6 ideas
18438 | Every worldly event, without exception, is a redistribution of microphysical states [Quine] |
Full Idea: Nothing happens in the world, not the flutter of an eyelid, not the flicker of a thought, without some redistribution of microphysical states. | |
From: Willard Quine (on Goodman's 'Ways of Worldmaking' [1978], p.98) | |
A reaction: Is this causation, identity, or baffling supervenience? |
21227 | The Cogito demands a bridge to the world, and ends in isolating the ego [Velarde-Mayol] |
Full Idea: All philosophies inspired in the Cogito have the problem of building a bridge from the starting point of consciousness to the external world. The result of this is the isolation and solitude of the very ego. | |
From: Victor Velarde-Mayol (On Husserl [2000], 4.7.2) | |
A reaction: This strikes me as a pretty good reason not to develop a philosophy which is inspired by the Cogito. |
21215 | The representation may not be a likeness [Velarde-Mayol] |
Full Idea: Representationalism is the doctrine that maintains that the object is represented in consciousness by means of an image. ...One should not confuse an image with a likeness. | |
From: Victor Velarde-Mayol (On Husserl [2000], 2.4.3) | |
A reaction: Helpful reminder that sense-data or whatever may not be a likeness. But then how do they represent? Symbolic representation needs massive interpretation. |
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. |
21219 | Find the essence by varying an object, to see what remains invariable [Velarde-Mayol] |
Full Idea: Eidetic Reduction consists of producing variations in the individual object until we see what is invariable in it. What is invariable is its essence or Eidos. | |
From: Victor Velarde-Mayol (On Husserl [2000], 3.2.2) | |
A reaction: This strikes me as an excellent idea. It more or less describes the method of science. Chemical atoms were thought to be unsplittable, until someone tried a new variation for dealing with them. |