|
7720
|
Two things can only resemble one another in some respect, and that may reintroduce a universal [Lowe]
|
|
Full Idea:
A problem for resemblance nominalism is that in saying that two particulars 'resemble' one another, it is necessary to specify in what respect they do so (e.g. colour, shape, size), and this threatens to reintroduce what appears to be talk of universals.
|
|
From:
E.J. Lowe (Locke on Human Understanding [1995], Ch.7)
|
|
A reaction:
We see resemblance between faces instantly, long before we can specify the 'respects' of the resemblance. This supports the Humean hard-wired view of resemblance, rather than some appeal to Platonic universals.
|
|
7714
|
Personal identity is a problem across time (diachronic) and at an instant (synchronic) [Lowe]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is the question of the identity of a person over or across time ('diachronic' personal identity), and there is also the question of what makes for personal identity at a time ('synchronic' personal identity).
|
|
From:
E.J. Lowe (Locke on Human Understanding [1995], Ch.5)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to me to be the first and most important distinction in the philosophy of personal identity, and they regularly get run together. Locke, for example, has an account of synchronic identity, which is often ignored. It applies to objects too.
|
|
7715
|
Mentalese isn't a language, because it isn't conventional, or a means of public communication [Lowe]
|
|
Full Idea:
'Mentalese' would be neither conventional nor a means of public communication so that even to call it a language is seriously misleading.
|
|
From:
E.J. Lowe (Locke on Human Understanding [1995], Ch.7)
|
|
A reaction:
It is, however, supposed to contain symbolic representations which are then used as tokens for computation, so it seems close to a language, if (for example) symbolic logic or mathematics were accepted as languages. But who understands it?
|
|
23896
|
We see our character as a restricting limit, but also as an unshakable support [Weil]
|
|
Full Idea:
Our character appears to us as a limit by which we do not want to be imprisoned, …but also as a support that we want to believe is unshakable.
|
|
From:
Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.100)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice perception. It is fairly easy to criticise, or even laugh at, one's own actions, but extremely hard to criticise our own character. Maybe we all wish we were more determined in our projects, but not much else.
|
|
23893
|
We don't see character in a single moment, but only over a period of time [Weil]
|
|
Full Idea:
Character is constant over a period of time; the way a person is at a single moment does not at all reflect the character of this person. We do, however, concede that character changes.
|
|
From:
Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.98)
|
|
A reaction:
I do think, though, that there are moments in behaviour which are hugely revealing of character, even in a single remark. But I agree that most single moments do not show much.
|
|
23895
|
We modify our character by placing ourselves in situations, or by attending to what seems trivial [Weil]
|
|
Full Idea:
We can modify our character, by putting ourselves in circumstances that will act on us from the outside, …or by the orientation of our attention in the moments that appear most insignificant or indifferent in our lives.
|
|
From:
Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.99)
|
|
A reaction:
I've never seen anyone address this question (apart from Aristotle's emphasis on training habits). Choosing your source for current affairs information strikes me as very important. What you read, what you watch, who you spend time with…
|