|
18470
|
Maybe truth-making is an unanalysable primitive, but we can specify principles for it [Smith,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
The signs are that truth-making is not analysable in terms of anything more primitive, but we need to be able to say more than just that. So we ought to consider it as specified by principles of truth-making.
|
|
From:
Barry Smith (Truth-maker Realism: response to Gregory [2000], p.20), quoted by Fraser MacBride - Truthmakers 1.5
|
|
A reaction:
This is the axiomatic approach to such problems - treat the target concept as an undefinable, unanalysable primitive, and then give rules for its connections. Maybe all metaphysics should work like that, with a small bunch of primitives.
|
|
13193
|
Active force is not just potential for action, since it involves a real effort or striving [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Active force should not be thought of as the simple and common potential [potentia] or receptivity to action of the schools. Rather, active force involves an effort [conatus] or striving [tendentia] toward action.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Body and Force, Against the Cartesians [1702], p.252)
|
|
A reaction:
This is why Leibniz is lured into making his active forces more and more animistic, till they end up like proto-minds (though never, remember, conscious and willing minds).
|
|
23059
|
Self-interest is not rational, if the self is just a succession of memories and behaviour [Sidgwick, by Gray]
|
|
Full Idea:
Sidgwick said self-interest is not self-evidently rational. Unless we invoke a religious idea of the soul, human personality is no more than a succession of continuities in memory and behaviour. In that case, why should anyone favour their future self?
|
|
From:
report of Henry Sidgwick (The Methods of Ethics (7th edn) [1874]) by John Gray - Seven Types of Atheism 2
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds like Locke's account of the self, as psychological continuity. We can say that our continuous self is a fiction, the hero of our own narrative. Personally I think of the self as a sustained set of brains structures which change very little.
|
|
4129
|
It is self-evident (from the point of view of the Universe) that no individual has more importance than another [Sidgwick]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is a self-evident principle that the good of one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view of the Universe, than the good of any other, ..and as a rational being I am bound to aim at good generally, not merely at a particular part.
|
|
From:
Henry Sidgwick (The Methods of Ethics (7th edn) [1874], III.XIII.3)
|
|
A reaction:
Showing that even a very empirical theory like utilitarianism has an a priori basis. Of course, the principle is false. What about animals, the senile, criminals, androids? What bestows 'importance'?
|
|
13194
|
God's laws would be meaningless without internal powers for following them [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
To say that, in creation, God gave bodies a law for acting means nothing, unless, at the same time, he gave them something by means of which it could happen that the law is followed.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Body and Force, Against the Cartesians [1702], p.253)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the beginning of the modern rebellion against the medieval view of laws as imposed from outside on passive matter. Unfortunately for Leibniz, once you have postulated active internal powers, the external laws become redundant.
|
|
13192
|
Power is passive force, which is mass, and active force, which is entelechy or form [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
The dynamicon or power [potentia] in bodies is twofold, passive and active. Passive force [vis] constitutes matter or mass [massa], and active force constitutes entelechy or form.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Body and Force, Against the Cartesians [1702], p.252)
|
|
A reaction:
This is explicitly equating the innate force understood in physics with Aristotelian form. The passive force is to explain the resistance of bodies. I like the equation of force with power. He says the entelechy is 'analogous' to a soul.
|