|
7920
|
Descriptive metaphysics aims at actual structure, revisionary metaphysics at a better structure [Strawson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
Descriptive metaphysics (e.g. Aristotle and Kant) is content to describe the actual structure of our thought about the world; revisionary metaphysics (e.g. Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley) is concerned to produce a better structure.
|
|
From:
Peter F. Strawson (Individuals:Essay in Descript Metaphysics [1959], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
This distinction by Strawson was incredibly helpful in reinstating metaphysics as a feasible activity. I don't want to abandon the revisionary version. We can hammer the current metaphysics into a more efficient shape, or even create new concepts.
|
|
7922
|
Descriptive metaphysics concerns unchanging core concepts and categories [Strawson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
Descriptive metaphysics is primarily concerned with categories and concepts which, in their fundamental character, change not at all. They are the commonplaces of the least refined thinking, and the indispensable core for the most sophisticated humans.
|
|
From:
Peter F. Strawson (Individuals:Essay in Descript Metaphysics [1959], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be the basic premise for a modern metaphysician such as E.J.Lowe, though such thinkers are not averse to suggesting clarifications of our conceptual scheme. The aim must be good foundations for a successful edifice of knowledge.
|
|
7921
|
Close examination of actual word usage is the only sure way in philosophy [Strawson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
Up to a point, the reliance upon a close examination of the actual use of words is the best, and indeed the only sure, way in philosophy.
|
|
From:
Peter F. Strawson (Individuals:Essay in Descript Metaphysics [1959], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
Probably the last bold assertion of ordinary language philosophy, though Strawson goes on the defend his 'deeper' version of the activity, which he says is 'descriptive metaphysics', rather than mere 'analysis'. Mere verbal analysis now looks hopeless.
|
|
17807
|
To study formal systems, look at the whole thing, and not just how it is constructed in steps [Curry]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the study of formal systems we do not confine ourselves to the derivation of elementary propositions step by step. Rather we take the system, defined by its primitive frame, as datum, and then study it by any means at our command.
|
|
From:
Haskell B. Curry (Remarks on the definition and nature of mathematics [1954], 'The formalist')
|
|
A reaction:
This is what may potentially lead to an essentialist view of such things. Focusing on bricks gives formalism, focusing on buildings gives essentialism.
|
|
17806
|
It is untenable that mathematics is general physical truths, because it needs infinity [Curry]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to realism, mathematical propositions express the most general properties of our physical environment. This is the primitive view of mathematics, yet on account of the essential role played by infinity in mathematics, it is untenable today.
|
|
From:
Haskell B. Curry (Remarks on the definition and nature of mathematics [1954], 'The problem')
|
|
A reaction:
I resist this view, because Curry's view seems to imply a mad metaphysics. Hilbert resisted the role of the infinite in essential mathematics. If the physical world includes its possibilities, that might do the job. Hellman on structuralism?
|
|
9282
|
I can only apply consciousness predicates to myself if I can apply them to others [Strawson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
One can ascribed states of consciousness to oneself only if one can ascribe them to others. One can ascribe them to others only if one can identify other subjects of experience, and they cannot be identified only as subjects of experience.
|
|
From:
Peter F. Strawson (Individuals:Essay in Descript Metaphysics [1959], 3.4)
|
|
A reaction:
A neat linguistic twist on the analogy argument, but rather dubious, if it is actually meant to prove that other minds exist. It is based on his view of predicates - see Idea 9281. If the rest of humanity are zombies, why would I not apply them?
|
|
23896
|
We see our character as a restricting limit, but also as an unshakable support [Weil]
|
|
Full Idea:
Our character appears to us as a limit by which we do not want to be imprisoned, …but also as a support that we want to believe is unshakable.
|
|
From:
Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.100)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice perception. It is fairly easy to criticise, or even laugh at, one's own actions, but extremely hard to criticise our own character. Maybe we all wish we were more determined in our projects, but not much else.
|
|
23893
|
We don't see character in a single moment, but only over a period of time [Weil]
|
|
Full Idea:
Character is constant over a period of time; the way a person is at a single moment does not at all reflect the character of this person. We do, however, concede that character changes.
|
|
From:
Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.98)
|
|
A reaction:
I do think, though, that there are moments in behaviour which are hugely revealing of character, even in a single remark. But I agree that most single moments do not show much.
|
|
23895
|
We modify our character by placing ourselves in situations, or by attending to what seems trivial [Weil]
|
|
Full Idea:
We can modify our character, by putting ourselves in circumstances that will act on us from the outside, …or by the orientation of our attention in the moments that appear most insignificant or indifferent in our lives.
|
|
From:
Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.99)
|
|
A reaction:
I've never seen anyone address this question (apart from Aristotle's emphasis on training habits). Choosing your source for current affairs information strikes me as very important. What you read, what you watch, who you spend time with…
|