Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Why Constitution is not Identity', 'Anti-Semite and Jew' and 'Ecce Homo'

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


15 ideas

1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 1. Philosophy
A warlike philosopher challenges problems to single combat [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: A warlike philosopher challenges problems to single combat.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Ecce Homo [1889], Wise §7)
     A reaction: And what do pacifist philosophers do? It is a moot point whether philosophy is even possible without a streak of aggression. Otherwise you circle the problem, but don't confront it.
9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 3. Unity Problems / c. Statue and clay
Clay is intrinsically and atomically the same as statue (and that lacks 'modal properties') [Rudder Baker]
     Full Idea: Arguments for statue being the clay are: that the clay is intrinsically like the statue, that the clay has the same atoms as the statue', that objects don't have modal properties such as being necessarily F, and the reference of 'property' changes.
     From: Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], II)
     A reaction: [my summary of the arguments she identifies - see text for details] Rudder Baker attempts to refute all four of these arguments, in defence of constitution as different from identity.
The clay is not a statue - it borrows that property from the statue it constitutes [Rudder Baker]
     Full Idea: I argue that a lump of clay borrows the property of being a statue from the statue. The lump is a statue because, and only because, there is something that the lump constitutes that is a statue.
     From: Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], n9)
     A reaction: It is skating on very thin metaphysical ice to introduce the concept of 'borrowing' a property. I've spent the last ten minutes trying to 'borrow' some properties, but without luck.
9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 3. Unity Problems / d. Coincident objects
Is it possible for two things that are identical to become two separate things? [Rudder Baker]
     Full Idea: A strong intuition shared by many philosophers is that some things that are in fact identical might not have been identical.
     From: Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], IV)
     A reaction: This flies in the face of the Kripkean view that if Hesperus=Phosphorus then the identity is necessary. I don't think I have an intuition that some given thing might have been two things - indeed the thought seems totally weird. Amoeba? Statue/clay?
9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 6. Constitution of an Object
Constitution is not identity, as consideration of essential predicates shows [Rudder Baker]
     Full Idea: I want to resuscitate an essentialist argument against the view that constitution is identity, of the form 'x is essentially F, y is not essentially F, so x is not y'.
     From: Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], Intro)
     A reaction: The point is that x might be essentially F and y only accidentally F. Thus a statue is essentially so, but a lump if clay is not essentially a statue. Another case where 'necessary' would do instead of 'essentially'.
The constitution view gives a unified account of the relation of persons/bodies, statues/bronze etc [Rudder Baker]
     Full Idea: Constitution-without-identity is superior to constitution-as-identity in that it provides a unified view of the relation between persons and bodies, statues and pieces of bronze, and so on.
     From: Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], IV)
     A reaction: I have a problem with the intrinsic dualism of this whole picture. Clay needs shape, statues need matter - there aren't two 'things' here which have a 'relation'.
Statues essentially have relational properties lacked by lumps [Rudder Baker]
     Full Idea: The statue has relational properties which the lump of clay does not have essentially.
     From: Lynne Rudder Baker (Why Constitution is not Identity [1997], V)
     A reaction: She has in mind relations to the community of artistic life. I don't think this is convincing. Is something only a statue if it is validated by an artistic community? That sounds like relative identity, which she doesn't like.
22. Metaethics / B. Value / 2. Values / i. Self-interest
The distinction between egoistic and non-egoistic acts is absurd [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: There are neither egoistic nor unegoistic actions: both concepts are psychologically nonsense.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Ecce Homo [1889], 4.5)
     A reaction: Not quite true, but I like this observation. The idea that you could divide everyone's actions into these two groups is certainly nonsense. But some people are more altruistic than others!
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 1. Goodness / i. Moral luck
A bad result distorts one's judgement about the virtue of what one has done [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: I should prefer to exclude the bad result, the consequences, from the question of value as a matter of principle. Faced with a bad result, one loses all too easily the right perspective for what one has done.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Ecce Homo [1889], Clever §1)
     A reaction: If the perspective is easily lost, we should make more effort, not ignore consequences. The question is whether you could have foreseen or controlled the consequences.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / f. Compassion
The overcoming of pity I count among the noble virtues [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: The overcoming of pity I count among the noble virtues.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Ecce Homo [1889], Wise §4)
     A reaction: Hm. I can just about see that there might be more important things than compassion for suffering, but I can't see any human activity that makes it worthwhile to trample on pity.
23. Ethics / F. Existentialism / 6. Authentic Self
Authenticity is taking responsibility for a situation, with all its risks and emotions [Sartre]
     Full Idea: Authenticity consists in having a true and lucid consciousness of the situation, in assuming the responsibilities and risks that it involves, in accepting it in pride of humiliation, sometimes in horror and hate.
     From: Jean-Paul Sartre (Anti-Semite and Jew [1946], p.90), quoted by Christine Daigle - Jean-Paul Sartre 2.4
     A reaction: [Not sure what 'pride of humiliation' is, so it may be a typo for 'or']
To become what you are you must have no self-awareness [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: To become what one is, one must not have the faintest notion of what one is.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Ecce Homo [1889], II.9), quoted by Brian Leiter - Nietzsche On Morality 3 'fatalism'
     A reaction: [Don't understand 'II.9'] Enigmatic but striking. As I understand it, Nietzsche thought that knowing what you are is virtually impossible, though he spent a lifetime studying himself. Would you recognise someone who had become what they are?
23. Ethics / F. Existentialism / 8. Eternal Recurrence
Eternal recurrence is the highest attainable affirmation [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: Eternal recurrence is the highest formula of affirmation that is at all attainable.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Ecce Homo [1889], III.Z-1?), quoted by Brian Leiter - Nietzsche On Morality
     A reaction: Did Nietzsche have in mind an even higher formulation that was unattainable? The aim of eternal recurrence is to offer the highest possible ideal that remains rooted in the nature of ordinary life. It is a cut-down version of the Form of the Good.
25. Social Practice / E. Policies / 5. Education / c. Teaching
One repays a teacher badly if one remains only a pupil [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: One repays a teacher badly if one remains only a pupil.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Ecce Homo [1889], Fore)
28. God / C. Attitudes to God / 5. Atheism
I am not an atheist because of reasoning or evidence, but because of instinct [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: I have absolutely no knowledge of atheism as an outcome of reasoning, still less an event: with me it is obvious by instinct.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Ecce Homo [1889], 3.1)