76 ideas
12926 | Wisdom is the science of happiness [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Wisdom is the science of happiness. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1690.03.23) | |
A reaction: That probably comes down to common sense, or Aristotle's 'phronesis'. I take wisdom to involve understanding, as well as the quest for happiness. |
12903 | Wise people have fewer acts of will, because such acts are linked together [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: The wiser one is, the fewer separate acts of will one has and the more one's views and acts of will are comprehensive and linked together. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.04.12) | |
A reaction: [letter to Landgrave, about Arnauld] It is unusual to find a philosopher who actually tries to analyse the nature of wisdom, instead of just paying lipservice to it. I take Leibniz to be entirely right here. He equates wisdom with rational behaviour. |
12914 | Metaphysics is geometrical, resting on non-contradiction and sufficient reason [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: I claim to give metaphysics geometric demonstrations, assuming only the principle of contradiction (or else all reasoning becomes futile), and that nothing exists without a reason, or that every truth has an a priori proof, from the concept of terms. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 XI) | |
A reaction: For the last bit, see Idea 12910. This idea is the kind of huge optimism about metaphysic which got it a bad name after Kant, and in modern times. I'm optimistic about metaphysics, but certainly not about 'geometrical demonstrations' of it. |
11051 | Frege's logical approach dominates the analytical tradition [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Pure logic constantly controls Frege's philosophy, and in turn Frege's logically oriented philosophy constantly controls the analytic tradition. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 1.1) | |
A reaction: Hanna seeks to reintroduce the dreaded psychological aspect of logic, and I say 'good for him'. |
11054 | Scientism says most knowledge comes from the exact sciences [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Scientism says that the exact sciences are the leading sources of knowledge about the world. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 1.2) | |
A reaction: I almost agree, but I would describe the exact sciences as the chief 'evidence' for our knowledge, with the chief 'source' being our own ability to make coherent sense of the evidence. Exact sciences rest on mathematics. |
12915 | Definitions can only be real if the item is possible [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Definitions to my mind are real, when one knows that the thing defined is possible; otherwise they are only nominal, and one must not rely on them. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 XI) | |
A reaction: It is interesting that things do not have to actual to have real definitions. For Leibniz, what is possible will exist in the mind of God. For me what is possible will exist in the potentialities of the powers of what is actual. |
11070 | 'Denying the antecedent' fallacy: φ→ψ, ¬φ, so ¬ψ [Hanna] |
Full Idea: The fallacy of 'denying the antecedent' is of the form φ→ψ, ¬φ, so ¬ψ. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 5.4) |
11071 | 'Affirming the consequent' fallacy: φ→ψ, ψ, so φ [Hanna] |
Full Idea: The fallacy of 'affirming the consequent' is of the form φ→ψ, ψ, so φ. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 5.4) |
11088 | We can list at least fourteen informal fallacies [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Informal fallacies: appeals to force, circumstantial factors, ignorance, pity, popular consensus, authority, generalisation, confused causes, begging the question, complex questions, irrelevance, equivocation, black-and-white, slippery slope etc. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 7.3) |
11059 | Circular arguments are formally valid, though informally inadmissible [Hanna] |
Full Idea: A circular argument - one whose conclusion is to be found among its premises - is inadmissible in most informal contexts, even though it is formally valid. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 2.1) | |
A reaction: Presumably this is a matter of conversational implicature - that you are under a conventional obligation to say things which go somewhere, rather than circling around their starting place. |
11089 | Formally, composition and division fallacies occur in mereology [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Informal fallacies of composition and division go over into formal fallacies of mereological logic. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 7.3) |
12910 | The predicate is in the subject of a true proposition [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: In a true proposition the concept of the predicate is always present in the subject. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
A reaction: This sounds very like the Kantian notion of an analytic truth, but Leibniz is applying it to all truths. So Socrates must contain the predicate of running as part of his nature (or essence?), if 'Socrates runs' is to be true. |
19333 | A truth is just a proposition in which the predicate is contained within the subject [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: In every true affirmative proposition, necessary or contingent, universal or particular, the concept of the predicate is in a sense included in that of the subject; the predicate is present in the subject; or else I do not know what truth is. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14) | |
A reaction: Why did he qualify this with "in a sense"? This is referred to as the 'concept containment theory of truth'. This is an odd view of the subject. If the truth is 'Peter fell down stairs', we don't usually think the concept of Peter contains such things. |
11058 | Logic is explanatorily and ontologically dependent on rational animals [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Logic is explanatorily and ontologically dependent on rational animals. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 1.6) | |
A reaction: This is a splendid defiance of the standard Fregean view of logic as having an inner validity of its own, having nothing to do with the psychology of thinkers. But if Hanna is right, why does logical consequence seem to be necessary? |
11072 | Logic is personal and variable, but it has a universal core [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Beyond an innate and thus universally share protologic, each reasoner's mental logic is only more or less similar to the mental logic of any other reasoner. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 5.7) | |
A reaction: This is the main thesis of Hanna's book. I like the combination of this idea with Stephen Read's remark that each student should work out a personal logic which has their own private endorsement. |
11061 | Intensional consequence is based on the content of the concepts [Hanna] |
Full Idea: In intensional logic the consequence relation is based on the form or content of the concepts or properties expressed by the predicates. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 2.2) |
12920 | There is no multiplicity without true units [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: There is no multiplicity without true units. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30) | |
A reaction: Hence real numbers do not embody 'multiplicity'. So either they don't 'embody' anything, or they embody 'magnitudes'. Does this give two entirely different notions, of measure of multiplicity and measures of magnitude? |
11063 | Logicism struggles because there is no decent theory of analyticity [Hanna] |
Full Idea: All versions of the thesis that arithmetic is reducible to logic remain questionable as long as no good theory of analyticity is available. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 2.4) | |
A reaction: He rejects the attempts by Frege, Wittgenstein and Carnap to provide a theory of analyticity. |
12319 | What is not truly one being is not truly a being either [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: What is not truly one being is not truly a being either. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30), quoted by Alain Badiou - Briefings on Existence 1 | |
A reaction: Badiou quotes this as identifying Being with the One. I say Leibniz had no concept of 'gunk', and thought everything must have a 'this' identity in order to exist, which is just the sort of thing a logician would come up with. |
12922 | A thing 'expresses' another if they have a constant and fixed relationship [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: One thing 'expresses' another (in my terminology) when there exists a constant and fixed relationship between what can be said of one and of the other. This is the way that a perspectival projection expresses its ground-plan. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.10.09) | |
A reaction: Arnauld was puzzled by what Leibniz might mean by 'express', and it occurs to me that Leibniz was fishing for the modern concept of 'supervenience'. It also sounds a bit like the idea of 'covariance' between mind and world. Maybe he means 'function'. |
11055 | Supervenience can add covariation, upward dependence, and nomological connection [Hanna] |
Full Idea: 'Strong supervenience' involves necessary covariation of the properties, and upward dependence of higher level on lower level. ...If we add a nomological connection between the two, then we have 'superdupervenience'. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 1.2) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Very helpful. A superdupervenient relationship between mind and brain would be rather baffling if they were not essentially the same thing. (which is what I take them to be). |
13079 | A substance contains the laws of its operations, and its actions come from its own depth [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Each indivisible substance contains in its nature the law by which the series of its operations continues, and all that has happened and will happen to it. All its actions come from its own depths, except for dependence on God. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1688.01.4/14) | |
A reaction: I take the combination of 'laws' and 'forces', which Leibniz attributes to Aristotelian essences, to be his distinctive contribution towards giving us an Aristotelian metaphysic which is suitable for modern science. |
12745 | Philosophy needs the precision of the unity given by substances [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Philosophy cannot be better reduced to something precise, than by recognising only substances or complete beings endowed with a true unity, with different states that succeed one another; all else is phenomena, abstractions or relations. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 7 | |
A reaction: This idea bothers me. Has the whole of modern philosophy been distorted by this yearning for 'precision'? It has put mathematicians and logicians in the driving seat. Do we only attribute unity because it suits our thinking? |
12921 | Accidental unity has degrees, from a mob to a society to a machine or organism [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: There are degrees of accidental unity, and an ordered society has more unity than a chaotic mob, and an organic body or a machine has more unity than a society. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30) | |
A reaction: This immediately invites questions about the extremes. Why does the very highest degree of 'accidental unity' not achieve 'true unity'? And why cannot a very ununified aggregate have a bit of unity (as in unrestricted mereological composition)? |
12746 | We find unity in reason, and unity in perception, but these are not true unity [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: A pair of diamonds is merely an entity of reason, and even if one of them is brought close to another, it is an entity of imagination or perception, that is to say a phenomenon; contiguity, common movement and the same end don't make substantial unity. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 7 | |
A reaction: This invites the question of what you have to do to two objects to give them substantial unity. The distinction between unity 'of reason' and unity 'of perception' is good. |
12916 | A body is a unified aggregate, unless it has an indivisible substance [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: One will never find a body of which it may be said that it is truly one substance, ...because entities made up by aggregation have only as much reality as exists in the constituent parts. Hence the substance of a body must be indivisible. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.11) | |
A reaction: Leibniz rejected atomism, and he evidently believed that pure materialists must deny the real existence of physical objects. Common sense suggests that causal bonds bestow a high degree of unity on bodies (if degrees are allowed). |
12919 | Unity needs an indestructible substance, to contain everything which will happen to it [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Substantial unity requires a complete, indivisible and naturally indestructible entity, since its concept embraces everything that is to happen to it, which cannot be found in shape or motion. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.11.28/12.8) | |
A reaction: Hence if a tile is due to be broken in half (Arnauld's example), it cannot have had unity in the first place. To what do we refer when we say 'the tile was broken'? |
12923 | Every bodily substance must have a soul, or something analogous to a soul [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Every bodily substance must have a soul, or at least an entelechy which is analogous to the soul. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.10.09) | |
A reaction: He routinely commits to a 'soul', and then pulls back and says it may only be an 'analogy'. He had deep doubts about his whole scheme, which emerged in the late correspondence with Des Bosses. This not monads, says Garber. |
12704 | Aggregates don’t reduce to points, or atoms, or illusion, so must reduce to substance [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: In aggregates one must necessarily arrive either at mathematical points from which some make up extension, or at atoms (which I dismiss), or else no reality can be found in bodies, or finally one must recognises substances that possess a true unity. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 2 | |
A reaction: Garber calls this Leibniz's Aggregate Argument. Leibniz is, of course, talking of physical aggregates which have unity. He consistently points out that a pile of logs has no unity at all. But is substance just that-which-provides-unity? |
13077 | Basic predicates give the complete concept, which then predicts all of the actions [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Apart from those that depend on others, one must only consider together all the basic predicates in order to form the complete concept of Adam adequate to deduce from it everything that is ever to happen to him, as much as is necessary to account for it. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.06) | |
A reaction: This (implausibly) goes beyond mere prediction of properties. Eve's essence seems to be relevant to Adam's life. Note that the complete concept is not every predicate, but only those 'necessary' to predict the events. Cf Idea 13082. |
12908 | Essences exist in the divine understanding [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Essences exist in the divine understanding before one considers will. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
A reaction: This is a sort of religious neo-platonism. The great dream seems to be that of mind-reading God, and the result is either Pythagoras (it's numbers!), or Plato (it's pure ideas!), or this (it's essences!). See D.H.Lawrence's poem on geranium and mignottes. |
12706 | Bodies need a soul (or something like it) to avoid being mere phenomena [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Every substance is indivisible and consequently every corporeal substance must have a soul or at least an entelechy which is analogous to the soul, since otherwise bodies would be no more than phenomena. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], G II 121), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 2 | |
A reaction: There is a large gap between having 'a soul' and having something 'analogous to a soul'. I take the analogy to be merely as originators of action. Leibniz wants to add appetite and sensation to the Aristotelian forms (but knows this is dubious!). |
12906 | Truths about species are eternal or necessary, but individual truths concern what exists [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: The concept of a species contains only eternal or necessary truths, whereas the concept of an individual contains, regarded as possible, what in fact exists or what is related to the existence of things and to time. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.06) | |
A reaction: This seems to be what is behind the preference some have for kind-essences rather than individual essences. But the individual must be explained, as well as the kind. Not all tigers are identical. The two are, of course, compatible. |
11083 | A sentence is necessary if it is true in a set of worlds, and nonfalse in the other worlds [Hanna] |
Full Idea: On my view, necessity is the truth of a sentence in every member of a set of possible worlds, together with its nonfalsity in every other possible worlds. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.6) |
11086 | Metaphysical necessity can be 'weak' (same as logical) and 'strong' (based on essences) [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Weak metaphysical necessity is either over the set of all logically possible worlds (in which case it is the same as logical necessity), or it is of a smaller set of worlds, and is determined by the underlying essence or nature of the actual world. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.6) | |
A reaction: I take the first to be of no interest, as I have no interest in a world which is somehow rated as logically possible, but is not naturally possible. The second type should the principle aim of all human cognitive enquiry. The strong version is synthetic. |
11084 | Logical necessity is truth in all logically possible worlds, because of laws and concepts [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Logical necessity is the truth of a sentence by virtue of logical laws or intrinsic conceptual connections alone, and thus true in all logically possible worlds. Put in traditional terms, logical necessity is analyticity. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.6) |
11085 | Nomological necessity is truth in all logically possible worlds with our laws [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Physical or nomological necessity is the truth of a sentence in all logically possible worlds governed by our actual laws of nature. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.6) | |
A reaction: Personally I think 'natural necessity' is the best label for this, as it avoids firm commitment to reductive physicalism, and it also avoids commitment to actual necessitating laws. |
12904 | If varieties of myself can be conceived of as distinct from me, then they are not me [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: I can as little conceive of different varieties of myself as of a circle whose diameters are not all of equal length. These variations would all be distinct one from another, and thus one of these varieties of myself would necessarily not be me. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.05.13) | |
A reaction: This seems to be, at the very least, a rejection of any idea that I could have a 'counterpart'. It is unclear, though, where he would place a version of himself who learned a new language, or who might have had, but didn't have, a haircut. |
11981 | If someone's life went differently, then that would be another individual [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: If the life of some person, or something went differently than it does, nothing would stop us from saying that it would be another person, or another possible universe which God had chosen. So truly it would be another individual. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.14) | |
A reaction: Plantinga quotes this as an example of 'worldbound individuals'. This sort of remark leads to people saying that Leibniz believes all properties are essential, since they assume that his notion of essence is bound up with identity. But is it? |
12905 | I cannot think my non-existence, nor exist without being myself [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: I am assured that as long as I think, I am myself. For I cannot think that I do not exist, nor exist so that I be not myself. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.05.13) | |
A reaction: Elsewhere he qualifies the Cogito, but here he seems to straighforwardly endorse it. |
19334 | I can't just know myself to be a substance; I must distinguish myself from others, which is hard [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: It is not enough for understanding the nature of myself, that I feel myself to be a thinking substance, one would have to form a distinct idea of what distinguishes me from all other possible minds; but of that I have only a confused experience. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14) | |
A reaction: Not a criticism I have encountered before. Does he mean that I might be two minds, or might be a multitude of minds? It seems to be Hume's problem, that you are aware of experiences, but not of the substance that unites them. |
6417 | In 1921 Russell abandoned sense-data, and the gap between sensation and object [Russell, by Grayling] |
Full Idea: In 'The Analysis of Mind' Russell gave up talk of 'sense-data', and ceased to distinguish between the act of sensing and what is sensed. | |
From: report of Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921]) by A.C. Grayling - Russell Ch.2 | |
A reaction: This seems to lead towards the modern 'adverbial' account of sensing, where I don't sense 'data', but where qualia (such as redness) are our particular mode of directly perceiving objects, where insects might directly perceive them in a different mode. |
6474 | Seeing is not in itself knowledge, but is separate from what is seen, such as a patch of colour [Russell] |
Full Idea: Undeniably, knowledge comes through seeing, but it is a mistake to regard the mere seeing itself as knowledge; if we are so to regard it, we must distinguish the seeing from what is seen; a patch of colour is one thing, and our seeing it is another. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921], Lec. VIII) | |
A reaction: This is Russell's 1921 explanation of why he adopted sense-data (but he rejects them later in this paragraph). This gives a simplistic impression of what he intended, which has three components: the object, the 'sensibile', and the sense-datum. |
6476 | We cannot assume that the subject actually exists, so we cannot distinguish sensations from sense-data [Russell] |
Full Idea: If we are to avoid a perfectly gratuitous assumption, we must dispense with the subject as one of the actual ingredients of the world; but when we do this, the possibility of distinguishing the sensation from the sense-datum vanishes. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921], Lec. VIII) | |
A reaction: This is the reason why Russell himself rejected sense-data. It is more normal, I think, to reject them simply as being superfluous. If the subject can simply perceive the sense-data, why can't they just perceive the object more directly? |
11077 | Intuition includes apriority, clarity, modality, authority, fallibility and no inferences [Hanna] |
Full Idea: The nine features of intuition are: a mental act, apriority, content-comprehensiveness, clarity and distinctness, strict-modality-attributivity, authoritativeness,noninferentiality, cognitive indispensability, and fallibility. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.4) | |
A reaction: [See Hanna for a full explanation of this lot] Seems like a good stab at it. Note the trade-off between authority and fallibility. |
11080 | Intuition is more like memory, imagination or understanding, than like perception [Hanna] |
Full Idea: There is no reason why intuition should be cognitively analogous not to sense perception but instead to either memory, imagination, or conceptual understanding. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.5) | |
A reaction: It is Russell's spotting the analogy with memory that made me come to believe that a priori knowledge is possible, as long as we accept it as being fallible. [Hanna has a good discussion of intuition; he votes for the imagination analogy] |
11078 | Intuition is only outside the 'space of reasons' if all reasons are inferential [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Intuition is outside the 'space of reasons' if we assume that all reasons are inferential, but inside if we assume that reasons need not always be inferential. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.4) | |
A reaction: I take it that intuition can be firmly inside the space of reasons, and that not all reasons are inferential. |
2792 | It is possible the world came into existence five minutes ago, complete with false memories [Russell] |
Full Idea: There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921], p.159) | |
A reaction: One of the great sceptical arguments! At a stroke it undermines forever any dreams that memories are totally certain. This is an extra scepticism, which arises if you decide that current experience IS totally certain. |
5033 | Nothing should be taken as certain without foundations [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Nothing should be taken as certain without foundations. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30) | |
A reaction: This might leave open the option, if you were a modern 'Fallibilist', that something might lack foundations, and so not be certain, and yet still qualify as 'knowledge'. That is my view. Knowledge resides somewhere between opinion and certainty. |
22326 | Knowledge needs more than a sensitive response; the response must also be appropriate [Russell] |
Full Idea: Accuracy of response to stimulus does not alone show knowledge, but must be reinforced by appropriateness, i.e. suitability of realising one's purpose. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921], p.261), quoted by Michael Potter - The Rise of Analytic Philosophy 1879-1930 66 'Rel' | |
A reaction: The aim of 'realising one's purpose' puts a very pragmatist spin on this. The point is a good one, and seems to apply particularly to Nozick's accurate 'tracking' account of knowledge. |
12913 | Nature is explained by mathematics and mechanism, but the laws rest on metaphysics [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: One must always explain nature along mathematical and mechanical lines, provided one knows that the very principles or laws of mechanics or of force do not depend upon mathematical extension alone but upon certain metaphysical reasons. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
A reaction: I like this, and may even use it as the epigraph of my masterwork. Recently Stephen Hawking (physicist) has been denigrating philosophy, but I am with Leibniz on this one. |
11053 | Explanatory reduction is stronger than ontological reduction [Hanna] |
Full Idea: As standardly construed, reduction can be either explanatory or ontological. Explanatory reduction is the strongest sort of reduction. ...Ontological reduction can still have an 'explanatory gap'. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 1.1) |
13089 | To fully conceive the subject is to explain the resulting predicates and events [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Even in the most contingent truths, there is always something to be conceived in the subject which serves to explain why this predicate or event pertains to it, or why this has happened rather than not. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.06) | |
A reaction: The last bit, about containing what has happened, seems absurd, but the rest of it makes sense. It is just the Aristotelian essentialist view, that a full understanding of the inner subject will both explain and predict the surface properties. |
5034 | Mind is a thinking substance which can know God and eternal truths [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Minds are substances which think, and are capable of knowing God and of discovering eternal truths. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.10.09) | |
A reaction: 'God' is there because the ability to grasp the ontological argument is seen as basic. Note a firm commitment to substance-dualism, and a rationalist commitment to the spotting of necessary truths as basic. He is not totally wrong. |
5032 | It seems probable that animals have souls, but not consciousness [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: It appears probable that the brutes have souls, though they are without consciousness. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.12.08) | |
A reaction: This will be a response to Descartes, who allowed animals sensations, but not minds or souls. Personally I cannot make head or tail of Leibniz's claim. What makes it "apparent" to him? |
11081 | Imagination grasps abstracta, generates images, and has its own correctness conditions [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Three features of imagination are that its objects can be abstract, that it generates spatial images directly available to introspection, and its correctness conditions are not based on either efficacious causation or effective tracking. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.6) | |
A reaction: Hanna makes the imagination faculty central to our grasp of his proto-logic. |
6475 | In perception, the self is just a logical fiction demanded by grammar [Russell] |
Full Idea: In perception, the idea of the subject appears to be a logical fiction, like mathematical points and instants; it is introduced, not because observation reveals it, but because it is linguistically convenient and apparently demanded by grammar. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921], Lec. VIII) | |
A reaction: In 1912, Russell had felt that both the Cogito, and the experience of meta-thought, had confirmed the existence of a non-permanent ego, but here he offers a Humean rejection. His notion of a 'logical fiction' is behaviouristic. I believe in the Self. |
5031 | Everything which happens is not necessary, but is certain after God chooses this universe [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: It is not the case that everything which happens is necessary; rather, everything which happens is certain after God made choice of this possible universe, whose notion contains this series of things. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.05) | |
A reaction: I think this distinction is best captured as 'metaphysical necessity' (Leibniz's 'necessity'), and 'natural necessity' (his 'certainty'). 'Certainty' seems a bad word, as it is either certain de dicto or de re. Is God certain, or is the thing certain? |
11082 | Should we take the 'depictivist' or the 'descriptivist/propositionalist' view of mental imagery? [Hanna] |
Full Idea: In the debate in cognitive science on the nature of mental imagery, there is a 'depictivist' side (Johnson-Laird, Kosslyn, Shepard - good images are isomorphic), and a 'descriptivist' or 'propositionalist' side (Pylyshyn and others). | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 6.6) | |
A reaction: Hanna votes firmly in favour of the first view, and implies that they have more or less won the debate. |
11067 | Rational animals have a normative concept of necessity [Hanna] |
Full Idea: A rational animal is one that is a normative-reflective possessor of the concepts of necessity, certainty and unconditional obligation. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 4.0) | |
A reaction: The addition of obligation shows the Kantian roots of this. It isn't enough just to possess a few concepts. You wouldn't count as rational if you didn't desire truth, as well as understanding it. Robots be warned. |
11068 | One tradition says talking is the essence of rationality; the other says the essence is logic [Hanna] |
Full Idea: In the tradition of Descartes, Chomsky and Davidson, rational animals are essentially talking animals. But in the view of Kant, and perhaps Fodor, it is the cognitive capacity for logic that is the essence of human rationality. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], 4.9) |
11047 | Hegelian holistic rationality is the capacity to seek coherence [Hanna] |
Full Idea: The 'holistic' (Hegelian) sense of rationality means the capacity for systematically seeking coherence (or 'reflective equilibrium') across a network or web of beliefs, desires, emotions, intentions and volitions. Traditionally 'the truth is the whole'. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], Intro) | |
A reaction: On the whole this is my preferred view (which sounds Quinean as well as Hegelian), though I reject the notion that truth is a whole. I take coherence to be the hallmark of justification, though not of truth, and reason aims to justify. |
11048 | Humean Instrumental rationality is the capacity to seek contingent truths [Hanna] |
Full Idea: The 'instrumental' (Humean) sense of rationality means a capacity for generating or recognizing contingent truths, contextually normative rules, consequentialist obligations, and hypothetical 'ought' claims. Reason is 'the slave of the passions'. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], Intro) |
11046 | Kantian principled rationality is recognition of a priori universal truths [Hanna] |
Full Idea: The 'principled' (Kantian) sense of rationality means the possession of a capacity for generating or recognizing necessary truths, a priori beliefs, strictly universal normative rules, nonconsequentialist moral obligations, and categorical 'ought' claims. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], Intro) |
11045 | Most psychologists are now cognitivists [Hanna] |
Full Idea: Most psychologists have now dropped behaviourism and adopted cognitivism: the thesis that the rational human mind is essentially an active innately specified information-processor. | |
From: Robert Hanna (Rationality and Logic [2006], Intro) |
12911 | Concepts are what unite a proposition [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: There must always be some basis for the connexion between the terms of a proposition, and it is to be found in their concepts. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
A reaction: We face the problem that bothered Russell, of the unity of the proposition. We are also led to the question of HOW our concepts connect the parts of a proposition. Do concepts have valencies? Are they incomplete, as Frege suggests? |
12925 | Beauty increases with familiarity [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: The more one is familiar with things, the more beautiful one finds them. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1688.01.4/14) | |
A reaction: This is always the reply given to those who say that science kills our sense of beauty. The first step in aesthetic life is certainly to really really pay attention to things. |
12927 | Happiness is advancement towards perfection [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Happiness, or lasting contentment, consists of continual advancement towards a greater perfection. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1690.03.23) | |
A reaction: To the modern mind this smacks of the sort of hubris to which only the religious mind can aspire, but it's still rather nice. The idea of grubby little mammals approaching perfection sounds wrong, but which other animal has even thought of perfection? |
15955 | I think the corpuscular theory, rather than forms or qualities, best explains particular phenomena [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: I still subscribe fully to the corpuscular theory in the explanation of particular phenomena; in this sphere it is of no value to speak of forms or qualities. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 14.07.1686) | |
A reaction: I am puzzled by Garber's summary in Idea 12728, and a bit unclear on Leibniz's views on atoms. More needed. |
12907 | Each possible world contains its own laws, reflected in the possible individuals of that world [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: As there exist an infinite number of possible worlds, there exists also an infinite number of laws, some peculiar to one world, some to another, and each individual of any one world contains in the concept of him the laws of his world. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.06) | |
A reaction: Since Leibniz's metaphysics is thoroughly God-driven, he will obviously allow God to create any laws He wishes, and hence scientific essentialism seems to be rejected, even though Leibniz is keen on essences. Unless the stuff is different... |
12924 | Motion alone is relative, but force is real, and establishes its subject [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Motion in itself separated from force is merely relative, and one cannot establish its subject. But force is something real and absolute. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1688.01.4/14) | |
A reaction: The striking phrase here is that force enables us to 'establish its subject'. That is, force is at the heart of reality, and hence, through causal relations, individuates objects. That's how I read it. |
12909 | Everything, even miracles, belongs to order [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Everything, even miracles, belongs to order. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
A reaction: This is very reminiscent of Plato, for whom there was no more deeply held belief than that the cosmos is essentially orderly. Coincidences are a nice problem, if they are events with no cause. |
5030 | Miracles are extraordinary operations by God, but are nevertheless part of his design [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Miracles, or the extraordinary operations of God, none the less belong within the general order; they are in conformity with the principal designs of God, and consequently are included in the notion of this universe, which is the result of those designs. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.05) | |
A reaction: Some philosophers just make up things to suit themselves. What possible grounds can he have for claiming this? At best this is tautological, saying that, by definition, if anything at all happens, it must be part of God's design. Move on to Hume… |
12912 | Immortality without memory is useless [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Immortality without memory would be useless. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
A reaction: I would say that having a mind of any sort needs memory. The question for immortality is whether it extends back to human life. See 'Wuthering Heights' (c. p90) for someone who remembers Earth as so superior to paradise that they long to return there. |
12917 | The soul is indestructible and always self-aware [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Not only is the soul indestructible, but it always knows itself and remains self-conscious. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.11) | |
A reaction: Personally I am not even self-aware during much of my sleeping hours, and I would say that I cease to be self-aware if I am totally absorbed in something on which I concentrate. |
12918 | Animals have souls, but lack consciousness [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: It appears probable that animals have souls although they lack consciousness. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.11) | |
A reaction: Personally I would say that they lack souls but have consciousness, but then I am in no better position to know the answer than Leibniz was. Arnauld asks what would happen to the souls of 100,000 silkworms if they caught fire! |