, but more understanding would still be required. (He later adds understanding 'with' a theory).
14369 Understanding is a precondition, comes in degrees, is active, and holistic - unlike explanation [Strevens]
     Full Idea: Objectors to the idea that understanding requires explanation say that understanding is a precondition for explanation, that understanding comes in degrees, that understanding is active, and that it is holistic - all unlike explanations.
     From: Michael Strevens (No Understanding without Explanation [2011], 4)
     A reaction: He works through these four objections and replies to them, in defence of the thesis in Idea 14365. I agree with Strevens on this.
15. Nature of Minds / B. Features of Minds / 4. Intentionality / b. Intentionality theories
3158 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.
17. Mind and Body / B. Behaviourism / 3. Intentional Stance
3159 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'.