|
22140
|
The greatest philosophers are methodical; it is what makes them great [Grice]
|
|
Full Idea:
The greatest philosophers have been the greatest, and most self-conscious, methodologists; indeed, I am tempted to regard the fact as primarily accounting for their greatness as philosophers.
|
|
From:
H. Paul Grice (Reply to Richards [1986], p.66), quoted by Stephen Boulter - Why Medieval Philosophy Matters 3
|
|
A reaction:
I agree. Philosophy is nothing if it is not devoted to the attempt to be fully rational, and that implies consistency and coherence. If a thinker doesn't even try to be systematic, I would not consider them to be a philosopher.
|
|
3238
|
'Dead person' isn't a contradiction, so 'person' is somewhat vague [Williams,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we say (in opposition to a physical view of identity) that when Jones dies 'Jones ceases to exist' but 'Jones' body does not cease to exist', this shouldn't be pressed too hard, because it would make 'dead person' a contradiction.
|
|
From:
Bernard Williams (Are Persons Bodies? [1970], p.74)
|
|
A reaction:
A good point, which nicely challenges the distinction between a 'human' and a 'person', but the problem case is much more the one where Jones gets advanced Alzheimer's, rather than dies. A dead body ceases as a mechanism, as well as as a personality.
|
|
3239
|
You can only really love a person as a token, not as a type [Williams,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
If you love a person as a type instead of as a token (i.e. a "person", instead of a physical body) you might prefer a run-down copy of them to no person at all, but at this point our idea of loving a person begins to crack.
|
|
From:
Bernard Williams (Are Persons Bodies? [1970], p.81)
|
|
A reaction:
Very persuasive. If you love a person you can cope with them getting old. If you own an original watercolour, you can accept that it fades, but you would replace a reproduction of it if that faded. But what, then, is it that you love?
|