|
12302
|
Definitions formed an abstract hierarchy for Aristotle, as sets do for us [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
For us it is sets which constitute the most natural example of a hierarchical structure within the abstract realm; but for Aristotle it would have been definitions, via their natural division into genus and differentia.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], §1 n4)
|
|
A reaction:
I suppose everyone who thinks about reality in abstraction ends up with a hierarchy. Compare the hierarchy of angelic hosts, or Greek gods. Could we get back to the Aristotelian view, instead of sets, which are out of control at the top end?
|
|
21982
|
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.
|
|
14267
|
There is no distinctive idea of constitution, because you can't say constitution begins and ends [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the parts of a body can constitute a man, then why should men not constitute a family? Why draw the line at the level of the man? ...Thus the idea of a distinctive notion of constitution, terminating in concrete substances, should be given up.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
This is in the context of Aristotle, but Fine's view seems to apply to Rudder Baker's distinctive approach.
|
|
14264
|
Is there a plausible Aristotelian notion of constitution, applicable to both physical and non-physical? [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a question of whether there is a viable conception of constitution of the sort Aristotle supposes, one which is uniformly applicable to physical and non-physical objects alike, and which is capable of hierarchical application.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
This is part of an explication of Aristotle's 'matter' [hule], which might be better translated as 'ingredients', which would fit non-physical things quite well.
|
|
22449
|
When we say 'is red' we don't mean 'seems red to most people' [Foot]
|
|
Full Idea:
One might think that 'is red' means the same as 'seems red to most people', forgetting that when asked if an object is red we look at it to see if it is red, and not in order to estimate the reaction that others will have to it.
|
|
From:
Philippa Foot (Moral Relativism [1979], p.23)
|
|
A reaction:
True, but we are conscious of our own reliability as observers (e.g. if colourblind, or with poor hearing or eyesight). I don't take my glasses off, have a look, and pronounce that the object is blurred. Ordinary language philosophy in action.
|
|
22451
|
All people need affection, cooperation, community and help in trouble [Foot]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a great deal that all men have in common; all need affection, the cooperation of others, a place in a community, and help in trouble.
|
|
From:
Philippa Foot (Moral Relativism [1979], p.33)
|
|
A reaction:
There seem to be some people who don't need affection or a place in a community, though it is hard to imagine them being happy. These kind of facts are the basis for any sensible cognitivist view of ethics. They are basic to Foot's view.
|
|
22452
|
Do we have a concept of value, other than wanting something, or making an effort to get it? [Foot]
|
|
Full Idea:
Do we know what we mean by saying that anything has value, or even that we value it, as opposed to wanting it or being prepared to go to trouble to get it?
|
|
From:
Philippa Foot (Moral Relativism [1979], p.35)
|
|
A reaction:
Well, I value Rembrandt paintings, but have no aspiration to own one (and would refuse it if offered, because I couldn't look after it properly). And 'we' don't want to move the Taj Mahal to London. She has not expressed this good point very well.
|