Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Through the Looking Glass', 'On the Ultimate Origination of Things' and 'Defeasibility Theory'

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


15 ideas

1. Philosophy / A. Wisdom / 1. Nature of Wisdom
Wisdom involves the desire to achieve perfection [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: The wiser one is, the more one is determined to do that which is most perfect.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (On the Ultimate Origination of Things [1697], p.151)
     A reaction: Debatable. 'Perfectionism' is a well-known vice in many areas of life. Life is short, and the demands on us are many. Skilled shortcuts and compromises are one hallmark of genius, and presumably also of wisdom.
7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 3. Being / e. Being and nothing
I only wish I had such eyes as to see Nobody! It's as much as I can do to see real people. [Carroll,L]
     Full Idea: "I see nobody on the road," said Alice. - "I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked. ..."To be able to see Nobody! ...Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people."
     From: Lewis Carroll (C.Dodgson) (Through the Looking Glass [1886], p.189), quoted by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics 07.7
     A reaction: [Moore quotes this, inevitably, in a chapter on Hegel] This may be a better candidate for the birth of philosophy of language than Frege's Groundwork.
7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 5. Reason for Existence
Leibniz first asked 'why is there something rather than nothing?' [Leibniz, by Jacquette]
     Full Idea: The historical honour of having first raised the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" belongs to Leibniz.
     From: report of Gottfried Leibniz (On the Ultimate Origination of Things [1697]) by Dale Jacquette - Ontology Ch.3
     A reaction: I presume that people before Leibniz may well have had the thought, but not bothered to even articulate it, because there seemed nothing to say by way of answer, other than some reference to the inscrutable will of God.
There must be a straining towards existence in the essence of all possible things [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: Since something rather than nothing exists, there is a certain urge for existence, or (so to speak) a straining toward existence in possible things or in possibility or essence itself; in a word, essence in and of itself strives for existence.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (On the Ultimate Origination of Things [1697], p.150)
     A reaction: Thus 'essence precedes existence'. Not sure I understand this, but at least it places an active power at the root of everything (though Leibniz probably sees that as divine). The Big Bang triggered by a 'quantum fluctuation'?
Because something does exist, there must be a drive in possible things towards existence [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: From the very fact that something exists rather than nothing, we recognise that there is in possible things, that is, in the very possibility or essence, a certain exigent need of existence, and, so to speak, some claim to existence.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (On the Ultimate Origination of Things [1697], p.347)
     A reaction: I love the fact that Leibniz tried to explain why there is something rather than nothing. Bede Rundle and Dale Jacquette are similar heroes. As Leibniz tells us, contradictions have no claim to existence, but non-contradictions do.
10. Modality / A. Necessity / 7. Natural Necessity
The world is physically necessary, as its contrary would imply imperfection or moral absurdity [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: Although the world is not metaphysically necessary, such that its contrary would imply a contradiction or logical absurdity, it is necessary physically, that is, determined in such a way that its contrary would imply imperfection or moral absurdity.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (On the Ultimate Origination of Things [1697], p.139)
     A reaction: How does Leibniz know things like this? The distinction between 'metaphysical' necessity and 'natural' (what he calls 'physical') necessity is a key idea. But natural necessity is controversial. See 'Essentialism'.
11. Knowledge Aims / B. Certain Knowledge / 3. Fallibilism
Indefeasibility does not imply infallibility [Grundmann]
     Full Idea: Infallibility does not follow from indefeasibility.
     From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'Significance')
     A reaction: If very little evidence exists then this could clearly be the case. It is especially true of historical and archaeological evidence.
13. Knowledge Criteria / A. Justification Problems / 1. Justification / c. Defeasibility
Can a defeater itself be defeated? [Grundmann]
     Full Idea: Can the original justification of a belief be regained through a successful defeat of a defeater?
     From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'Defeater-Defs')
     A reaction: [Jäger 2005 addresses this] I would have thought the answer is yes. I aspire to coherent justifications, so I don't see justifications as a chain of defeat and counter-defeat, but as collective groups of support and challenge.
Simple reliabilism can't cope with defeaters of reliably produced beliefs [Grundmann]
     Full Idea: An unmodified reliabilism does not accommodate defeaters, and surely there can be defeaters against reliably produced beliefs?
     From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'Defeaters')
     A reaction: [He cites Bonjour 1980] Reliabilism has plenty of problems anyway, since a generally reliable process can obviously occasionally produce a bad result. 20:20 vision is not perfect vision. Internalist seem to like defeaters.
You can 'rebut' previous beliefs, 'undercut' the power of evidence, or 'reason-defeat' the truth [Grundmann]
     Full Idea: There are 'rebutting' defeaters against the truth of a previously justified belief, 'undercutting' defeaters against the power of the evidence, and 'reason-defeating' defeaters against the truth of the reason for the belief.
     From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'How')
     A reaction: That is (I think) that you can defeat the background, the likelihood, or the truth. He cites Pollock 1986, and implies that these are standard distinctions about defeaters.
Defeasibility theory needs to exclude defeaters which are true but misleading [Grundmann]
     Full Idea: Advocates of the defeasibility theory have tried to exclude true pieces of information that are misleading defeaters.
     From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'What')
     A reaction: He gives as an example the genuine news of a claim that the suspect has a twin.
Knowledge requires that there are no facts which would defeat its justification [Grundmann]
     Full Idea: The 'defeasibility theory' of knowledge claims that knowledge is only present if there are no facts that - if they were known - would be genuine defeaters of the relevant justification.
     From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'What')
     A reaction: Something not right here. A genuine defeater would ensure the proposition was false, so it would simply fail the truth test. So we need a 'defeater' for a truth, which must therefore by definition be misleading. Many qualifications have to be invoked.
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 4. Foundationalism / b. Basic beliefs
'Moderate' foundationalism has basic justification which is defeasible [Grundmann]
     Full Idea: Theories that combine basic justification with the defeasibility of this justification are referred to as 'moderate' foundationalism.
     From: Thomas Grundmann (Defeasibility Theory [2011], 'Significance')
     A reaction: I could be more sympathetic to this sort of foundationalism. But it begins to sound more like Neurath's boat (see Quine) than like Descartes' metaphor of building foundations.
20. Action / C. Motives for Action / 3. Acting on Reason / a. Practical reason
We follow the practical rule which always seeks maximum effect for minimum cost [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: In practical affairs one always follows the decision rule in accordance with which one ought to seek the maximum or the minimum: namely, one prefers the maximum effect at the minimum cost, so to speak.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (On the Ultimate Origination of Things [1697], p.150)
     A reaction: Animals probably do that too, and even water sort of obeys the rule when it runs downhill.
26. Natural Theory / A. Speculations on Nature / 1. Nature
The principle of determination in things obtains the greatest effect with the least effort [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: There is always in things a principle of determination which is based on consideration of maximum and minimum, such that the greatest effect is obtained with the least, so to speak, expenditure.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (On the Ultimate Origination of Things [1697], p.347)
     A reaction: This is obvious in human endeavours. Leibniz applied it to physics, producing a principle that shortest paths are always employed. It has a different formal name in modern physics, I think. He says if you make an unrestricted triangle, it is equilateral.