15 ideas
3067 | A philosopher should have principles ready for understanding, like a surgeon with instruments [Aurelius] |
Full Idea: As physicians have always their instruments and knives ready for cases which suddenly require their skill, so should you have principles ready for the understanding of things divine and human. | |
From: Marcus Aurelius (The Meditations (To Himself) [c.170], 3.13) | |
A reaction: Nice. Philosophy is the training ground where wisdom and good living are made possible, but it cannot be a substitute for living. |
4261 | The Lottery Paradox says each ticket is likely to lose, so there probably won't be a winner [Bonjour, by PG] |
Full Idea: The Lottery Paradox says that for 100 tickets and one winner, each ticket has a .99 likelihood of defeat, so they are all likely to lose, so there is unlikely to be a winner. | |
From: report of Laurence Bonjour (Externalist Theories of Empirical Knowledge [1980], §5) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
A reaction: The problem seems to be viewing each ticket in isolation. If I buy two tickets, I increase my chances of winning. |
3072 | Everything is changing, including yourself and the whole universe [Aurelius] |
Full Idea: All things are changing; and you yourself are in continuous mutation and in a manner in continuous destruction, and the whole universe too. | |
From: Marcus Aurelius (The Meditations (To Himself) [c.170], 9.19) |
8840 | There are five possible responses to the problem of infinite regress in justification [Cleve] |
Full Idea: Sceptics respond to the regress problem by denying knowledge; Foundationalists accept justifications without reasons; Positists say reasons terminate is mere posits; Coherentists say mutual support is justification; Infinitists accept the regress. | |
From: James Van Cleve (Why coherence is not enough [2005], I) | |
A reaction: A nice map of the territory. The doubts of Scepticism are not strong enough for anyone to embrace the view; Foundationalist destroy knowledge (?), as do Positists; Infinitism is a version of Coherentism - which is the winner. |
8841 | Modern foundationalists say basic beliefs are fallible, and coherence is relevant [Cleve] |
Full Idea: Contemporary foundationalists are seldom of the strong Cartesian variety: they do not insist that basic beliefs be absolutely certain. They also tend to allow that coherence can enhance justification. | |
From: James Van Cleve (Why coherence is not enough [2005], III) | |
A reaction: It strikes me that they have got onto a slippery slope. How certain are the basic beliefs? How do you evaluate their certainty? Could incoherence in their implications undermine them? Skyscrapers need perfect foundations. |
4255 | Externalist theories of knowledge are one species of foundationalism [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: Externalist theories of knowledge are one species of foundationalism. | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (Externalist Theories of Empirical Knowledge [1980], Intro) | |
A reaction: I don't see why there shouldn't be a phenomenalist, anti-realist version of externalism, which just has 'starting points' instead of a serious commitment to foundations. |
4257 | The big problem for foundationalism is to explain how basic beliefs are possible [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: The fundamental question that must be answered by any acceptable version of foundationalism is: how are basic beliefs possible? | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (Externalist Theories of Empirical Knowledge [1980], §I) | |
A reaction: This question seems to be asking for a justification for basic beliefs, which smacks of 'Who made God?' Look, basic beliefs are just basic, right? |
4256 | The main argument for foundationalism is that all other theories involve a regress leading to scepticism [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: The central argument for foundationalism is simply that all other possible outcomes of the regress of justifications lead inexorably to scepticism. | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (Externalist Theories of Empirical Knowledge [1980], §I) | |
A reaction: If you prefer coherence to foundations, you need the security of reason to assess the coherence (which seems to be an internal foundation!). |
4258 | Extreme externalism says no more justification is required than the truth of the belief [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: The most extreme version of externalism would be one that held that the external condition required for justification is simply the truth of the belief in question. | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (Externalist Theories of Empirical Knowledge [1980], §II) | |
A reaction: The question is, why should we demand any more than this? The problem case is, traditionally, the lucky guess, but naturalist may say that these just don't occur with any regularity. We only get beliefs right because they are true. |
4259 | External reliability is not enough, if the internal state of the believer is known to be irrational [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: External or objective reliability is not enough to offset subjective irrationality (such as unexplained clairvoyance). | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (Externalist Theories of Empirical Knowledge [1980], §IV) | |
A reaction: A good argument. Where do animals fit into this? If your clairvoyance kept working, in the end you might concede that you 'knew', even though you were baffled about how you managed it. |
4260 | Even if there is no obvious irrationality, it may be irrational to base knowledge entirely on external criteria [Bonjour] |
Full Idea: It may be that where there are no positive grounds for a charge of irrationality, the acceptance of a belief with only external justification is still subjectively irrational in a sense that rules out its being epistemologically justified. | |
From: Laurence Bonjour (Externalist Theories of Empirical Knowledge [1980], §IV) | |
A reaction: A key objection. Surely rational behaviour requires a judgement to be made before a belief is accepted? If you are consistently clairvoyant, you must ask why. |
3066 | Nothing is evil which is according to nature [Aurelius] |
Full Idea: Nothing is evil which is according to nature. | |
From: Marcus Aurelius (The Meditations (To Himself) [c.170], 2.17) | |
A reaction: A bit hopeful. Sounds tautological. I.e. anything which is agreed to be evil is probably immediately labelled as 'unnatural'. What would he agree was evil? |
3071 | Justice has no virtue opposed to it, but pleasure has temperance opposed to it [Aurelius] |
Full Idea: In the constitution of the rational animal I see no virtue which is opposed to justice; but I see a virtue which is opposed to pleasure, and that is temperance. | |
From: Marcus Aurelius (The Meditations (To Himself) [c.170], 8.39) | |
A reaction: There are plenty of hideous things opposed to justice, but presumably that immediately disqualifies them from being virtues. |
3069 | The art of life is more like the wrestler's than the dancer's [Aurelius] |
Full Idea: The art of life is more like the wrestler's than the dancer's. | |
From: Marcus Aurelius (The Meditations (To Himself) [c.170], 7.61) |
3065 | Humans are naturally made for co-operation [Aurelius] |
Full Idea: We are made for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. To act against one another, then, is contrary to nature. | |
From: Marcus Aurelius (The Meditations (To Himself) [c.170], 2.1) |