9 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. |
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. |
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) |
16745 | No one even knows the nature and properties of a fly - why it has that colour, or so many feet [Bacon,R] |
Full Idea: No one is so wise regarding the natural world as to know with certainty all the truths that concern the nature and properties of a single fly, or to know the proper causes of its color and why it has so many feet, neither more nor less. | |
From: Roger Bacon (Opus Maius (major works) [1254], I.10), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 23.6 | |
A reaction: Pasnau quotes this in the context of 'occult' qualities. It is scientific essentialism, because Bacon clearly takes it that the explanation of these things would be found within the essence of the fly, if we could only get at it. |