|
12434
|
Why is this necessary, and what is necessity in general; why is this necessary truth true, and why necessary? [Hale]
|
|
Full Idea:
We must distinguish between explaining particular necessities and explaining necessity in general; and we ought to distinguish between explaining, in regard to any necessary truth, why it is true, and explaining why it is necessary.
|
|
From:
Bob Hale (The Source of Necessity [2002], p.308)
|
|
A reaction:
Useful. The pluralist view I associate with Fine says we can explain types of necessity, but not necessity in general. If we seek truthmakers, there is a special case of what adds the necessity to the truth.
|
|
12433
|
If necessity rests on linguistic conventions, those are contingent, so there is no necessity [Hale]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the alleged necessity, e,g, 2+2=4, really does depend upon a convention governing the use of the words in which we state it, and the existence of that convention is merely a contingent matter, then it can't after all be necessary.
|
|
From:
Bob Hale (The Source of Necessity [2002], p.302)
|
|
A reaction:
[Hale is citing Blackburn for this claim] Hale suggests replies, by keeping truth and meaning separate, and involving laws of logic. Blackburn clearly has a good point.
|
|
12436
|
Concept-identities explain how we know necessities, not why they are necessary [Hale]
|
|
Full Idea:
It seems to me that identity-relations among concepts have more to do with explaining how we know that vixens are female foxes etc., than with explaining why it is necessary, and, more generally, with explaining why some necessities are knowable a priori.
|
|
From:
Bob Hale (The Source of Necessity [2002], P.313)
|
|
A reaction:
Hale rejects the conceptual and conventional accounts of necessity, in favour of the essentialist view. This strikes me as a good suggestion of Hale's, since I agree with him about the essentialism.
|
|
11911
|
Some philosophers always want more from morality; for others, nature is enough [Blackburn]
|
|
Full Idea:
The history of moral theory is largely a history of battles between people who want more (truth, absolutes...) - Plato, Locke, Cudworth, Kant, Nagel - and people content with what we have (nature) - Aristotle, Epicurus, Hobbes, Hume, Stevenson.
|
|
From:
Simon Blackburn (Précis of 'Ruling Passions' [2002], p.133)
|
|
A reaction:
[Thanks to Neil Sinclair for this one] As a devotee of Aristotle, I like this. I'm always impressed, though, by people who go the extra mile in morality, because they are in the grips of purer and loftier ideals than I am. They also turn into monsters!
|
|
21091
|
It would be absurd if even a free constitution did not impose restraints, for the public good [Hume]
|
|
Full Idea:
A republican and free form of government would be an obvious absurdity, if the particular checks and controls, provided by the constitution, had really no influence, and made it not the interest, even of bad men, to act for the public good.
|
|
From:
David Hume (That Politics may be reduced to a Science [1750], p.14)
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably if you attain absolute power you can write any old constitution you like (Clause 1: the presidency is for life). But there does seem much point in doing it - unless it is to facilitate the use of the law for persecutions.
|
|
21092
|
Nobility either share in the power of the whole, or they compose the power of the whole [Hume]
|
|
Full Idea:
A nobility may possess power in two different ways. Either every nobleman shares the power as part of the whole body, or the whole body enjoys the power as composed of parts, which each have a distinct power and authority.
|
|
From:
David Hume (That Politics may be reduced to a Science [1750], p.15)
|
|
A reaction:
He says the first type is found in Venice, and is preferable to the second type, which is found in Poland. Presumably in the shared version there is some restraint on depraved nobles. The danger is each noble being an autocrat.
|