|
21379
|
Man's three basic ethical incentives are egoism, malice and compassion [Schopenhauer]
|
|
Full Idea:
Man's three fundamental ethical incentives, egoism, malice and compassion, are present in everyone in different and incredibly unequal proportions. In accordance with them, motives will operate on man and actions will ensue.
|
|
From:
Arthur Schopenhauer (On the Basis of Morality [1841], p.192), quoted by Christopher Janaway - Schopenhauer 7 'Egoism'
|
|
A reaction:
A well chosen trio. Kant would be shocked that he has left out duty, which is supposed to rise above such feelings.
|
|
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…
|
|
21376
|
Philosophy treats animals as exploitable things, ignoring the significance of their lives [Schopenhauer]
|
|
Full Idea:
In philosophical morals animals are mere 'things', mere means to any end whatsoever. ...Shame on such a morality, that fails to recognise the eternal essence that lives in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes.
|
|
From:
Arthur Schopenhauer (On the Basis of Morality [1841], p.96), quoted by Christopher Janaway - Schopenhauer 7 'Against'
|
|
A reaction:
Good. I find Kant's theoretical indifference to animals very creepy (despite his kind attitude to them). And I also think the utilitarians are wrong to only value animals for their pain, as if any animal could be shredded for fun, if it felt no pain.
|
|
14014
|
Space alone, and time alone, will fade away, and only their union has an independent reality [Minkowski]
|
|
Full Idea:
Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.
|
|
From:
Hermann Minkowski (Space and Time [1908], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
Notice the qualification that it is a 'kind of' union. Deep confusion arises from exaggerating the analogy between space and time. Craig Bourne remarks (2006:157) that this shows independence of measurement, not of reality
|