Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'fragments/reports', 'The Koran' and 'Dispositions and Powers'

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


39 ideas

1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 7. Despair over Philosophy
Instead of prayer and charity, sinners pursue vain disputes and want their own personal scripture [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: The sinners will say 'we never prayed or fed the hungry. We engaged in vain disputes and denied the Day of Reckoning'. Indeed, each one of them demands a scripture of his own to be unrolled before him.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.74)
     A reaction: The implication seems to be that most disputes are 'vain'. The charge that everyone wants a 'scripture of his own' is a nice challenge to the world of liberal education, where we are all enjoined to pursue our personalised routes to our own truth.
8. Modes of Existence / B. Properties / 1. Nature of Properties
Humeans see properties as having no more essential features and relations than their distinctness [Friend/Kimpton-Nye, by PG]
     Full Idea: The Humean view says properties are 'quiddities', which individuates properties by nothing more than their distinctness from one another, so that dispositions are not essential to them, and there is no limit to possible property recombination.
     From: report of Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.3.1) by PG - Db (ideas)
     A reaction: [my summary] All of this is implied by Hume, rather than stated. David Lewis supports this view. The theory of basic powers is the view's main opponent. This quidditist view is not found in physics, where a property's modal profile matters.
Dispositions are what individuate properties, and they constitute their essence [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: Dispositions constitute the essences of properties, and hence the identity of a property is not primitive ('quidditism'), but is given in terms of its dispositional relations to other properties.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.3.1)
     A reaction: I like the picture that powers are basic, giving rise to dispositions, which combine to produce qualitative and active properties. Powers are precise and relatively few, and properties are ill-defined and very numerous. Being 'influential', for example.
8. Modes of Existence / C. Powers and Dispositions / 1. Powers
Powers are properties which necessitate dispositions [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: In broad terms: powers are properties that necessitate dispositions.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.2)
     A reaction: If powers are properties then they must be properties 'of' something, which then seems to be more fundamental than the powers. Maybe our concept of an electron helps, which seems to be a bundle of a few properties, but no one even asks 'of' what.
8. Modes of Existence / C. Powers and Dispositions / 2. Powers as Basic
Dispositional essentialism (unlike the grounding view) says only fundamental properties are powers [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: Dispositional essentialism yields the view that just fundamental properties and some evolved macro properties are powers. The grounding view, by contrast, seems to yield the result that all properties are powers.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.7)
     A reaction: For the second view, Mumford (for example) claims that the sphericity of a ball is a power, but that seems to miss the whole motivation for the powers ontology, which offers a fairly fundamental explanation of laws and modality.
8. Modes of Existence / C. Powers and Dispositions / 4. Powers as Essence
A power is a property which consists entirely of dispositions [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: In the 'dispositional essentialist' account (the main view) …what it is to be a power is to be a property whose essence is exhaustively constituted by dispositions.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.4)
     A reaction: [compressed] Sounds wrong to me. A very complex property (such as 'stormy' weather) could be nothing more than a large bundle of dispositions, but that wouldn't make it a 'power', which has to be simpler and more basic.
Powers are qualitative properties which fully ground dispositions [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: In the 'grounding' view of powers …powers are qualitative, because their essence can be specified independently of any dispositions or relations, but they fully ground dispositions.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.4)
     A reaction: [compressed] They give this as the rival view to dispositional essentialism. It may be a mistake to call a power a property (which needs to be 'of' something). Not sure how powers can be both fundamental and qualitative. Don't they also ground qualities?
8. Modes of Existence / C. Powers and Dispositions / 6. Dispositions / a. Dispositions
Dispositions have directed behaviour which occurs if triggered [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: The three platitudes about dispositions are that 1) they are directed towards some specific behaviour, 2) they can be triggered under specific conditions, and 3) their directedness is modal, meaning not 'when it is triggered' but 'it it were triggered'.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.1.1)
     A reaction: [PG summary] This is the preliminary to an attempt at a precise formal analysis, covering a number of hypothetical problem cases. 3) is the counterfactual rather than material conditional. Seems accurate.
'Masked' dispositions fail to react because something intervenes [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: A disposition is 'masked' when it fails to manifest due to interference, such as a fragile vase packed in bubble wrap, or an antidote taken after some poison.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.2.1)
     A reaction: [compressed] The easiest account of these would be to say that the stimulus or trigger of the disposition never completely occurs. Poisons are only disposed to kill when they are fully ingested. Bubble wrapped vases can't be properly struck.
A disposition is 'altered' when the stimulus reverses the disposition [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: A disposition is subject to 'altering' when the stimulus of the disposition influences whether (and to what degree) an object has that disposition. Either a live wire goes dead when it is touched, or a dead wire has a sensor making it live when touched.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.2.2)
     A reaction: The word 'fink' is used of such interference. Not much of a problem, I would say, because at the moment when the stimulus comes to do its job, there is no longer a disposition for it to trigger. No different from switching off a light.
A disposition is 'mimicked' if a different cause produces that effect from that stimulus [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: A disposition is 'mimicked' by objects without that disposition which behave as though they do have it. Styrofoam plates are not fragile, but make a horrible sound when stressed, causing some annoyed person to break them.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.2.3)
     A reaction: A rather strained example! It shouldn't be a problem if the same cause (stress) leads to the same effect (breaking), but by a different path which is not the same as fragility. A formal analysis must obviously cover this case.
A 'trick' can look like a stimulus for a disposition which will happen without it [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: A 'trick' can behave like a disposition, as when someone says 'abracadabra' over a hot cup of coffee, stimulating it (?) to gradually cool down.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.2.4)
     A reaction: This is like Humean constant conjunction which is obviously not a cause, such as night following day. Only a problem is this cup of coffee is seen in isolation from all other cups of coffee. Post hoc propter hoc does not apply to all stimuli!
Some dispositions manifest themselves without a stimulus [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: Some dispositions, such as loquaciousness or irascibility, are disposed to manifest whether they are provoked to do so.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.3.3)
     A reaction: We might surmise that such people have internal triggers that get them going, rather than overt ones. The Sun has a disposition to shine, without an external stimulus. The theory of powers says nature is active, rather than being disposed to activity.
We could analyse dispositions as 'possibilities', with no mention of a stimulus [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: We might abandon the relational analysis of dispositions (as stimulus-effect), and just say a disposition is a 'possibility', which simply can manifest, however that manifestation comes about.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.3.5)
     A reaction: [Compressed. He particularly cites Barbara Vetter] A mere 'possibility' seems to cover passive states as well as potentially active ones. A cushion can be dented, but I wouldn't say it was 'disposed' to dent. Radioactive decay is a disposition, though.
10. Modality / A. Necessity / 8. Transcendental Necessity
Everything happens by reason and necessity [Leucippus]
     Full Idea: Nothing happens at random; everything happens out of reason and by necessity.
     From: Leucippus (fragments/reports [c.435 BCE], B002), quoted by (who?) - where?
10. Modality / E. Possible worlds / 1. Possible Worlds / e. Against possible worlds
Dispositionalism says modality is in the powers of this world, not outsourced to possible worlds [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: Dispositionalism does not 'outsource' modality to other possible worlds, it roots modality in the powers of concrete individuals in this world.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.3.3)
     A reaction: Possible worlds are to abolish modality, by treating it as the non-modal facts of different worlds. I see the dispositional view as vastly superior, because the world is awash with vivid and undeniable potentialities, and one world is better ontology.
23. Ethics / B. Contract Ethics / 1. Contractarianism
You may break off a treaty if you fear treachery from your ally [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may retaliate by breaking off your treaty with them; Allah does not love the treacherous.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.8)
     A reaction: I do not think this is good advice. Everybody fears treachery, but if we all acted on that fear human relationships and society would immediately collapse. If anyone thought this was good advice, I would not want to make a treaty with them.
Repay evil with good and your enemies will become friends (though this is hard) [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: Requite evil with good, and he who is your enemy will become your dearest friend; but none will attain this save those who endure with fortitude and are greatly favoured by Allah.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.41)
     A reaction: This seems opposed to some of the more vengeful remarks in the Koran. It strikes me as good common sense, since vengeance only seems to breed counter-vengeance. It doesn't carry the full altruistic commitment, though, of unrewarded love.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / a. Virtues
Allah rewards those who are devout, sincere, patient, humble, charitable, chaste, and who fast [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: Allah will bestow forgiveness and a rich reward on those, both men and women, who are devout, sincere, patient, humble, charitable and chaste; who fast and are ever mindful of Allah.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.33)
     A reaction: Most people would still agree that all of these are virtues, though other lists will show interesting virtues that are not mentioned here, and many on this list seem overrated in the modern pantheon of virtues.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / c. Justice
Those who avenge themselves when wronged incur no guilt [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: Those who avenge themselves when wronged incur no guilt.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.42)
     A reaction: Compare Ideas 1659 (Protagoras), 346 (Socrates), 6288 (Jesus), and 4286 (Scruton!). In the light of those ideas, this comment in the Koran strikes me as coming from an older and less civilized world.
25. Social Practice / D. Justice / 3. Punishment / c. Deterrence of crime
Punish theft in men or women by cutting off their hands [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands to punish them for their crimes.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.5)
     A reaction: I find this shocking because it is irrevocable and offers no hope of redemption. It is particularly shocking that the text does not enjoin any caution about inflicting the punishment on the young, most of whom reform from thieving in later life.
25. Social Practice / F. Life Issues / 1. Causing Death
Do not kill except for a just cause [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: Do not kill except for a just cause.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.25)
     A reaction: Slippery slope! I can see that pleasure would not be a just cause, and ensuring the entry of all humanity to paradise might be one, but I find the area in between a little unclear. The Koran seems to allow you to decide for yourself.
Killing a human, except as just punishment, is like killing all mankind [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other wicked crimes, should be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.5)
     A reaction: It seems inconceivable that the Koran could be used to justify indiscriminate terrorism, in the light of remarks such as this.
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 7. Strictness of Laws
Hume's Dictum says no connections are necessary - so mass and spacetime warping could separate [Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
     Full Idea: Hume's Dictum says there are no necessary connections between existences, …and also between the distinct properties that individuals instantiate. …It follows that an object's property of mass and its disposition to warp space-time could come apart.
     From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.2)
     A reaction: [compressed] This nicely pinpoints the heart of the Humean view, to which scientific essentialists and fans of powers in nature object. The objectors include me.
28. God / A. Divine Nature / 2. Divine Nature
Allah is lord of creation, compassionate, merciful, king of judgement-day [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: Praise be to Allah, Lord of Creation, The Compassionate, the Merciful, King of Judgement-day!
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Exord)
     A reaction: The Muslim concept of God confronts directly a clear theological difficulty, a difficulty faced by any judge: the conflict between mercy and justice. Christianity seems to emphasise mercy, and Islam emphasises justice.
28. God / B. Proving God / 3. Proofs of Evidence / b. Teleological Proof
True believers see that Allah made the night for rest and the day to give light [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: Do they not see how We have made the night for them to rest in and the day to give them light? Surely there are signs in this for true believers.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.27)
     A reaction: The main traditional argument for God implied in the Koran is the design argument. It is clear from this that Islam will not be comfortable with Darwinian evolution, which implies we are 'designed' for the Earth, not the Earth for us.
29. Religion / B. Monotheistic Religion / 4. Christianity / a. Christianity
Allah cannot have begotten a son, as He is self-sufficient [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: They say: 'Allah has begotten a son.' Allah forbid! Self-sufficient is He.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.10)
     A reaction: This is quite persuasive, except that the point of Jesus is that he suffers a cruel death, and we are required to identify with God's parental feelings here, His involvement, which would not occur with the death of one of His prophets.
29. Religion / B. Monotheistic Religion / 6. Islam
There shall be no compulsion in religion [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: There shall be no compulsion in religion.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.2)
     A reaction: This seems to contradict some of the more aggressive remarks in the Koran, such as Idea 6827. As I read it, the three non-compelling ideas that lead to true religion in the Koran are desire for paradise, fear of punishment, and worship of divine design.
Unbelievers try to interpret the ambiguous parts of the Koran, simply to create dissension [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: Some of the verses of the Koran are precise in meaning - they are the foundations of the Book - and others are ambiguous. Disbelievers follow the ambiguous part, to create dissension by seeking to explain it. No one knows its meaning except Allah.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.3)
     A reaction: It is tempting to ask why some of the verses are ambiguous. The implication here is that they are a deliberate test for believers, like the apple in the garden of Eden.
The Koran is certainly composed by Allah; no one could compose a chapter like it [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: This Koran could not have been composed by any but Allah. It is beyond doubt from the Lord of the Creation. If they say: 'It is your own invention', say: 'Compose one chapter like it. Call on your false gods to help you!'
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.10)
     A reaction: I find this unpersuasive, firstly because I couldn't imitate the sonnets of Shakespeare either, and secondly because the authority of a text must be asserted outside the text, not within it. Scribble "this is a ten pound note" on a scrap of paper.
Do not split into sects, exulting in separate beliefs [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: Do not split up your religion into sects, each exulting in its own beliefs.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.30)
     A reaction: This seems like good advice to a religion, but it is very difficult to retrace steps and reunite once it has happened. Which sect should make the greatest concessions? Must they both admit to being somewhat wrong?
I created mankind that it might worship Me [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: I created mankind and the jinn in order that they might worship Me.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.51)
     A reaction: This seems to be a view common to all the monotheistic religions, with monasticism as its clearest (and most logical) outcome. Nietzsche is the most obvious opponent of this idea that the abasement of mankind is its highest ideal.
Be patient with unbelievers, and leave them to the judgement of Allah [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: Bear patiently with what the unbelievers say, and leave their company without recrimination; leave to Me those that deny the truth.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.73)
     A reaction: This explicitly says Muslims should not attack infidels simply for their unbelief in Allah.
Make war on the unbelievers until Allah's religion reigns supreme [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: Make war on the unbelievers until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.8)
     A reaction: This should presumably be seen in context, as a war speech written during a conflict, like Churchill 'fighting them on the beaches', which does not apply to modern German tourists. However, one worries about how fundamentalists might read it.
He that kills a believer by design shall burn in Hell for ever [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: He that kills a believer by design shall burn in Hell for ever.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.4)
     A reaction: This would appear to make modern indiscriminate urban terrorism a damning sin for a Muslim.
29. Religion / D. Religious Issues / 2. Immortality / d. Heaven
The righteous shall dwell on couches in gardens, wedded to dark-eyed houris [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: In fair gardens the righteous shall dwell in bliss, rejoicing in what their Lord will give them. They shall recline on couches ranged in rows. To dark-eyed houris We shall wed them.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.52)
     A reaction: What I find distressing about this is that we have gradually worked out how young men can recline on couches in gardens with dark-eyed houris before death, and the Koran seems to depict it as the highest form of living.
Heaven will be reclining on couches, eating fruit, attended by virgins [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: All who dwell in heaven shall recline on couches lined with thick brocade, and within their reach will hang the fruits of gardens; they shall dwell with bashful virgins whom neither men nor jinnee will have touched before.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.55)
     A reaction: In the seventh century this was more impressive than it seems now. I still find it sad (though understandable) that paradise must always be depicted in terms of physical pleasure. Aristotle wouldn't have yearned for such an immortality.
29. Religion / D. Religious Issues / 2. Immortality / e. Hell
Unbelievers will have their skin repeatedly burned off in hell [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: Those that deny Our revelations We will burn in Hell-fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed that We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste Our scourge. Allah is mighty and wise.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.4)
     A reaction: Of all the accounts of hell in the Koran, this strikes me as the most alarming. I cannot think of a worse infliction, because here every nerve which can experience pain will suffer it (though the drinking of boiling water, Idea 6816, will make it worse).
The unbelievers shall drink boiling water [Mohammed]
     Full Idea: As for the unbelievers, they shall drink boiling water.
     From: Mohammed (The Koran [c.622], Ch.10)
     A reaction: This seems to be presented not only as a threat to unbelievers, but also as a satisfaction to believers.