|
12897
|
To say S knows P, but cannot eliminate not-P, sounds like a contradiction [Lewis]
|
|
Full Idea:
If you claim that S knows that P, and yet grant that S cannot eliminate a certain possibility of not-P, it certainly seems as if you have granted that S does not after all know that P. To speak of fallible knowledge just sounds contradictory.
|
|
From:
David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996], p.419)
|
|
A reaction:
Starting from this point, fallibilism seems to be a rather bold move. The only sensible response seems to be to relax the requirement that not-P must be eliminable. Best: in one epistemic context P, in another not-P.
|
|
19562
|
We have knowledge if alternatives are eliminated, but appropriate alternatives depend on context [Lewis, by Cohen,S]
|
|
Full Idea:
S knows P if S's evidence eliminates every alternative. But the nature of the alternatives depends on context. So for Lewis, the context sensitivity of 'knows' is a function of contextual restrictions ln the domain of quantification.
|
|
From:
report of David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996]) by Stewart Cohen - Contextualism Defended (and reply) 1
|
|
A reaction:
A typical modern attempt to 'regiment' a loose term like 'context'. That said, I like the idea. I'm struck by how the domain varies during a conversation (as in 'what we are talking about'). Domains standardly contain 'objects', though.
|
|
22073
|
The basis of philosophy is the Self prior to experience, where it is the essence of freedom [Schelling]
|
|
Full Idea:
The highest principle of all philosophy is the Self insofar as it is purely and simply Self, not yet conditioned by an object, but where it is formulated by freedom. The alpha and omega of all philosophy is freedom.
|
|
From:
Friedrich Schelling (Letters to Hegel [1795], 1795 02 04), quoted by Jean-François Courtine - Schelling p.83
|
|
A reaction:
A common later response to this (e.g. in Schopenhauer) is that there is no concept of the Self prior to experience. The idealists seem to adore free will, while offering no reply to Spinoza on the matter, with whom they were very familiar.
|
|
21099
|
People must have agreed to authority, because they are naturally equal, prior to education [Hume]
|
|
Full Idea:
When we consider how nearly equal all men are in their bodily force, and even in their mental powers and faculties, till cultivated by education, ...then nothing but their own consent could at first associate them together, and subject them to authority.
|
|
From:
David Hume (Of the original contract [1741], p.276)
|
|
A reaction:
This doesn't sound very convincing. Some people are much better suited than others to training and education. Men vary enormously in size.
|
|
20495
|
We no more give 'tacit assent' to the state than a passenger carried on board a ship while asleep [Hume]
|
|
Full Idea:
[If we give 'tacit' assent to the state] ...we may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master, though he was carried aboard while asleep.
|
|
From:
David Hume (Of the original contract [1741], p.283)
|
|
A reaction:
We should probably drop the whole idea that we give assent to the state. We are stuck with a state, and a few of us can escape, if it seems important enough, but most of us have no choice. He hope to assent to the controllers of the state.
|
|
6703
|
Poor people lack the knowledge or wealth to move to a different state [Hume]
|
|
Full Idea:
Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives, from day to day, by the small wages that he acquires?
|
|
From:
David Hume (Of the original contract [1741], p.283)
|
|
A reaction:
Of course, in the nineteenth century the Scottish poor did, going to America, which welcomed the poor, and spoke English. Hume's point is the right reply to anyone who says 'If you don't like it, go elsewhere'. Also 'No! Change it!'
|
|
21102
|
We all know that the history of property is founded on injustices [Hume]
|
|
Full Idea:
Reason tells us that there is no property in durable objects, such as land or houses, when carefully examined in passing from hand to hand, but must, in some period, have been founded on fraud and injustice.
|
|
From:
David Hume (Of the original contract [1741], p.288)
|
|
A reaction:
A prime objection to Nozick, who fantasises about an initial position of just ownership, which can then be the subject of just contracts. In 1866 thousands of white people were granted land in the USA, but not a single black freed slave got anything.
|