|
15169
|
Metaphysics is clarifying how we speak and think (and possibly improving it) [Sidelle]
|
|
Full Idea:
Metaphysics, for the conventionalist, is not a matter of trying to see deeply into the structure of mind-independent reality, but of trying to clarify the way we actually speak and think, and perhaps negotiating ways of doing this to our best advantage.
|
|
From:
Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Note that he is still allowing space for 'revisionary' as well as for 'descriptive' metaphysics. I can't wholly accept this, as I really do think we can have some deep insights into reality, but Sidelle is articulating a large part of the truth.
|
|
15185
|
We aren't clear about 'same stuff as this', so a principle of individuation is needed to identify it [Sidelle]
|
|
Full Idea:
Independent of conventions, no definite sense can be given to the notion of 'the same stuff as this'. So reference-fixing must include some principle of individuation to determine the aspects of sameness for the identity referred to.
|
|
From:
Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.6)
|
|
A reaction:
Is he really saying that we don't understand 'same stuff as this'? Surely animals can manage that, and they are not famous for their conventions. Sidelle has fallen into the sortalist trap, I think.
|
|
15032
|
Necessary a posteriori is conventional for necessity and nonmodal for a posteriority [Sidelle, by Sider]
|
|
Full Idea:
Sidelle defends conventionalism against a posteriori necessities by 'factoring' a necessary a posteriori truth into an analytic component and a nonmodal component. The modal force then comes from the analytic part, and the a posteriority from the other.
|
|
From:
report of Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989]) by Theodore Sider - Writing the Book of the World 12.8
|
|
A reaction:
[I note that Sidelle refers, it seems, to the nonmodal component as a 'deep explanatory feature', which is exactly what I take an essence to be].
|
|
15179
|
To know empirical necessities, we need empirical facts, plus conventions about which are necessary [Sidelle]
|
|
Full Idea:
What we need to know, in order to know what is empirically necessary, is some empirical fact plus our conventions that tell us which truths are necessary given which empirical facts.
|
|
From:
Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.4)
|
|
A reaction:
I take this attack on a posteriori necessities to be the most persuasive part of Sidelle's case, but you can't just put all of our truths down to convention. There are stabilities in the world, as well as in our conventions.
|
|
15171
|
The necessary a posteriori is statements either of identity or of essence [Sidelle]
|
|
Full Idea:
The necessary a posteriori crudely divides into two groups - (synthetic) identity statements (between rigid designators), and statements of essential properties. The latter is either statements of property identity, or of the essences of natural kinds.
|
|
From:
Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.2)
|
|
A reaction:
He cites Kripke's examples (Hesperus,Cicero,Truman,water,gold), and divides them into the two groups. Helpful.
|
|
15174
|
A thing doesn't need transworld identity prior to rigid reference - that could be a convention of the reference [Sidelle]
|
|
Full Idea:
For a term to be rigid, it is said there must be real transworld identity prior to our use of the rigid term, ..but this may only be because we have conventional principles for individuating across worlds. 'Let's call him Fred' - perhaps explicitly rigid.
|
|
From:
Alan Sidelle (Necessity, Essence and Individuation [1989], Ch.3)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems right. An example might be a comic book character, who retains a perfect identity in all the comics, with no scars, weight change, or ageing.
|
|
7903
|
The six perfections are giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom [Nagarjuna]
|
|
Full Idea:
The six perfections are of giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom.
|
|
From:
Nagarjuna (Mahaprajnaparamitashastra [c.120], 88)
|
|
A reaction:
What is 'morality', if giving is not part of it? I like patience and vigour being two of the virtues, which immediately implies an Aristotelian mean (which is always what is 'appropriate').
|
|
20585
|
If an experience machine gives you any experience you want, should you hook up for life? [Nozick]
|
|
Full Idea:
Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired ...such as writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. ...Should you plug into this machine for life?
|
|
From:
Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974], 3 'Experience')
|
|
A reaction:
A classic though experiment which crystalises a major problem with hedonistic utilitarianism. My addition is a machine which maximises the pleasure of my family and friends, to save me the bother of doing it.
|
|
18643
|
A minimal state should protect, but a state forcing us to do more is unjustified [Nozick]
|
|
Full Idea:
A minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; any more extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified.
|
|
From:
Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974], Pref)
|
|
A reaction:
This has some plausibility for a huge modern state, where we don't know one another, but it would be a ridiculous attitude in a traditional village.
|
|
18642
|
Individual rights are so strong that the state and its officials must be very limited in power [Nozick]
|
|
Full Idea:
Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do.
|
|
From:
Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974], Pref)
|
|
A reaction:
This claim appears to be an axiom, but I'm not sure that the notion of 'rights' make any sense unless someone is granting the rights, where the someone is either a strong individual, or the community (perhaps represented by the state).
|
|
18644
|
States can't enforce mutual aid on citizens, or interfere for their own good [Nozick]
|
|
Full Idea:
A state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purposes of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection.
|
|
From:
Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974], Pref)
|
|
A reaction:
You certainly can't apply these principles to children, so becoming an 'adult' seems to be a very profound step in Nozick's account. At what age must we stop interfering with people for their own good. If the state is prohibited, are neighbours also?
|
|
22661
|
My Anarchy, State and Utopia neglected our formal social ties and concerns [Nozick on Nozick]
|
|
Full Idea:
The political philosophy represented in Anarchy, State and Utopia ignored the importance of joint and official symbolic statement and expression of our social ties and concern, and hence (I have written) is inadequate.
|
|
From:
comment on Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974], p.32) by Robert Nozick - The Nature of Rationality p.32
|
|
A reaction:
In other words, it was far too individualistic, and neglected community, even though it has become the sacred text for libertarian individualism. Do any Nozick fans care about this recantation?
|
|
18641
|
If people hold things legitimately, just distribution is simply the result of free exchanges [Nozick, by Kymlicka]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we assume that everyone is entitled to the goods they currently possess (their 'holdings'), then a just distribution is simply whatever distribution results from people's free exchanges.
|
|
From:
report of Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974]) by Will Kymlicka - Contemporary Political Philosophy (1st edn) 4.1.b
|
|
A reaction:
If people's current 'legitimate' holdings are hugely unequal, it seems very unlikely that the ensuing exchanges will be 'free' in the way that Nozick envisages.
|
|
20539
|
Property is legitimate by initial acquisition, voluntary transfer, or rectification of injustice [Nozick, by Swift]
|
|
Full Idea:
Nozick identified three ways in which people can acquire a legitimate property holding: initial acquisition, voluntary transfer, and rectification (of unjust transfers).
|
|
From:
report of Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974]) by Adam Swift - Political Philosophy (3rd ed) 1 'Nozick'
|
|
A reaction:
I think it is a delusion to look for justice in the ownership of property. You can't claim justice for buying property if the money to do it was acquired unjustly. And what rights over those who live on the land come with the 'ownership'?
|
|
18646
|
How did the private property get started? If violence was involved, we can redistribute it [Kymlicka on Nozick]
|
|
Full Idea:
How did these natural resources, which were not initially owned by anyone, come to be part of someone's private property? ...The fact that the initial acquisition often involved force means there is no moral objection to redistributing existing wealth.
|
|
From:
comment on Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974]) by Will Kymlicka - Contemporary Political Philosophy (1st edn) 4.2.b
|
|
A reaction:
[He cites G.A. Cphen 1988 for the second point] Put like this, Nozick's theory just looks like the sort of propaganda which is typically put out by the winners. Is there an implicit threat of violent resistance in his advocacy of individual rights?
|
|
21737
|
Unowned things may be permanently acquired, if it doesn't worsen the position of other people [Nozick]
|
|
Full Idea:
One may acquire a permanent bequeathable property right in a previously unowned thing, as long as the position of others no longer at liberty to use the thing is not thereby worsened.
|
|
From:
Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974], p.178), quoted by G.A. Cohen - Are Freedom and Equality Compatible? 2
|
|
A reaction:
Cohen attacks this vigorously. His main point is that Nozick has a very narrow view of what the acquisition should be compared with. There are many alternatives. Does being made unable to improve something 'worsen' a person's condition?
|
|
21738
|
Maybe land was originally collectively owned, rather than unowned? [Cohen,GA on Nozick]
|
|
Full Idea:
Why should we not regard land as originally collectively owned rather than, as Nozick takes for granted, owned by no one?
|
|
From:
comment on Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974], p.178) by G.A. Cohen - Are Freedom and Equality Compatible? 2
|
|
A reaction:
Did native Americans and Australians collectively own the land? Lots of peoples, I suspect, don't privately own anything, because the very concept has never occured to them (and they have no legal system).
|