|
6213
|
A man cannot will to will, or will to will to will, so the idea of a voluntary will is absurd [Hobbes]
|
|
Full Idea:
The will is not voluntary: for a man can no more say he will will, than he will will will, and so make an infinite repetition of the word 'will', which is absurd and insignificant.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hobbes (Human Nature [1640], Ch.XII.5)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice simple point, allied to Nietzsche's notion that thoughts are uncontrollable (Idea 2291). Even Aquinas, who is quite a fan of free will, spotted the problem (Idea 1854). Personally I agree with Hobbes. Free will is a shibboleth.
|
|
6210
|
Life has no end (not even happiness), because we have desires, which presuppose a further end [Hobbes]
|
|
Full Idea:
For an utmost end, in which the ancient philosophers have placed felicity, there is no such thing in this world, nor way to it: for while we live, we have desires, and desire presupposeth a further end.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hobbes (Human Nature [1640], Ch.VII.6)
|
|
A reaction:
Kant's definition of happiness (Idea 1452) seems to be the underlying idea, and hence with the same implication (of impossibility). However, an alcoholic locked in a brewery would seem to have all that Hobbes requires for happiness.
|
|
6212
|
Lust involves pleasure, and also the sense of power in pleasing others [Hobbes]
|
|
Full Idea:
Lust consists of two appetites together, to please, and to be pleased, and the delight men take in delighting is not sensual, but a pleasure or joy of the mind consisting in the imagination of the power they have so much to please.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hobbes (Human Nature [1640], Ch.IX)
|
|
A reaction:
Hobbes would rather burst a blood-vessel than admit any altruism. If you take pleasure in pleasing someone else, why can't that simply be because of the other person's pleasure, with which we sympathise, rather than relishing our own 'power'?
|
|
17371
|
Some kinds are very explanatory, but others less so, and some not at all [Devitt]
|
|
Full Idea:
Explanatory significance, hence naturalness, comes in degrees: positing some kinds may be very explanatory, positing others, only a little bit explanatory, positing others still, not explanatory at all.
|
|
From:
Michael Devitt (Natural Kinds and Biological Realism [2009], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
He mentions 'cousin' as a natural kind that is not very explanatory of anything. It interests us as humans, but not at all in other animals, it seems. ...Nice thought, though, that two squirrels might be cousins...
|
|
8433
|
There are few traces of an event before it happens, but many afterwards [Lewis, by Horwich]
|
|
Full Idea:
Lewis claims that most events are over-determined by subsequent states of the world, but not by their history. That is, the future of every event contains many independent traces of its occurrence, with little prior indication that it would happen.
|
|
From:
report of David Lewis (Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow [1979]) by Paul Horwich - Lewis's Programme p.209
|
|
A reaction:
Lewis uses this asymmetry to deduce the direction of causation, and hence the direction of time. Most people (including me, I think) would prefer to use the axiomatic direction of time to deduce directions of causation. Lewis was very wicked.
|