99 ideas
15585 | Later Heidegger sees philosophy as more like poetry than like science [Heidegger, by Polt] |
Full Idea: In his later work Heidegger came to view philosophy as closer to poetry than to science. | |
From: report of Martin Heidegger (The Origin of the Work of Art [1935], p.178) by Richard Polt - Heidegger: an introduction 5 'Signs' |
10987 | Three traditional names of rules are 'Simplification', 'Addition' and 'Disjunctive Syllogism' [Read] |
Full Idea: Three traditional names for rules are 'Simplification' (P from 'P and Q'), 'Addition' ('P or Q' from P), and 'Disjunctive Syllogism' (Q from 'P or Q' and 'not-P'). | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) |
11004 | Necessity is provability in S4, and true in all worlds in S5 [Read] |
Full Idea: In S4 necessity is said to be informal 'provability', and in S5 it is said to be 'true in every possible world'. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: It seems that the S4 version is proof-theoretic, and the S5 version is semantic. |
11018 | There are fuzzy predicates (and sets), and fuzzy quantifiers and modifiers [Read] |
Full Idea: In fuzzy logic, besides fuzzy predicates, which define fuzzy sets, there are also fuzzy quantifiers (such as 'most' and 'few') and fuzzy modifiers (such as 'usually'). | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.7) |
11011 | Same say there are positive, negative and neuter free logics [Read] |
Full Idea: It is normal to classify free logics into three sorts; positive free logics (some propositions with empty terms are true), negative free logics (they are false), and neuter free logics (they lack truth-value), though I find this unhelpful and superficial. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.5) |
11020 | Realisms like the full Comprehension Principle, that all good concepts determine sets [Read] |
Full Idea: Hard-headed realism tends to embrace the full Comprehension Principle, that every well-defined concept determines a set. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.8) | |
A reaction: This sort of thing gets you into trouble with Russell's paradox (though that is presumably meant to be excluded somehow by 'well-defined'). There are lots of diluted Comprehension Principles. |
10986 | Not all validity is captured in first-order logic [Read] |
Full Idea: We must recognise that first-order classical logic is inadequate to describe all valid consequences, that is, all cases in which it is impossible for the premisses to be true and the conclusion false. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: This is despite the fact that first-order logic is 'complete', in the sense that its own truths are all provable. |
10972 | The non-emptiness of the domain is characteristic of classical logic [Read] |
Full Idea: The non-emptiness of the domain is characteristic of classical logic. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) |
11024 | Semantics must precede proof in higher-order logics, since they are incomplete [Read] |
Full Idea: For the realist, study of semantic structures comes before study of proofs. In higher-order logic is has to, for the logics are incomplete. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.9) | |
A reaction: This seems to be an important general observation about any incomplete system, such as Peano arithmetic. You may dream the old rationalist dream of starting from the beginning and proving everything, but you can't. Start with truth and meaning. |
10985 | We should exclude second-order logic, precisely because it captures arithmetic [Read] |
Full Idea: Those who believe mathematics goes beyond logic use that fact to argue that classical logic is right to exclude second-order logic. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) |
10970 | A theory of logical consequence is a conceptual analysis, and a set of validity techniques [Read] |
Full Idea: A theory of logical consequence, while requiring a conceptual analysis of consequence, also searches for a set of techniques to determine the validity of particular arguments. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) |
10984 | Logical consequence isn't just a matter of form; it depends on connections like round-square [Read] |
Full Idea: If classical logic insists that logical consequence is just a matter of the form, we fail to include as valid consequences those inferences whose correctness depends on the connections between non-logical terms (such as 'round' and 'square'). | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: He suggests that an inference such as 'round, so not square' should be labelled as 'materially valid'. |
10973 | A theory is logically closed, which means infinite premisses [Read] |
Full Idea: A 'theory' is any logically closed set of propositions, ..and since any proposition has infinitely many consequences, including all the logical truths, so that theories have infinitely many premisses. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: Read is introducing this as the essential preliminary to an account of the Compactness Theorem, which relates these infinite premisses to the finite. |
11007 | Quantifiers are second-order predicates [Read] |
Full Idea: Quantifiers are second-order predicates. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.5) | |
A reaction: [He calls this 'Frege's insight'] They seem to be second-order in Tarski's sense, that they are part of a metalanguage about the sentence, rather than being a part of the sentence. |
10978 | In second-order logic the higher-order variables range over all the properties of the objects [Read] |
Full Idea: The defining factor of second-order logic is that, while the domain of its individual variables may be arbitrary, the range of the first-order variables is all the properties of the objects in its domain (or, thinking extensionally, of the sets objects). | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: The key point is that the domain is 'all' of the properties. How many properties does an object have. You need to decide whether you believe in sparse or abundant properties (I vote for very sparse indeed). |
10971 | A logical truth is the conclusion of a valid inference with no premisses [Read] |
Full Idea: Logical truth is a degenerate, or extreme, case of consequence. A logical truth is the conclusion of a valid inference with no premisses, or a proposition in the premisses of an argument which is unnecessary or may be suppressed. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) |
10988 | Any first-order theory of sets is inadequate [Read] |
Full Idea: Any first-order theory of sets is inadequate because of the Löwenheim-Skolem-Tarski property, and the consequent Skolem paradox. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: The limitation is in giving an account of infinities. |
10974 | Compactness is when any consequence of infinite propositions is the consequence of a finite subset [Read] |
Full Idea: Classical logical consequence is compact, which means that any consequence of an infinite set of propositions (such as a theory) is a consequence of some finite subset of them. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) |
10975 | Compactness does not deny that an inference can have infinitely many premisses [Read] |
Full Idea: Compactness does not deny that an inference can have infinitely many premisses. It can; but classically, it is valid if and only if the conclusion follows from a finite subset of them. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) |
10977 | Compactness blocks the proof of 'for every n, A(n)' (as the proof would be infinite) [Read] |
Full Idea: Compact consequence undergenerates - there are intuitively valid consequences which it marks as invalid, such as the ω-rule, that if A holds of the natural numbers, then 'for every n, A(n)', but the proof of that would be infinite, for each number. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) |
10976 | Compactness makes consequence manageable, but restricts expressive power [Read] |
Full Idea: Compactness is a virtue - it makes the consequence relation more manageable; but it is also a limitation - it limits the expressive power of the logic. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: The major limitation is that wholly infinite proofs are not permitted, as in Idea 10977. |
11014 | Self-reference paradoxes seem to arise only when falsity is involved [Read] |
Full Idea: It cannot be self-reference alone that is at fault. Rather, what seems to cause the problems in the paradoxes is the combination of self-reference with falsity. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.6) |
11025 | Infinite cuts and successors seems to suggest an actual infinity there waiting for us [Read] |
Full Idea: Every potential infinity seems to suggest an actual infinity - e.g. generating successors suggests they are really all there already; cutting the line suggests that the point where the cut is made is already in place. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.8) | |
A reaction: Finding a new gambit in chess suggests it was there waiting for us, but we obviously invented chess. Daft. |
10979 | Although second-order arithmetic is incomplete, it can fully model normal arithmetic [Read] |
Full Idea: Second-order arithmetic is categorical - indeed, there is a single formula of second-order logic whose only model is the standard model ω, consisting of just the natural numbers, with all of arithmetic following. It is nevertheless incomplete. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: This is the main reason why second-order logic has a big fan club, despite the logic being incomplete (as well as the arithmetic). |
10980 | Second-order arithmetic covers all properties, ensuring categoricity [Read] |
Full Idea: Second-order arithmetic can rule out the non-standard models (with non-standard numbers). Its induction axiom crucially refers to 'any' property, which gives the needed categoricity for the models. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) |
10997 | Von Neumann numbers are helpful, but don't correctly describe numbers [Read] |
Full Idea: The Von Neumann numbers have a structural isomorphism to the natural numbers - each number is the set of all its predecessors, so 2 is the set of 0 and 1. This helps proofs, but is unacceptable. 2 is not a set with two members, or a member of 3. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.4) |
11016 | Would a language without vagueness be usable at all? [Read] |
Full Idea: We must ask whether a language without vagueness would be usable at all. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.7) | |
A reaction: Popper makes a similar remark somewhere, with which I heartily agreed. This is the idea of 'spreading the word' over the world, which seems the right way of understanding it. |
11013 | Identities and the Indiscernibility of Identicals don't work with supervaluations [Read] |
Full Idea: In supervaluations, the Law of Identity has no value for empty names, and remains so if extended. The Indiscernibility of Identicals also fails if extending it for non-denoting terms, where Fa comes out true and Fb false. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.5) |
11012 | A 'supervaluation' gives a proposition consistent truth-value for classical assignments [Read] |
Full Idea: A 'supervaluation' says a proposition is true if it is true in all classical extensions of the original partial valuation. Thus 'A or not-A' has no valuation for an empty name, but if 'extended' to make A true or not-true, not-A always has opposite value. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.5) |
11019 | Supervaluations say there is a cut-off somewhere, but at no particular place [Read] |
Full Idea: The supervaluation approach to vagueness is to construe vague predicates not as ones with fuzzy borderlines and no cut-off, but as having a cut-off somewhere, but in no particular place. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.7) | |
A reaction: Presumably you narrow down the gap by supervaluation, then split the difference to get a definite value. |
10995 | A haecceity is a set of individual properties, essential to each thing [Read] |
Full Idea: The haecceitist (a neologism coined by Duns Scotus, pronounced 'hex-ee-it-ist', meaning literally 'thisness') believes that each thing has an individual essence, a set of properties which are essential to it. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: This seems to be a difference of opinion over whether a haecceity is a set of essential properties, or a bare particular. The key point is that it is unique to each entity. |
11001 | Equating necessity with truth in every possible world is the S5 conception of necessity [Read] |
Full Idea: The equation of 'necessity' with 'true in every possible world' is known as the S5 conception, corresponding to the strongest of C.I.Lewis's five modal systems. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: Are the worlds naturally, or metaphysically, or logically possible? |
10989 | The standard view of conditionals is that they are truth-functional [Read] |
Full Idea: The standard view of conditionals is that they are truth-functional, that is, that their truth-values are determined by the truth-values of their constituents. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.3) |
10992 | The point of conditionals is to show that one will accept modus ponens [Read] |
Full Idea: The point of conditionals is to show that one will accept modus ponens. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: [He attributes this idea to Frank Jackson] This makes the point, against Grice, that the implication of conditionals is not conversational but a matter of logical convention. See Idea 21396 for a very different view. |
11017 | Some people even claim that conditionals do not express propositions [Read] |
Full Idea: Some people even claim that conditionals do not express propositions. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.7) | |
A reaction: See Idea 14283, where this appears to have been 'proved' by Lewis, and is not just a view held by some people. |
10983 | Knowledge of possible worlds is not causal, but is an ontology entailed by semantics [Read] |
Full Idea: The modal Platonist denies that knowledge always depends on a causal relation. The reality of possible worlds is an ontological requirement, to secure the truth-values of modal propositions. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: [Reply to Idea 10982] This seems to be a case of deriving your metaphyics from your semantics, of which David Lewis seems to be guilty, and which strikes me as misguided. |
10982 | How can modal Platonists know the truth of a modal proposition? [Read] |
Full Idea: If modal Platonism was true, how could we ever know the truth of a modal proposition? | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: I take this to be very important. Our knowledge of modal truths must depend on our knowledge of the actual world. The best answer seems to involve reference to the 'powers' of the actual world. A reply is in Idea 10983. |
10996 | Actualism is reductionist (to parts of actuality), or moderate realist (accepting real abstractions) [Read] |
Full Idea: There are two main forms of actualism: reductionism, which seeks to construct possible worlds out of some more mundane material; and moderate realism, in which the actual concrete world is contrasted with abstract, but none the less real, possible worlds. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: I am a reductionist, as I do not take abstractions to be 'real' (precisely because they have been 'abstracted' from the things that are real). I think I will call myself a 'scientific modalist' - we build worlds from possibilities, discovered by science. |
10981 | A possible world is a determination of the truth-values of all propositions of a domain [Read] |
Full Idea: A possible world is a complete determination of the truth-values of all propositions over a certain domain. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: Even if the domain is very small? Even if the world fitted the logic nicely, but was naturally impossible? |
11000 | If worlds are concrete, objects can't be present in more than one, and can only have counterparts [Read] |
Full Idea: If each possible world constitutes a concrete reality, then no object can be present in more than one world - objects may have 'counterparts', but cannot be identical with them. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: This explains clearly why in Lewis's modal realist scheme he needs counterparts instead of rigid designation. Sounds like a slippery slope. If you say 'Humphrey might have won the election', who are you talking about? |
10998 | The mind abstracts ways things might be, which are nonetheless real [Read] |
Full Idea: Ways things might be are real, but only when abstracted from the actual way things are. They are brought out and distinguished by the mind, by abstraction, but are not dependent on mind for their existence. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: To me this just flatly contradicts itself. The idea that the mind can 'bring something out' by its operations, with the result being then accepted as part of reality is nonsense on stilts. What is real is the powers that make the possibilities. |
11005 | Negative existentials with compositionality make the whole sentence meaningless [Read] |
Full Idea: A problem with compositionality is negative existential propositions. If some of the terms of the proposition are empty, and don't refer, then compositionality implies that the whole will lack meaning too. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.5) | |
A reaction: I don't agree. I don't see why compositionality implies holism about sentence-meaning. If I say 'that circular square is a psychopath', you understand the predication, despite being puzzled by the singular term. |
10966 | A proposition objectifies what a sentence says, as indicative, with secure references [Read] |
Full Idea: A proposition makes an object out of what is said or expressed by the utterance of a certain sort of sentence, namely, one in the indicative mood which makes sense and doesn't fail in its references. It can then be an object of thought and belief. | |
From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: Nice, but two objections: I take it to be crucial to propositions that they eliminate ambiguities, and I take it that animals are capable of forming propositions. Read seems to regard them as fictions, but I take them to be brain events. |
19956 | True goodness is political, and consists of love of and submission to the laws [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: The good man is he whose goodness is not Christian, but rather political, in the sense I have given. Such a man loves the laws of his land and is moved to act by them. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], Intro) | |
A reaction: I take this to have a lot in common with Aristotle, whose simple slogan for virtue I take to as 'be a good citizen'. |
19962 | Men do not desire to subjugate one another; domination is a complex and advanced idea [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: It is unreasonable to impute to men, as Hobbes does, the desire to subjugate one another. The idea of sovereignty [l'empire] and domination is so complex and depends on so many other ideas, that it could not be the first to occur to men. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 01.02) |
19961 | Primitive people would be too vulnerable and timid to attack anyone, so peace would reign [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: A being concerned only with preservation would be very timid. In such a state every man would feel himself an inferior; he could scarcely imagine himself an equal. No one would seek to attack anyone else; peace would be the first law of nature. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 01.02) | |
A reaction: Exactly the idea that Rousseau took up, and they both attack Hobbes for describing a more advanced stage of society, instead of focusing on the original state. A solitary individual would be crazy to launch attacks on other individuals. |
19963 | People are drawn into society by needs, shared fears, pleasure, and knowledge [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: To his sense of weakness, man would soon add his needs. Encouraged by indications that their fear was shared, men would soon come together. They would feel the pleasure (and sexual attraction) of their own species. Knowledge then draws them into society. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 01.02) | |
A reaction: He doesn't make the point about 'knowledge' very clear. |
20008 | People are guided by a multitude of influences, from which the spirit of a nation emerges [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Men are ruled by many causes: climate, religion, laws, maxims of government, examples drawn from the pasts, customs, manners. Out of them is formed the general spirit of a nation. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 19.04) | |
A reaction: This is one step away from Rousseau's general will, which is an attempt to give precise expression to this 'spirit of a nation'. |
19993 | In small republics citizens identify with the public good, and abuses are fewer [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In a small republic, the public good is more keenly felt, better known, closer to every citizen; abuses are spread less widely, and consequently, are less tolerated. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 08.16) | |
A reaction: This idea of very small republics now seems outdated, but this idea still applies. Small states like the Baltic States (or Scotland?) have a better chance of the citizens identifying with the whole community. |
19992 | In a large republic there is too much wealth for individuals to manage it [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In a large republic, there are large fortunes, and therefore but little moderation in the minds of men. its resources are too considerable to be entrusted to a citizen. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 08.16) |
20005 | The rich would never submit to a lottery deciding which part of their society should be slaves [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: I do not believe that anyone of [that small part of a nation that is rich and voluptuous] would submit to a lottery determining which part of the nation would be free, and which slave. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 15.09) | |
A reaction: Wonderful! This is exactly Rawls's 'initial position' and 'veil of ignorance'. It is used here to deconstruct implausible arguments in favour of slavery. |
19995 | All states aim at preservation, and then have distinctive individual purposes [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Although all states share the same general objective, to preserve themselves, each has its own particular purpose (such as aggrandisement, war, religion, commerce, tranquillity, navigation, liberty, pleasures of the ruler, glory, individual independence). | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 11.05) | |
A reaction: [he gives examples for each of the list in brackets] I'm trying to think of the distinctive purpose of the UK, and can't get beyond sport, music gigs and comedy shows. |
19964 | The natural power of a father suggests rule by one person, but that authority can be spread [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Some have thought that because nature has established the power of the parent, the most natural government is that of a single person. But the example of paternal power proves nothing. The inheritance by a father's brothers would support rule by the many. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 01.03) | |
A reaction: [last bit compressed] Locke pointed out that the mother has similar entitlement, and he and Rousseau agree in rejecting this idea. |
19972 | The nobility are an indispensable part of a monarchy [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In a sense, nobility is one part of the essence of monarchy, whose fundamenta maxim is: 'without a monarchy, no nobility; without a nobility, no monarchy'. There are, of course, despots, but they are something else. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 02.04) | |
A reaction: Hence the worst vice associated with a monarchy is patronage, even when the monarch is weak and 'constitutional'. |
19986 | Monarchies can act more quickly, because one person is in charge [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Monarchical government has the great advantage that, since public business is guided by a single person, the executive power can operate more speedily. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 05.10) | |
A reaction: Liberal democracies are particularly hopeless at quick action, because so many views have to be heard. |
19974 | Monarchs must not just have links to the people; they need a body which maintains the laws [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In a monarchy, it is not enough to have intermediary ranks; there must also be a body that is a depositary of laws. They must announce the laws when they are made, and recall them to the public's attention when they are forgotten. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 02.04) | |
A reaction: This is the crucial difference between a monarch and a despot, because the monarch must be subservient to the law. |
19976 | Ambition is good in a monarchy, because the monarch can always restrain it [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In a republic ambition is pernicious, but in a monarchy it has a good effect; it gives life to that type of government. Its advantage lies in that it is not dangerous, because a monarchy can continue to restrain it. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 03.07) | |
A reaction: That is sometimes offered as a defence of the very weak British monarchy. |
19978 | In monarchies, men's actions are judged by their grand appearance, not their virtues [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In monarchies, men's actions are judged, not by whether they are good, but whether they appear attractive [belles]; not by whether they are just, but whether they appear grand; not by whether they are reasonable, but by whether they appear extraordinary. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 04.02) | |
A reaction: A person that comes to mind is the Duke of Buckingham under James I and Charles I. Or the Earl of Essex under Elizabeth I. |
19985 | In a monarchy, the nobility must be hereditary, to bind them together [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In a monarchy, the laws must make the nobility hereditary, not to serve as the boundary between the power of the ruler and the weakness of the people, but as the tie that binds them together.... | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 05.09) | |
A reaction: This seems rather disingenuous. If the nobility are bound together in some tight manner, this immediately serves as a sharp boundary between them and the rest of the people. Monarchs are bound to want the strict boundary. |
19989 | The will of a despot is an enigma, so magistrates can only follow their own will [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Under despotism, the law is nothing more than the will of the ruler. Even if the despot were wise, how could a magistrate follow a will unknown to him? He has no choice but to follow his own. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 05.16) |
19988 | A despot's agents must be given power, so they inevitably become corrupt [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: A government cannot be unjust without putting some power in the hands of its agents; it is impossible that they not profit from their position. Embezzlement is, therefore, natural to such governments. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 05.15) |
19975 | Despots are always lazy and ignorant, so they always delegate their power to a vizier [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Anyone whom his senses inform continually that he is everything, and others nothing, is naturally lazy, voluptuous, and ignorant. Hence the establishment of a vizier, with power the same as his own, is a law fundamental to a despotic state. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 02.05) |
19977 | Despotism and honour are incompatible, because honour scorns his power, and lives by rules [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: How could a despot permit honour? Honour depends upon scorning life; the despot has power only because he can deprive men of life. How could honour tolerate the despot? Honour has fixed rules, ...but the despot has no rule. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 03.08) | |
A reaction: The old German aristocracy seem to have been utterly alienated and isolated by the Nazi regime. |
20007 | Tyranny is either real violence, or the imposition of unpopular legislation [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: There are two sorts of tyranny: that which is real and consists of the violence of government; and the tyranny of opinion, when those who govern institute things contrary to a nation's mode of thought. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 19.03) | |
A reaction: By this reckoning the abolition of the death penalty by the UK partliament was tyrannous, as it went against popular enthusiasm for it. Representative democracy is always in danger of drifting towards mild tyranny. |
19970 | If the nobility is numerous, the senate is the artistocracy, and the nobles are a democracy [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: When the nobility is numerous, there must be a senate to regulate those matters which the body of nobles is incapable of deciding. Thus aristocracy of a kind resides in the senate, democracy in the body of nobles, while the people is nothing. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 02.03) | |
A reaction: This presumes that the body of nobles elects the senate. |
19971 | Aristocracy is democratic if they resemble the people, but not if they resemble the monarch [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Aristocratic families ought to be, as much as possible, members of the people. The more an aristocracy resembles a democracy, the more perfect it is; the more it resembles a monarchy, the more imperfect. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 02.03) | |
A reaction: Aristocrats far from the big cities seem remarkably like the rest of the people. As soon as they approach the monarch's court, they aspire to dignity and power, and begin to spurn the citizens. |
19984 | Great inequality between aristocrats and the rest is bad - and also among aristocrats themselves [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In aristocratic state there are two main sources of disorders: excessive inequality between those who govern and those who are governed, and the same degree of inequality among the different members of the ruling group [corps]. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 05.08) | |
A reaction: This sounds like a very historically accurate observation, since aristocrats are always at one another's throats. But maybe junior aristocrats just need to be kept more firmly in their place. |
19980 | If a government is to be preserved, it must first be loved [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Government is like everything else in this world: if it is to be preserved, it must first be loved. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 04.05) | |
A reaction: Nice one! Right now there seems to be a declining love for representative democracy, even though almost everyone endorses it. |
19996 | A government has a legislature, an international executive, and a domestic executive [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In every government there are three sorts of powers: the legislative; the executivem in regard to those matters determined by the laws of nations; and the executive, in regard to those matters determined by civil law. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 11.06) |
19997 | The judiciary must be separate from the legislature, to avoid arbitrary power [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Were the judicial power joined to the legislative, the life and liberty of the citizens would be subject to arbitrary power. For the judge would then be the legislator. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 11.06) | |
A reaction: This is the key 'separation of powers', which seems to be a mantra for nearly all theories of the state. |
19965 | The fundamental laws of a democracy decide who can vote [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: The laws fundamental to a democracy are those that establish who is eligible to vote. (p.118 No less fundamental is the method of voting itself). | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 02.02) | |
A reaction: Tricky groups now are teenagers, convicted criminals, people with damaged brains, and citizens who live abroad. Maybe people who evade paying tax should lose the right to vote. |
19968 | It is basic to a democracy that the people themselves must name their ministers [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: A democratic people may be said to have ministers only when these have been named by the people itself. Thus it is a maxim fundamental to this type of government that the people must name its ministers. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 02.02) | |
A reaction: In the UK we don't do this. We elect local representatives, usually of a preferred party, and then they chose the ministers, and even the leader. The people who run our country are a long way from direct democracy. |
19969 | Voting should be public, so the lower classes can be influenced by the example of notable people [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: When the people votes it should do so in public. ...For it is necessary that the lower classes be enlightened by those of higher rank, that the precipitous qualities of the lower classes be held in check by the grave example of certain notables. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 02.02) | |
A reaction: This sounds shocking to us, but the lower classes were largely illiterate. Nowadays we have television to tell us how the notables are going to vote, and the less notables seem to be increasingly unimpressed. |
19999 | All citizens (apart from the very humble poor) should choose their representatives [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: All citizens ought to have the right to choose their representatives by election. The only exception concerns those whose condition is so base that they are considered to have no will of their own. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 11.06) | |
A reaction: This is an amazingly liberal view of the franchise for its time (though he may not be including women), but with a rather breathtaking coda! It may be hard for us now to grasp the very humble state of an illiterate peasant. |
19967 | In a democracy the people should manage themselves, and only delegate what they can't do [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In a democracy, the people, which holds the sovereign power, ought itself to do everything it can do well; that which it cannot do well must be done by its ministers. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 02.02) | |
A reaction: This is just what you see when a group of residents manages their own building. Citizens in representative democracies become utterly lazy about running their society, so that they won't even pick up litter, or report communal problems. |
19966 | A democratic assembly must have a fixed number, to see whether everyone has spoken [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: It is essential to fix the number of citizens who can participate in assemblies. Otherwise it would be uncertain whether all the people had spoken, or only a part of it. At Sparta the number was fixed at ten thousand. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 02.02) | |
A reaction: This looks like an immediate injustice to the citizen who came 10,001 in the rankings. 10,000 is just a smallish football crowd, so we could manage it today. We could pick the 10,000 by sortition (by lot). Most people are fairly sensible! |
19998 | If deputies represent people, they are accountable, but less so if they represent places [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: When the deputies represent the body or estate of the people, as in Holland, they ought to be accountable to their constituents. When the deputies represent boroughs, as in England, the situation is not the same. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 11.06) | |
A reaction: Not sure how this works. Modern UK MPs are accountable to the residents of their borough. Did the Dutch actually name the citizens that a deputy represented? |
20000 | Slavery is entirely bad; the master abandons the virtues, and they are pointless in the slave [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: There is nothing good about the nature of slavery. The slave can achieve nothing by being virtuous. The master acquires all sorts of bad habits, and is accustomed to behaving with a total lack of moral virtues. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 15.01) | |
A reaction: Most slavery of that time took place in colonies, far remote from the moral judgments of the mother country. The temptations of such power over others are far too great for most masters to live virtuously. |
20003 | Slaves are not members of the society, so no law can forbid them to run away [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: What civil law could prevent a slave from running away? Since he is not a member of society, why should the laws of society concern him? | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 15.02) | |
A reaction: Hm. Does this apply to children, who can't vote or stand for office? |
20006 | The demand for slavery is just the masters' demand for luxury [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: The demand for slavery is the demand for luxury and voluptuousness; it has nothing to do with concern for public felicity. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 15.09) | |
A reaction: True monarchists and aristocratic elitists presumably think that a society should have one part which lives in great luxury. Where else are the fine arts and wonderful buildings going to come from? |
20009 | Freedom of speech and writing, within the law, is essential to preserve liberty [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: If a state is to enjoy and preserve liberty, everyone must be able to say what he thinks. In a free state, therefore, a citizen may speak and write anything not expressly forbidden by the laws. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 19.27) | |
A reaction: A commonplace now, but fairly bold then. I blame Freeborn John Lilburne for wild ideas like these. |
19994 | Freedom in society is ability to do what is right, and not having to do what is wrong [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In a society where laws exist, liberty can consist only in being able to do what one ought to will, and in not being contrained to do what one ought not to will. ...If a citizen could do what the law prohibits, all others would have the same power. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 11.03) | |
A reaction: This sounds pretty quaint in 2017, but I love it. |
19981 | No one even thinks of equality in monarchies and despotism; they all want superiority [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In monarchies and despotic states, no one aspires to equality. Not even the idea occurs; everyone aspires to superiority. People of the very lowest rank only wish to rise in order to become masters of others. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 05.04) |
19991 | Equality is not command by everyone or no one, but command and obedience among equals [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: The spirit of true equality consists, not in creating a situation in which everyone commands, or in which no one is commanded, but rather in obeying or commanding only our equals. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 08.03) | |
A reaction: I love this idea, but it is so easy to feel superior when you command, or to feel inferior when you are commanded. I take the solution to be the appointment of everyone in authority by those they will command (but fat chance of that). |
19990 | Democracy is corrupted by lack of equality, or by extreme equality (between rulers and ruled) [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Democracy is corrupted in two ways: when it loses the spirit of equality, and when the spirit of equality becomes extreme, that is, when everyone wishes to be the equal of those he has chosen to command him. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 08.02) | |
A reaction: The latter seems to be what happens when a referendum is called (as in Brexit 2016). The winners come to despise the elected representatives, if the latter disagree with the outcome. |
19982 | Some equality can be achieved by social categories, combined with taxes and poor relief [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Equality is so difficult that exactitude is not possible. It is enough to place citizens by a census within categories that reduce or fix differences. Then laws compensate for inequalities by taxes on the rich and relief given to the poor. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 05.05) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Placing citizens within categories (e.g. 'nobility') has long gone out of fashion. He doesn't say whether you tax the capital or the income of the rich. |
19983 | Democracies may sometimes need to restrict equality [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In some cases, equality among citizens may be denied by democracy for the utility of democracy. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 05.05) | |
A reaction: He cites people who make sacrifices for the public, and lower orders who are getting above themselves! The desire for equality quickly comes into conflict with other values. |
19959 | Prior to positive laws there is natural equity, of obedience, gratitude, dependence and merit [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: The relations of equity precede the positive laws that establish them. It is right to conform to laws in a society; intelligent beings should be grateful for benefits; we remain dependent on those who create us; an injury merits the same in return. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 01.01) | |
A reaction: [the examples are compressed] A nice statement of the idea of natural law. It doesn't follow that because an injury merits retaliation, that it should be implemented (just that no one can complain if it happens). |
19960 | Sensation gives animals natural laws, but knowledge can make them break them [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Animals have natural laws because they are united by sensation, ...but they do not invariably follow thieir natural laws; these are better observed by vegetables, which have neither knowledge nor sensation. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 01.02) | |
A reaction: With the example of vegetables the concept of natural law is drifting into the laws of nature, and evidently Montesquie makes no sharp distinction here. |
20002 | The death penalty is permissible, because its victims enjoyed the protection of that law [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: It is permissible to put a criminal to death because the law that punishes him was made to protect him. For example, a murderer has enjoyed the benefits of the law by which he is condemned. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 15.02) | |
A reaction: Dubious! We could add torture, and life imprisonment for parking offences, if this argument is sufficient justification. |
20010 | If religion teaches determinism, penalties must be severe; if free will, then that is different [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: When religion teaches that human actions are predetermined, penalties imposed by law ought to be more severe, for without these measures men would behave with complete abandon. If the dogma of religion is free will, the situation is altogether different. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 24.14) | |
A reaction: Presumably persuasion and influence come into the free will picture. Calvinist Geneva was determinist, and Catholic France for free will. |
20001 | The only right victors have over captives is the protection of the former [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: War can confer only one right over captives, and that is to ensure that they no longer harm victors. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 15.02) | |
A reaction: He is arguing against both the killing of captives, and their enslavement. |
19973 | The clergy are essential to a monarchy, but dangerous in a republic [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: The power of the clergy is as dangerous in a republic, as it is appropriate to a monarchy. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 02.04) | |
A reaction: This makes me look at the UK in a new light, with the clergy hovering around when the monarch is crowned, and the bishops sitting by right in the House of Lords. |
20011 | Religion can support the state when the law fails to do so [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Religion can support the state when the laws themselves lack the power to do so. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 24.16) | |
A reaction: A thought which didn't occur to Spinoza, but then the thought merely confirms that religion offers a rival to the rule of law. |
19987 | Religion has the most influence in despotic states, and reinforces veneration for the ruler [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: In these [despotic] states, religion has more influence than anywhere else; it is fear added to fear. The peoples of the Mohammedan empires in part derive from their religion their extraordinary veneration for their rulers. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 05.14) | |
A reaction: I suppose religions have submission to authority built into them. |
20004 | French slavery was accepted because it was the best method of religious conversion [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Louis XIII was made extremely uneasy by the law that enslaved all the negroes in his colonies. But when told that this was the most efficacious way of converting them, he gave his consent. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 15.04) | |
A reaction: That is a spectaculary bad advert for giving an established religion a leading role in society. It is relevant to the upbringing of children, as well as to slaves. |
19979 | In monarchies education ennobles people, and in despotisms it debases them [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Just as the purpose of education in monarchies is to ennoble men's hearts, so its purpose in despotic states is to debase them. In despotic states education must be servile. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 04.03) | |
A reaction: This is an early insight into the way that all social institutions, such as education, are largely pawns of a larger political system. |
19957 | Teaching is the best practice of the general virtue that leads us to love everyone [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: It is when we instruct others that we can best practice that general virtue which teaches us to love everyone. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], Preface) | |
A reaction: A very nice thought. One tricky issue is that some people dislike, and even resent, being taught. If we all just adored both teaching and learning, we would be in a sort of paradise, but it doesn't seem to happen. |
19958 | Laws are the necessary relations that derive from the nature of things [Montesquieu] |
Full Idea: Laws, in the broadest meaning of the term, are the necessary relations that derive from the nature of things. | |
From: Baron de Montesquieu (The Spirit of the Laws (rev. 1757) [1748], 01.01) | |
A reaction: Montesquieu is about to discuss social laws, but this is the clearest statement I have ever met of the essentialist view of the laws of nature. |