|
21757
|
Philosophy is the conceptual essence of the shape of history [Hegel]
|
|
Full Idea:
Philosophy is the supreme blossom - the concept - of the entire shape of history, the consciousness and the spiritual essence of the whole situation, the spirit of the age as the spirit present and aware of itself in thought.
|
|
From:
Georg W.F.Hegel (Lectures on the History of Philosophy [1830], p.25), quoted by Stephen Houlgate - An Introduction to Hegel 01
|
|
A reaction:
This sees philosophy as intrinsically historical, which is a founding idea for 'continental' philosophy. Analysis is tied to science, in which the history of the subject is seen as irrelevant to its truth. Does this mean we can't go back to Aristotle?
|
|
10152
|
Set theory and logic are fairy tales, but still worth studying [Tarski]
|
|
Full Idea:
People have asked me, 'How can you, a nominalist, do work in set theory and in logic, which are theories about things you do not believe in?' ...I believe that there is a value even in fairy tales and the study of fairy tales.
|
|
From:
Alfred Tarski (talk [1965]), quoted by Feferman / Feferman - Alfred Tarski: life and logic
|
|
A reaction:
This is obviously an oversimplification. I don't think for a moment that Tarski literally believed that the study of fairy tales had as much value as the study of logic. Why do we have this particular logic, and not some other?
|
|
14216
|
The 'positionalist' view of relations says the number of places is fixed, but not the order [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The 'positionalist' view of relations is that each relation is taken to be endowed with a given number of argument places, or positions, in no specified order. [...The argument-places are specific entities, such as 'lover' and 'beloved']
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Neutral Relations [2000], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
Fine offers this as an alternative to the 'standard' view of relations, in which the order of the objects matters. He then adds, and favours, the 'anti-positionalist' view, where there are not even a fixed number of places.
|
|
14218
|
A block on top of another contains one relation, not both 'on top of' and 'beneath' [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
If block a is on block b, it is hard to see how this state of affairs might consist of both 'on top of' and 'beneath'. Surely if the state is a genuine relational complex, there must be a single relation for these relata?
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Neutral Relations [2000], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
He has already shown that if such relations imply their converses, then that gives you two separate relations. He goes on to observe that you cannot pick one of the two as correct, because of symmetry. He later offers the 'vertical placement' relation.
|