38 ideas
| 15845 | It seems absurd that seeing a person's limbs, the one is many, and yet the many are one [Plato] |
| Full Idea: Someone first distinguishes a person's limbs and parts and asks your agreement that all the parts are identical with that unity, then ridicules you that you have to admit one is many, and indefinitely many, and again that the many are only only one thing. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 14e) | |
| A reaction: This is a passing aporia, but actually seems to approach the central mystery of the metaphysics of identity. A thing can't be a 'unity' if there are not things to unify? So what sorts of 'unification' are there? |
| 7557 | To solve Zeno's paradox, reject the axiom that the whole has more terms than the parts [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Presumably Zeno appealed to the axiom that the whole has more terms than the parts; so if Achilles were to overtake the tortoise, he would have been in more places than the tortoise, which he can't be; but the conclusion is absurd, so reject the axiom. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Mathematics and the Metaphysicians [1901], p.89) | |
| A reaction: The point is that the axiom is normally acceptable (a statue contains more particles than the arm of the statue), but it breaks down when discussing infinity (Idea 7556). Modern theories of infinity are needed to solve Zeno's Paradoxes. |
| 10059 | In mathematic we are ignorant of both subject-matter and truth [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Mathematics and the Metaphysicians [1901], p.76) | |
| A reaction: A famous remark, though Musgrave is rather disparaging about Russell's underlying reasoning here. |
| 9867 | It is absurd to define a circle, but not be able to recognise a real one [Plato] |
| Full Idea: It will be ridiculous if our student knows the definition of the circle and of the divine sphere itself, but cannot recognize the human sphere and these our circles, used in housebuilding. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 62a) | |
| A reaction: This is the equivalent of being able to recite numbers, but not to count objects. It also resembles Molyneux's question (to Locke), of whether recognition by one sense entails recognition by others. Nice (and a bit anti-platonist!). |
| 9865 | Daily arithmetic counts unequal things, but pure arithmetic equalises them [Plato] |
| Full Idea: The arithmetic of the many computes sums of unequal units, such as two armies, or two herds, ..but philosopher's arithmetic computes when it is guaranteed that none of those infinitely many units differed in the least from any of the others. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 56d) | |
| A reaction: But of course 'the many' are ironing out the differences too, when they say there are 'three armies'. Shocking snob, Plato. Even philosophers are interested in the difference between three armies and three platoons. |
| 7556 | A collection is infinite if you can remove some terms without diminishing its number [Russell] |
| Full Idea: A collection of terms is infinite if it contains as parts other collections which have as many terms as it has; that is, you can take away some terms of the collection without diminishing its number; there are as many even numbers as numbers all together. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Mathematics and the Metaphysicians [1901], p.86) | |
| A reaction: He cites Dedekind and Cantor as source for these ideas. If it won't obey the rule that subtraction makes it smaller, then it clearly isn't a number, and really it should be banned from all mathematics. |
| 15857 | Any mixture which lacks measure and proportion doesn't even count as a mixture at all [Plato] |
| Full Idea: Any blend [mixture] which does not have measure or the nature of proportion in any way whatsoever, of necessity destroys both its ingredients and, primarily, itself. It is truly no blend at all, but a kind of unblended disaster. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 64e) | |
| A reaction: Obviously there can be chaotic mixtures, but I guess Plato is picking out mixtures about which we can say something |
| 14503 | If a mixture does not contain measure and proportion, it is corrupted and destroyed [Plato] |
| Full Idea: Any kind of mixture that does not ...possess measure or the nature of proportion will necessarily corrupt its ingredients and most of all itself. For there would be no blending in such cases but really an unconnected medley, and ruin what contains it. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 64d) | |
| A reaction: My guess is that Plato is thinking of the decay of living things when they die, losing the proportions of psuché, and then applying this to the unity of inanimate objects as well. One might compare Leibniz's monads. |
| 4447 | If the good is one, is it unchanged when it is in particulars, and is it then separated from itself? [Plato] |
| Full Idea: If man is one, and the good is one, how are they supposed to exist? Do they stay the same even though they are found in many things at the same time, and are they then entirely separated from themselves, which seems most impossible of all? | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 15a) | |
| A reaction: Presumably Plato anguishes over this because he thinks Forms are self-predicating (the Good is good). Big mistake. The Good fathers good particulars which resemble itself, but are diluted? |
| 14193 | 'Substance theorists' take modal properties as primitive, without structure, just falling under a sortal [Paul,LA] |
| Full Idea: Some deep essentialists resist the need to explain the structure under de re modal properties, taking them as primitive. One version (which we can call 'substance theory') takes them to fall under a sortal concept, with no further explanation. | |
| From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1) | |
| A reaction: A very helpful identification of what Wiggins stands for, and why I disagree with him. The whole point of essences is to provide a notion that fits in with sciences, which means they must have an explanatory role, which needs structures. |
| 14195 | If an object's sort determines its properties, we need to ask what determines its sort [Paul,LA] |
| Full Idea: If the substance essentialist holds that the sort an object belongs to determines its de re modal properties (rather than the other way round), then he needs to give an (ontological, not conceptual) explanation of what determines an object's sort. | |
| From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1) | |
| A reaction: See Idea 14193 for 'substance essentialism'. I find it quite incredible that anyone could think that a thing's sort could determine its properties, rather than the other way round. Even if sortals are conventional, they are not arbitrary. |
| 14196 | Substance essentialism says an object is multiple, as falling under various different sortals [Paul,LA] |
| Full Idea: The explanation of material constitution given by substance essentialism is that there are multiple objects. A person is essentially human-shaped (falling under the human sort), while their hunk of tissue is accidentally human-shaped (as tissue). | |
| From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1) | |
| A reaction: At this point sortal essentialism begins to look crazy. Persons are dubious examples (with sneaky dualism involved). A bronze statue is essentially harder to dent than a clay one, because of its bronze. If you remake it of clay, it isn't the same statue. |
| 15856 | A thing can become one or many, depending on how we talk about it [Plato] |
| Full Idea: It is through discourse that the same thing flits around, becoming one and many in all sorts of ways. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 15d) | |
| A reaction: This is not scepticism about wholes on Plato's part, but a reminder of an obvious fact, that in thought we can break the world up and put it back together again. It is a touchstone of the debate, though. |
| 374 | If one object is divided into its parts, someone can then say that one are many and many is one [Plato] |
| Full Idea: Someone can theoretically divide an object into constituent parts, concede that they are one object, and then claim that therefore the one is many and the many are one. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 14e) |
| 14198 | Absolutely unrestricted qualitative composition would allow things with incompatible properties [Paul,LA] |
| Full Idea: Absolutely unrestricted qualitative composition would imply that objects with incompatible properties and objects such as winged pigs or golden mountains were actual. | |
| From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §5) | |
| A reaction: Note that this is 'qualitative' composition, and not composition of parts. The objection seems to rule out unrestricted qualitative composition, since you could hardly combine squareness with roundness. |
| 14190 | Deep essentialist objects have intrinsic properties that fix their nature; the shallow version makes it contextual [Paul,LA] |
| Full Idea: Essentialism says that objects have their properties essentially. 'Deep' essentialists take the (nontrivial) essential properties of an object to determine its nature. 'Shallow' essentialists substitute context-dependent truths for the independent ones. | |
| From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro) | |
| A reaction: If the deep essence determines a things nature, we should not need to say 'nontrivial'. This is my bete noire, the confusion of essential properties with necessary ones, where necessary properties (or predicates, at least) can indeed be trivial. |
| 14191 | Deep essentialists say essences constrain how things could change; modal profiles fix natures [Paul,LA] |
| Full Idea: The deep essentialist holds that most objects have essential properties such that there are many ways they could not be, or many changes through which they could not persist. Objects' modal profiles characterize their natures. | |
| From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro) | |
| A reaction: This is the view I like, especially the last bit. If your modal profile doesn't determine your nature, then what does? Think of how you sum up a person at a funeral. Your modal profile is determined by dispositions and powers. |
| 14192 | Essentialism must deal with charges of arbitrariness, and failure to reduce de re modality [Paul,LA] |
| Full Idea: Two objections to deep essentialism are that it falters when faced with a skeptical objection concerning arbitrariness, and the need for a reductive account of de re modality. | |
| From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro) | |
| A reaction: An immediate response to the second objection might be to say that modal facts about things are not reducible. The charge of arbitrariness (i.e. total arbitrariness, not just a bit of uncertainty) is the main thing a theory of essences must deal with. |
| 14197 | An object's modal properties don't determine its possibilities [Paul,LA] |
| Full Idea: I reject the view that an object's de re modal properties determine its relations to possibilia. | |
| From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §3) | |
| A reaction: You'll have to read Paul to see why, but I flat disagree with her on this. The whole point of accepting such properties is to determine the modal profile of the thing, and hence see how it can fit into and behave in the world. |
| 14189 | 'Modal realists' believe in many concrete worlds, 'actualists' in just this world, 'ersatzists' in abstract other worlds [Paul,LA] |
| Full Idea: A 'modal realist' believes that there are many concrete worlds, while the 'actualist' believes in only one concrete world, the actual world. The 'ersatzist' is an actualist who takes nonactual possible worlds and their contents to be abstracta. | |
| From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro) | |
| A reaction: My view is something like that modal realism is wrong, and actualism is right, and possible worlds (if they really are that useful) are convenient abstract fictions, constructed (if we have any sense) out of the real possibilities in the actual world. |
| 389 | How can you be certain about aspects of the world if they aren't constant? [Plato] |
| Full Idea: Could we attribute certainty to studying aspects of the world, such as how it arose, or acts, or is acted upon, when none of them ever was or will be constant? Of course not. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 59b) |
| 7554 | Self-evidence is often a mere will-o'-the-wisp [Russell] |
| Full Idea: Self-evidence is often a mere will-o'-the-wisp, which is sure to lead us astray if we take it as our guide. | |
| From: Bertrand Russell (Mathematics and the Metaphysicians [1901], p.78) | |
| A reaction: The sort of nice crisp remark you would expect from a good empiricist philosopher. Compare Idea 4948. However Russell qualifies it with the word 'often', and all philosophers eventually realise that you have to start somewhere. |
| 390 | If goodness involves moderation and proportion, then it seems to be found in beauty [Plato] |
| Full Idea: Moderation and proportion seem, in effect, to be beauty and excellence. So now this property we're looking for, goodness, has taken refuge in beauty. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 64e) |
| 391 | The good involves beauty, proportion and truth [Plato] |
| Full Idea: If we are unable to net the good in a single concept, three must capture it: namely, beauty, proportion and truth. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 65a) | |
| A reaction: Very interesting. More illuminating than the discussion of the Good in 'Republic'. Is a handsome and honest murderer good? Is beauty part of the nature of the good, or a hallmark of it? |
| 392 | Neither intellect nor pleasure are the good, because they are not perfect and self-sufficient [Plato] |
| Full Idea: Both intellect and pleasure are completely absolved of being the good itself, since they both lack independence, that is, sufficiency and perfection. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 67a) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be Plato disagreeing with Socrates, who sees reason and intellect as central to morality. Presumable he means that the good should be a primitive. Why is pleasure not sufficient? |
| 393 | Good first, then beauty, then reason, then knowledge, then pleasure [Plato, by PG] |
| Full Idea: Good is supreme, followed by beauty, then reason, then knowledge, then pure pleasure, then mixed pleasure. | |
| From: report of Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 67a) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
| A reaction: He tells us that pure pleasures are simple pleasures. Epicurus presumably read this. No mention of truth, unless that is part of reason. Why does he value beauty so highly? |
| 385 | Some of the pleasures and pains we feel are false [Plato] |
| Full Idea: Living beings experience pleasures and pains which seem, and indeed are, false. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 42c) | |
| A reaction: The idea that there are 'authentic' pleasures and pains needs some investigation. Misguided anger is a false pain? Vanity is a false pleasure? |
| 387 | A small pure pleasure is much finer than a large one contaminated with pain [Plato] |
| Full Idea: A tiny little pleasure is, if uncontaminated by pain, always more pleasant, truer and finer than a large amount. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 53b) | |
| A reaction: More Platonic puritanism. Is a complete absence of pleasure the highest pleasure of all? I don't think I understand 'truer'. Why would a pleasure be false because it is intense? |
| 373 | Pleasure is certainly very pleasant, but it doesn't follow that all pleasures are good [Plato] |
| Full Idea: The pleasantness of pleasure is not in dispute, but where we say the majority of pleasures are bad, though some are good, you are attributing goodness to all of them. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 13b) | |
| A reaction: Bentham's plausible view is that the feeling of pleasure is always good, and the badness is in some other aspect of the event. Compare sadistic fantasy with sadistic action. |
| 379 | The good must be sufficient and perfect, and neither intellect nor pleasure are that [Plato] |
| Full Idea: Neither pleasure nor intellect comprises the good. If it did it would have to be sufficient and perfect. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 22b) | |
| A reaction: Seems sensible. I can't make sense of any vision of the good which consists of suppressing some aspect of human nature. (Hm. Our capacity for violence?) |
| 371 | Reason, memory, truth and wisdom are far better than pleasure, for those who can attain them [Plato] |
| Full Idea: My contention is that reason, intellect, memory - along with correct belief and true calculation - are far better than pleasure for all creatures capable of attaining them. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 11b) | |
| A reaction: Why? Is it better to understand deeply, or to act well? Can we just say there is objective good and subjective good, and they have little in common? Depressed heroes. |
| 376 | Would you prefer a life of pleasure without reason, or one of reason without pleasure? [Plato] |
| Full Idea: Try thinking about the life of pleasure without reason, and the life of reason without pleasure. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 20e) | |
| A reaction: I suspect that we see the two as more deeply entangled that Plato did. It would be hard to motivate reasoning if we didn't enjoy it. Pleasure without reason sound dire. |
| 382 | It is unlikely that the gods feel either pleasure or pain [Plato] |
| Full Idea: It is unlikely that the gods feel pleasure or the opposite. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 33b) | |
| A reaction: Compare Idea 383. |
| 381 | We feel pleasure when we approach our natural state of harmony [Plato] |
| Full Idea: When harmony is being restored, and the natural state of harmony is approached, then pleasure arises. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 31d) | |
| A reaction: The supreme value of harmony was important to Plato, but most of us are less convinced, I suspect. The way to achieve harmony is to avoid anything stressful. |
| 386 | Intense pleasure and pain are not felt in a good body, but in a worthless one [Plato] |
| Full Idea: Intensity of pleasure and pain is to be found not in a good state of body and soul, but in a worthless one. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 45e) | |
| A reaction: This just seems to be Plato's puritanism. How can you criticise someone for experience genuine intense pain? Experiencing intense pleasure is no crime, but pursuit of it might be. |
| 388 | Hedonists must say that someone in pain is bad, even if they are virtuous [Plato] |
| Full Idea: A hedonist must say that someone who happens to be feeling pain rather than pleasure is, as long as the pain lasts, a bad man, even if he is the most virtuous man in the world. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 55b) |
| 377 | If you lived a life of maximum pleasure, would you still be lacking anything? [Plato] |
| Full Idea: Would you, Protarchus, gladly live your whole life experiencing only the greatest pleasure? Would you think you were still lacking anything? | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 21a) | |
| A reaction: the pleasure machine problem |
| 378 | A life of pure pleasure with no intellect is the life of a jellyfish [Plato] |
| Full Idea: A life of pure pleasure with no intellect is not the life of a human being, but the life of a jellyfish. | |
| From: Plato (Philebus [c.353 BCE], 21c) |