Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'works', 'Evidence' and 'Notebooks'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


27 ideas

1. Philosophy / A. Wisdom / 3. Wisdom Deflated
Seek wisdom rather than truth; it is easier [Joubert]
     Full Idea: To seek wisdom rather than truth. It is more within our grasp.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1797)
     A reaction: A nice challenge to the traditional goal of philosophy. The idea that we should 'seek truth' only seems to have emerged during the Reformation. The Greeks may well never have dreamed of such a thing.
1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 1. Philosophy
We must think with our entire body and soul [Joubert]
     Full Idea: Everything we think must be thought with our entire being, body and soul.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1798)
     A reaction: Not just that thinking must be a whole-hearted activity, but that the very contents of our thinking will be better if it arises out of being a physical creature, and not just a disembodied reasoner. Maybe the bowels are not needed to analyse set theory.
1. Philosophy / E. Nature of Metaphysics / 2. Possibility of Metaphysics
The love of certainty holds us back in metaphysics [Joubert]
     Full Idea: What stops or holds us back in metaphysics is a love of certainty.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1814)
     A reaction: This is a prominent truth from the age of Descartes, but may have diminished in the twenty-first century. The very best metaphysicians (e.g. Aristotle and Lewis) always end in a trail of dots when things become unsure.
1. Philosophy / G. Scientific Philosophy / 1. Aims of Science
Realism is the only philosophy of science that doesn't make the success of science a miracle [Putnam]
     Full Idea: Realism….is the only philosophy science which does not make the success of science a miracle.
     From: Hilary Putnam (works [1980]), quoted by Alexander Bird - Philosophy of Science Ch.4
     A reaction: This was from his earlier work; he became more pragmatist and anti-realist later. Personally I approve of the remark. The philosophy of science must certainly offer an explanation for its success. Truth seems the obvious explanation.
2. Reason / A. Nature of Reason / 9. Limits of Reason
The truths of reason instruct, but they do not illuminate [Joubert]
     Full Idea: There are truths that instruct, perhaps, but they do not illuminate. In this class are all the truths of reasoning.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1800)
     A reaction: A rather romantic view, which strikes me as false. An inspiring truth can suddenly collapse when you see why it must be false. Equally a line of reasoning can lead to a truth which need becomes an illumination.
3. Truth / A. Truth Problems / 1. Truth
Truth consists of having the same idea about something that God has [Joubert]
     Full Idea: Truth consists of having the same idea about something that God has.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1800)
     A reaction: Presumably sceptics about the existence of objective truth must also be sceptical about the possibility of such a God. I think Joubert is close to the nature of truth here. It is a remote and barely imaginable ideal.
7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 4. Anti-realism
Putnam says anti-realism is a bad explanation of accurate predictions [Putnam, by Okasha]
     Full Idea: Putnam's 'no miracle' argument says that being an anti-realist is akin to believing in miracles (because of the accurate predictons). …It is a plausibility argument - an inference to the best explanation.
     From: report of Hilary Putnam (works [1980]) by Samir Okasha - Philosophy of Science: Very Short Intro (2nd ed) 4
     A reaction: [not sure of ref] Putnam later backs off from this argument, but my personal realism rests on best explanation. Does anyone want to prefer an inferior explanation? The objection is that successful theories can turn out to be false. Phlogiston, ether.
13. Knowledge Criteria / A. Justification Problems / 3. Internal or External / a. Pro-internalism
To know is to see inside oneself [Joubert]
     Full Idea: To know: it is to see inside oneself.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1800)
     A reaction: Extreme internalism about justification! Personally I am becoming convinced that 'know' (unlike 'believe' and 'true') is an entirely social concept. Fools spend a lot of time instrospecting; wise people ask around, and check in books.
Internalists are much more interested in evidence than externalists are [McGrew]
     Full Idea: The notion of evidence generally plays a much more significant role in internalist epistemologies than it does in various forms of externalism.
     From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Prop..')
     A reaction: I'm guessing that this is because evidence needs a certain amount of interpretation, whereas raw facts (which externalists seem to rely on) may never even enter a mind.
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 3. Evidentialism / a. Evidence
Does spotting a new possibility count as evidence? [McGrew]
     Full Idea: Does the sudden realization of a heretofore unrecognized possibility count as evidence?
     From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Evid..')
     A reaction: [Nice use of 'heretofore'! Why say 'previously' when you can keep these wonderful old English words alive?] This means that we can imagine new evidence ('maybe the murderer was a snake'!). Wrong. The evidence is what suggests the possibility.
Absence of evidence proves nothing, and weird claims need special evidence [McGrew]
     Full Idea: Two well know slogans (popularised by Carl Sagan) are 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', ...and 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.
     From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Absence')
     A reaction: [Sagan was a popular science writer and broadcaster] The second one is something like Hume's argument against miracles. The old problem of the 'missing link' for human evolution embodied the first idea.
Every event is highly unlikely (in detail), but may be perfectly plausible [McGrew]
     Full Idea: At a certain level of detail, almost any claim is unprecedented. How likely is 'Matilda won at Scrabble on Thursday with a score of 438 while drinking mint tea'? But there is nothing particularly unbelievable about the claim.
     From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Extraordinary')
     A reaction: A striking idea, which rules out the simplistic idea that we can just assess evidence by its isolated likelihood. Context is crucial. How good is 438? What if she smoked opium? What if there is no Scrabble set on her island?
Criminal law needs two separate witnesses, but historians will accept one witness [McGrew]
     Full Idea: An ancient rule in law is that a criminal conviction needs evidence of two independent witnesses, but in history it is assumed that a document deserves the benefit of the doubt if it cannot be independently verified.
     From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Interp..')
     A reaction: [compressed; McGrew's full account qualifies it a bit] A nice observation. One might even be suspicious of the two 'independent' witnesses, if there were lots of other reasons to doubt someon's guilt. A single weird document is also dubious.
Maybe all evidence consists of beliefs, rather than of facts [McGrew]
     Full Idea: Some philosophers have been attracted to the view that, strictly speaking, what counts as evidence is not a set of physical objects or even experiences, but rather a set of believed propositions.
     From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Prop..')
     A reaction: This may be right. However, as always, I think animals are a key test. Do animals respond to evidence? Even if they did, they might need to 'make sense' of what they experienced, and even formulate a non-linguistic proposition.
If all evidence is propositional, what is the evidence for the proposition? Do we face a regress? [McGrew]
     Full Idea: Taking evidence as propositional may trade one problem for another. If the bloodstain isn't evidence, but 'this is a bloodstain' is evidence, then what serves as evidence for the belief about the bloodstain? Is there an infinite regress?
     From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Prop..')
     A reaction: [compressed] I quite like evidence being propositional, but then find this. I'll retreat to my beloved coherence. I do not endorse Sellars's 'only a belief can justify a belief', because raw experience has to be part of what is coherent.
Several unreliable witnesses can give good support, if they all say the same thing [McGrew]
     Full Idea: The testimony of a number of independent witnesses, none of them particularly reliable, who give substantially the same account of some event, may provide a strong argument in its favor.
     From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Testimonial')
     A reaction: A striking point. It obviously works well for panicking people in a crowd during an incident. Does it also apply to independent scientists who are known to cheat? They may not collaborate, but may all want the same result.
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 3. Evidentialism / b. Evidentialism
Narrow evidentialism relies wholly on propositions; the wider form includes other items [McGrew]
     Full Idea: Evidentialism comes in both narrow and wide forms depending on whether evidence is taken to consist only of propositions or of a wider range of items.
     From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Evid..')
     A reaction: [He cites Conee and Feldman for the wide view, which is not restricted to beliefs] You can hardly rely on occurrent beliefs as evidence, so we often have good knowledge with forgotten justification. But such knowledge has been 'weakened'.
14. Science / A. Basis of Science / 6. Falsification
Falsificationism would be naive if even a slight discrepancy in evidence killed a theory [McGrew]
     Full Idea: Data do not quite speak for themselves, which speaks against a naive form of falsificationism according to which even the slightest mismatch between theory and evidence suffices to overturn a theory.
     From: Timothy McGrew (Evidence [2011], 'Interp..')
     A reaction: [He cites Robert Boyle wisely ignoring some data to get a good fit for his graph]
15. Nature of Minds / C. Capacities of Minds / 2. Imagination
The imagination has made more discoveries than the eye [Joubert]
     Full Idea: The imagination has made more discoveries than the eye.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1797)
     A reaction: As a fan of the imagination, I love this one. I suspect that imagination, which was marginalised by Descartes, is actually the single most important aspect of thought (in slugs as well as humans). Abstraction requires imagination.
18. Thought / A. Modes of Thought / 1. Thought
A thought is as real as a cannon ball [Joubert]
     Full Idea: A thought is a thing as real as a cannon ball.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1801)
     A reaction: Nice. The realisation of a thought can strike someone as if they have been assaulted, and hearing some remarks can be as bad as being stabbed. That is quite apart from political consequences. Joubert is good on the physicality of thinking.
18. Thought / D. Concepts / 2. Origin of Concepts / c. Nativist concepts
Where does the bird's idea of a nest come from? [Joubert]
     Full Idea: The idea of the nest in the bird's mind, where does it come from?
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1800)
     A reaction: I think this is a very striking example in support of innate ideas. Most animal behaviour can be explained as responses to stimuli, but the bird seems to hold a model in its mind while it collects its materials.
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 3. Pleasure / b. Types of pleasure
He gives his body up to pleasure, but not his soul [Joubert]
     Full Idea: He gives his body up to pleasure, but not his soul.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1799)
     A reaction: A rather crucial distinction in the world of hedonism. There seems something sincere about someone who pursues pleasure body and soul, and something fractured about the pursuit of pleasure without real commitment. The split seems possible.
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 3. Pleasure / c. Value of pleasure
What will you think of pleasures when you no longer enjoy them? [Joubert]
     Full Idea: What will you think of pleasures when you no longer enjoy them?
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1802)
     A reaction: A lovely test question for aspiring young hedonists! It doesn't follow at all that we will despise past pleasures. The judgement may be utilitarian - that we regret the pleasures that harmed others, but love the harmless ones. Shame is social.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 1. Virtue Theory / b. Basis of virtue
Virtue is hard if we are scorned; we need support [Joubert]
     Full Idea: It would be difficult to be scorned and to live virtuously. We have need of support.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1800)
     A reaction: He seems to have hit on what I take to be one of the keys to Aristotle: that virtue is a social matter, requiring both upbringing and a healthy culture. But we can help to create that culture, as well as benefiting from it.
25. Social Practice / E. Policies / 5. Education / a. Aims of education
In raising a child we must think of his old age [Joubert]
     Full Idea: In raising a child we must think of his old age.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1809)
     A reaction: Very nice, and Aristotle would approve. If educators think much about the future, it rarely extends before the child's first job. We should be preparing good grand-parents, as well as parents and employees. Educate for retirement!
28. God / A. Divine Nature / 6. Divine Morality / c. God is the good
We can't exactly conceive virtue without the idea of God [Joubert]
     Full Idea: If we exclude the idea of God, it is impossible to have an exact idea of virtue.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1808)
     A reaction: I suspect that an 'exact' idea is impossible even with an idea of God. This is an interesting defence of the importance of God in moral thinking, but it only requires the concept of a supreme being, and not belief.
29. Religion / B. Monotheistic Religion / 4. Christianity / a. Christianity
We cannot speak against Christianity without anger, or speak for it without love [Joubert]
     Full Idea: We cannot speak against Christianity without anger, or speak for it without love.
     From: Joseph Joubert (Notebooks [1800], 1801)
     A reaction: This seems to be rather true at the present time, when a wave of anti-religious books is sweeping through our culture. Presumably this remark used to be true of ancient paganism, but it died away. Christianity, though, is very personal.