Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'talk', 'Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics' and 'Elbow Room: varieties of free will'

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


13 ideas

1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 5. Aims of Philosophy / a. Philosophy as worldly
An overexamined life is as bad as an unexamined one [Dennett]
     Full Idea: The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
     From: Daniel C. Dennett (Elbow Room: varieties of free will [1984], §4.2)
     A reaction: Presumably he means a life which is all theory and no practice. Compare Idea 343.
2. Reason / A. Nature of Reason / 9. Limits of Reason
Rationality requires the assumption that things are either for better or worse [Dennett]
     Full Idea: We must assume that something matters - that some things are for better and some things are for worse, for without that our assumed rationality would have nothing on which to get a purchase.
     From: Daniel C. Dennett (Elbow Room: varieties of free will [1984], §7.1)
     A reaction: It does seem that rationality wouldn't exist as an activity without some value to motivate it.
3. Truth / H. Deflationary Truth / 1. Redundant Truth
'It is true that this follows' means simply: this follows [Wittgenstein]
     Full Idea: The proposition: "It is true that this follows from that" means simply: this follows from that.
     From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics [1938], p.38), quoted by Robert Hanna - Rationality and Logic 6
     A reaction: Presumably this remark is simply expressing Wittgenstein's later agreement with the well-known view of Ramsey. Early Wittgenstein had endorsed a correspondence view of truth.
6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 6. Logicism / a. Early logicism
Two and one making three has the necessity of logical inference [Wittgenstein]
     Full Idea: "But doesn't it follow with logical necessity that you get two when you add one to one, and three when you add one to two? and isn't this inexorability the same as that of logical inference? - Yes! it is the same.
     From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics [1938], p.38), quoted by Robert Hanna - Rationality and Logic 6
     A reaction: This need not be a full commitment to logicism - only to the fact that the inferential procedures in mathematics are the same as those of logic. Mathematics could still have further non-logical ingredients. Indeed, I think it probably does.
10. Modality / D. Knowledge of Modality / 4. Conceivable as Possible / c. Possible but inconceivable
Why pronounce impossible what you cannot imagine? [Dennett]
     Full Idea: You say you cannot imagine that p, and therefore declare that p is impossible. Mightn't that be hubris?
     From: Daniel C. Dennett (Elbow Room: varieties of free will [1984], §7.3)
13. Knowledge Criteria / C. External Justification / 2. Causal Justification
Causal theories require the "right" sort of link (usually unspecified) [Dennett]
     Full Idea: In causal theories of knowledge and reference, the causal chain between object and thought must be of the "right" sort - the nature of rightness to be specified later, typically.
     From: Daniel C. Dennett (Elbow Room: varieties of free will [1984], §3.3 n14)
     A reaction: This is now the standard objection to a purely causal account of reference. Which of the many causal chains causes the meaning? Knowledge of maths is a further problem for it.
13. Knowledge Criteria / E. Relativism / 2. Knowledge as Convention
By nature people are close to one another, but culture drives them apart [Hippias]
     Full Idea: I regard you all as relatives - by nature, not by convention. By nature like is akin to like, but convention is a tyrant over humankind and often constrains people to act contrary to nature.
     From: Hippias (fragments/reports [c.430 BCE]), quoted by Plato - Protagoras 337c8
16. Persons / A. Concept of a Person / 4. Persons as Agents
I am the sum total of what I directly control [Dennett]
     Full Idea: Control is the ultimate criterion of the self: I am the sum total of the parts I control directly.
     From: Daniel C. Dennett (Elbow Room: varieties of free will [1984], §4.2)
     A reaction: This looks awfully like a flagrant self-contradiction, and I think it is. It seems pretty obvious that there is at least a distinction between the bit or bits that do the controlling, and the bits that get controlled.
16. Persons / F. Free Will / 1. Nature of Free Will
You can be free even though force would have prevented you doing otherwise [Dennett, by PG]
     Full Idea: If a brain implant would compel you to perform an action which you in fact freely choose, then you are free, but couldn't have done otherwise.
     From: report of Daniel C. Dennett (Elbow Room: varieties of free will [1984], §6.1) by PG - Db (ideas)
Can we conceive of a being with a will freer than our own? [Dennett]
     Full Idea: Can I even conceive of beings whose wills are freer than our own?
     From: Daniel C. Dennett (Elbow Room: varieties of free will [1984], §7.3)
16. Persons / F. Free Will / 2. Sources of Free Will
Awareness of thought is a step beyond awareness of the world [Dennett]
     Full Idea: The creature who is not only sensitive to patterns in its environment, but also sensitive to patterns in its own reactions to patterns in its environment, has taken a major step.
     From: Daniel C. Dennett (Elbow Room: varieties of free will [1984], §2.2)
Foreknowledge permits control [Dennett]
     Full Idea: Foreknowledge is what permits control.
     From: Daniel C. Dennett (Elbow Room: varieties of free will [1984], §3.2)
17. Mind and Body / B. Behaviourism / 3. Intentional Stance
The active self is a fiction created because we are ignorant of our motivations [Dennett]
     Full Idea: Faced with our inability to 'see' where the centre or source of our free actions is,…we exploit the gaps in our self-knowledge by filling it with a mysterious entity, the unmoved mover, the active self.
     From: Daniel C. Dennett (Elbow Room: varieties of free will [1984], §4.1)
     A reaction: I am convinced that there is no such things as free will; its origins are to be found in religion, where it is a necessary feature of a very supreme God. I don't believe for a moment that we need to believe in free will.