Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Mahaprajnaparamitashastra', 'Notes on Comments by Fardella' and 'The Individual, the State, and the Common Good'

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

---

4 ideas

9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 1. Unifying an Object / c. Unity as conceptual

13160	To exist and be understood, a multitude must first be reduced to a unity [Leibniz]
	Full Idea: A plurality of things can neither be understood nor can exist unless one first understands the thing that is one, that to which the multitude necessarily reduces.
	From: Gottfried Leibniz (Notes on Comments by Fardella [1690], Prop 3)
	A reaction: Notice that it is our need to understand which imposes the unity on the multitude. It is not just some random fiction, or a meaningless mechanical act of thought.

9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 2. Substance / c. Types of substance

13161	Substances are everywhere in matter, like points in a line [Leibniz]
	Full Idea: There are substances everywhere in matter, just as points are everywhere in a line.
	From: Gottfried Leibniz (Notes on Comments by Fardella [1690], Clarif)
	A reaction: Since Leibniz is unlikely to believe in the reality of the points, we must wonder whether he was really committed to this infinity of substances. The more traditional notion of substance is always called 'substantial form' by Leibniz.

23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / a. Virtues

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').

24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 6. Liberalism / g. Liberalism critique

22251	Liberalism may fail because it neglects the shared nature of what we pursue and protect [Haldane]
	Full Idea: I am interested in the claim that liberalism fails inasmuch as it neglects, and cannot accommodate, the fact that some or all of the goods we pursue, and which a system of rights is concerned to protect, are goods possessed in common.
	From: John Haldane (The Individual, the State, and the Common Good [1996], III)
	A reaction: It depends how individualistic we take liberalism to be. Extreme individualism (Nozick) strikes me as crazy. If 'we' erect a statue to some dubious politicians, it might be presented as a common good, but actually be despised by many.