5 ideas
23367 | Even pointing a finger should only be done for a reason [Epictetus] |
Full Idea: Philosophy says it is not right even to stretch out a finger without some reason. | |
From: Epictetus (fragments/reports [c.57], 15) | |
A reaction: The key point here is that philosophy concerns action, an idea on which Epictetus is very keen. He rather despise theory. This idea perfectly sums up the concept of the wholly rational life (which no rational person would actually want to live!). |
8431 | Problems with Goodman's view of counterfactuals led to a radical approach from Stalnaker and Lewis [Horwich] |
Full Idea: In reaction to two classic difficulties in Goodman's treatment of counterfactuals - the contenability problem and the explication of law - a radically different approach was instigated by Stalnaker (1968) and has been developed by Lewis. | |
From: Paul Horwich (Lewis's Programme [1987], p208) | |
A reaction: [I record this for study purposes] |
6853 | Consequentialism wrongly assumes a clear line between an act and its consequences [Crisp,R] |
Full Idea: What is wrong with consequentialism is that it assumes that there is agreement about when an act ends and when its consequences begin. | |
From: Roger Crisp (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.31) | |
A reaction: I certainly agree that this is a mistake in consequentialism, which has a crude idea of what an action is, though I am not convinced that this is the key fault in the theory. The theory doesn't distinguish acts by people from those by machines. |
8432 | Analyse counterfactuals using causation, not the other way around [Horwich] |
Full Idea: In my view, counterfactual conditionals are analysed in terms of causation. | |
From: Paul Horwich (Lewis's Programme [1987], p.208) | |
A reaction: This immediately sounds more plausible to me. Counterfactual claims are rather human, whereas causation (if we accept it) seems a feature of nature. The key question is whether some sort of 'dependency' is a feature of counterfactuals. |
6854 | Does the environment have value in itself? [Crisp,R] |
Full Idea: The debate which dominates environmental ethics is whether the environment has value in itself. | |
From: Roger Crisp (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.37) | |
A reaction: I say the answer has to be 'yes'. If it only has value in relation to conscious or human life, it will be difficult to demonstrate that they have value. Pleasure and pain, or wisdom, can't imply value on their own; a bigger picture is needed. |