131 ideas
14912 | There is no test for metaphysics, except devising alternative theories [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The metaphysician has no test for the truth of her beliefs except that other metaphysicians can't think of obviously superior alternative beliefs. (They can always think of possibly superior ones, in profusion). | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.7) | |
A reaction: [they cite Van Fraassen for this view] At least this seems to concede that some metaphysical views can be rejected by the observation of beliefs that are superior. Almost everyone has rejected Lewis on possible worlds for this reason. |
14904 | Metaphysics builds consilience networks across science [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Metaphysics is the enterprise of critically elucidating consilience networks across the sciences. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3) | |
A reaction: I don't disagree with this. The issue, I think, is how abstract you are prepared to go. At high levels of abstraction, it is very hard to keep in touch with the empirical research. There are truths, though, at that high level. It is clearest in logic. |
14907 | Progress in metaphysics must be tied to progress in science [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: To the extent that metaphysics is closely motivated by science, we should expect to make progress in metaphysics iff we can expect to make progress in science. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3) | |
A reaction: To defer to and respect science does not necessitate that metaphysics cannot do independent work. I take there to be truths at a high-level of abstraction that are independent of the physical sciences, just as there are truths of chess or economics. |
14908 | Metaphysics must involve at least two scientific hypotheses, one fundamental, and add to explanation [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Principle of Naturalist Closure: A serious metaphysical claim must involve at least two scientific hypotheses, at least one from fundamental physics, and explain more than what the two hypotheses explain separately. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3) | |
A reaction: [compressed, from their longer qualified version] The idea that metaphysics should add to explanation is close to my heart. I am musing over whether essences add to explanation, which would be total anathema to Ladyman and Ross. |
14910 | Some science is so general that it is metaphysical [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Some scientific propositions are sufficiently general as themselves to be metaphysical. Our notion of metaphysics is thus recursive, and requires no attempt to identify a boundary between metaphysical and scientific propositions. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.5 n45) | |
A reaction: Note that this still leaves room for some metaphysics which is not science, though see Idea 14904 for their views on that. |
14940 | Cutting-edge physics has little to offer metaphysics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: There is little positive by way of implications for metaphysics that we can adduce from cutting-edge physics. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.2) | |
A reaction: My personal suspicion is that this will always be the case, even though there may be huge advances in physics, and I offer that as a reason why metaphysicians do not (pace Ladyman and Ross) need to study physics. They grasp 'negative' lessons. |
14945 | The aim of metaphysics is to unite the special sciences with physics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The demand to unify the special sciences with physics is, according to us, the motivation for having any metaphysics at all. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.1) | |
A reaction: The crunch question is whether metaphysicians are allowed to develop their own concepts for this task, or whether they can only make links between the concepts employed by the scientists. I vote for the former. |
3722 | Metaphysics goes beyond the empirical, so doesn't need examples [Kant] |
Full Idea: Metaphysics doesn't let itself be held back by anything empirical, and indeed goes right to Ideas, where examples themselves fail. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 412.36) |
14898 | Modern metaphysics pursues aesthetic criteria like story-writing, and abandons scientific truth [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The criteria of adequacy for metaphysics have come apart from anything to do with truth. Rather they are internal and peculiar to philosophy, they are semi-aesthetic, and they have more in common with the virtues of story-writing than with science. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.1) | |
A reaction: Part of a sustained polemic against contemporary analytic metaphysics. I love metaphysics, but they may be right. Writers like Sider, Fine, Lowe, Lewis, Stalnaker, Kripke, Armstrong, Dummett seem to tell independent stories, that really are works of art. |
14899 | Why think that conceptual analysis reveals reality, rather than just how people think? [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Why should we think that the products of conceptual analysis reveal anything about the deep structure of reality, rather than telling us about how some class of people think about and categorize reality? | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.2) | |
A reaction: One line, associated with Jackson, is that analysis tells you not about reality, but about what to make of your experiences of reality when you have them. It would be a foolish scientist who paid no attention to his or her conceptual scheme. |
14936 | A metaphysics based on quantum gravity could result in almost anything [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: We cannot say what the metaphysical implications of quantum gravity are, but they range from eleven dimensions to two, from continuous fundamental structure to a discrete one, and from universal symmetries to no symmetries. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.2) | |
A reaction: I offer this observation as a good reason for doubting whether the project of building our metaphysics directly onto our fundamental physics has much prospect of success. Quantum gravity is the unified theory they are all hoping for. |
14897 | We should abandon intuitions, especially that the world is made of little things, and made of something [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Abandoning intuitions is usually regarded as a cost rather than a benefit. By contrast, as naturalists we are not concerned with preserving intuitions at all (especially that the world is composed of little things, and that it must be made of something). | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.1) |
14905 | The supremacy of science rests on its iterated error filters [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The epistemic supremacy of science rests on repeated iteration of institutional error filters. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3) | |
A reaction: You could add repeated iteration of institutional error filters to journals about astrology, but it wouldn't thereby acquire epistemic supremacy. It is the tangible nature of the evidence which bestows the authority. |
3738 | The hallmark of rationality is setting itself an end [Kant] |
Full Idea: Rational nature separates itself out from all other things by the fact that it sets itself an end. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 437.82) |
14943 | Maybe mathematical logic rests on information-processing [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is claimed that mathematical logic can be understood in terms of information-processing. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.5) | |
A reaction: [They cite Chaitin 1987] I don't understand how this would work, but it is still worth quoting. This would presumably make logic rest on processes rather than on entities. I quite like that. |
14942 | Only admit into ontology what is explanatory and predictive [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: We reject any grounds other than explanatory and predictive utility for admitting something into our ontology. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.3) | |
A reaction: Now you are talking. This is something like my thesis (which I take to be Aristotelian) - that without the drive for explanation we wouldn't even think of metaphysics, and so metaphysics should be understood in that light. |
14948 | To be is to be a real pattern [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: To be is to be a real pattern. ....Real patterns carry information about other real patterns. ...It's patterns all the way down. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.4) | |
A reaction: I've plucked these bleeding from context, but they are obviously intended as slogans. Is there pattern 'inside' an electron? Are electrons all exterior? |
14947 | Any process can be described as transfer of measurable information [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Reference to transfer of some (in principle) quantitatively measurable information is a highly general way of describing any process. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.3) | |
A reaction: That does not, of course, mean that that is what a process is. A waterfall is an archetypal process, but it is a bit more than a bunch of information. Actually its complexity may place its information beyond measurement. |
14941 | We say there is no fundamental level to ontology, and reality is just patterns [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The tentative metaphysical hypothesis of this book, which is open to empirical falsification, is that there is no fundamental level, that the real patterns criterion of reality is the last word in ontology. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.3) | |
A reaction: I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the empirical falsification to arrive (or vanish). Their commitment to real patterns (or structures) leaves me a bit baffled. |
10493 | If concrete is spatio-temporal and causal, and abstract isn't, the distinction doesn't suit physics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is said that concrete objects have causal powers while abstract ones do not, or that concrete objects exist in space and time while abstract ones do not, but these categories seem crude and inappropriate for modern physics. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.6) | |
A reaction: I don't find this convincing. He gives example of peculiar causation, but I don't believe modern physics proposes any entities which are totally acausal and non-spatiotemporal. Maybe the distinction needs a defence. |
14934 | Concrete and abstract are too crude for modern physics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The categories of concrete and abstract seem crude and inappropriate for modern physics. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.6) | |
A reaction: They don't persuade me of this idea. At some point physicists need to decide the ontological status of the basic stuffs they are investigating. I'll give them a thousand years, and then I want an answer. Do they only deal in 'ideal' entities? |
14909 | Physicalism is 'part-whole' (all parts are physical), or 'supervenience/levels' (dependence on physical) [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: There is part-whole physicalism, that everything is exhausted by basic constituents that are themselves physical, or supervenience or levels physicalism, that the putatively non-physical is dependent on the physical. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3) | |
A reaction: The cite Hüttemann and Papineau 2005. I am not convinced by this distinction. Ladyman and Ross oppose the first one. I'm thinking the second one either collapses into the first one, or it isn't physicalism. Higher levels are abstractions. |
14926 | Relations without relata must be treated as universals, with their own formal properties [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The best sense that can be made of a relation without relata is the idea of a universal. Thus the relation 'larger than' has formal properties that are independent of the contingencies of their instantiation. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.4) | |
A reaction: Russell was keen on the idea that relations are universals, and presumably for this reason. I struggle to grasp uninstantiated but nevertheless real 'greater than' relations. They are abstractions from things, not separate universals. |
14929 | A belief in relations must be a belief in things that are related [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Many philosophers say that one cannot intelligibly subscribe to the reality of relations unless one is also committed to the fact of some things that are related. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.5) | |
A reaction: Ladyman and Ross try to argue against this view, but the idea makes a strong impression on me. Your ontology seems to be rather strange if you have a set of structural relations that await things to slot into the structure. |
14925 | The normal assumption is that relations depend on properties of the relata [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The idea that there could be relations which do not supervene on the properties of their relata runs counter to a deeply entrenched way of thinking. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.4) | |
A reaction: Ladyman and Ross are trying to defend the idea of 'structure' which is independent of the objects that occupy the nodes of the structure. Tricky. |
14931 | That there are existent structures not made of entities is no stranger than the theory of universals [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Is the main metaphysical idea we propose (of existent structures that are not composed out of more basic entities) any more obscure or bizarre than the instantiation relation in the theory of universals? | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.5) | |
A reaction: No, it is not more bizarre than that, but that isn't much of a reason to believe their theory. See Idea 8699, and many ideas about structure in mathematics. Ladyman and Ross still smack of platonism, even if they are rooted in particle physics. |
14932 | Causal essentialism says properties are nothing but causal relations [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Causal essentialism is the doctrine that the causal relations that properties bear to other properties exhaust their natures. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.5 n50) | |
A reaction: [They cite Shoemaker, Mumford and Bird for this] Personally I don't see this view as offering relations as fundamental. The whole point is to explain everything. The only plausible primitive notion is of a power - which then generates the relations. |
14920 | If science captures the modal structure of things, that explains why its predictions work [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: If theorists are able sometimes to capture the objective modal structure of the world then it is no surprise that successful novel prediction sometimes works. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.4) | |
A reaction: This is a rather important idea, particularly for my approach. I say we should demand more explanations, and explanations of successful prediction are far from obvious in a regularity account of nature. |
14952 | Things are constructs for tracking patterns (and not linguistic, because animals do it) [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Individual things are constructs built for second-best tracking of real patterns. They are not necessarily linguistic constructions, since some non-human animals almost certainly cognitively construct them. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.5) | |
A reaction: Delighted to see animals making an appearance. Fans of language-based metaphysics please note. If they are fictional constructs, why do they do such a good job of tracking? What generates the 'superficial' appearance that there are objects? |
14950 | Maybe individuation can be explained by thermodynamic depth [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Scientists have developed principles for understanding individuation in terms of the production of thermodynamic depth. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.5) | |
A reaction: [They cite J.Collier for this view] Interesting, even though I don't really understand 'thermodynamic depth'. Ladyman and Ross reject it, but there is a whiff of a theory of individuation from within physics. |
14927 | Physics seems to imply that we must give up self-subsistent individuals [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: There is growing convergence among philosophers of physics that physics motivates abandonment of a metaphysics that posits fundamental self-subsistent individuals. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.4) | |
A reaction: They cite fermions as an example, which only seem to be given an identity by the relations into which they enter. It is a bit cheeky to simultaneously offer this idea, and despise van Inwagen and Merricks for the same object nihilism. |
14944 | There is no single view of individuals, because different sciences operate on different scales [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: There is no single account of what individuals there are because, we argue, the special sciences may disagree about the bounds and status of individuals since they describe the world at different scales. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.8) | |
A reaction: This seems to deny that nature has actual joints, and so seems to me to be a form of anti-realism (which they would deny). Why shouldn't there be a single view which unites all of these special sciences? |
14946 | There are no cats in quantum theory, and no mountains in astrophysics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: At the quantum scale there are no cats; at scales appropriate for astrophysics there are no mountains. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.2) | |
A reaction: I don't find this convincing. Since cats are made of quantised entities, they do exist in that world, but are of little interest when trying to understand it. Similarly, astrophysicists hardly deny the existence of mountains! |
14928 | Things are abstractions from structures [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Individual things are locally focused abstractions from modal structure. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.4) | |
A reaction: I am a fan of the role of abstraction in our understanding of the world, despite my limited progress in trying to explicate the idea. I can't decide whether or not there are any things. A bit basic, that! |
14892 | The idea of composition, that parts of the world are 'made of' something, is no longer helpful [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is no longer helpful to conceive of either the world, or particular systems of the world that we study in partial isolation, as 'made of' anything at all. …Our target here is the metaphysical idea of composition. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.1) | |
A reaction: This is argued by them from the point of view of fundamental physics as the provider of our basic metaphysics about the world. Personally I really really want to know what electrons are made of, but I know no one is going to tell me. They may even laugh. |
14949 | A sum of things is not a whole if the whole does not support some new generalisation [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: A nostril, a city and a trumpet solo is not a real pattern, because identification of it supports no generalisations not supported by identification of the three conjuncts considered separately. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.4) | |
A reaction: This is a nice try at offering a criterion for unity, but I doubt whether it will work, because an ingenious person could come up with wild generalisations. These three combined make possible a charming new line of poetry. |
14951 | We treat the core of a pattern as an essence, in order to keep track of it [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: We focus on diagnostic features of real patterns that we can treat as 'core', which reliably predict that our attention is still tracking the same real pattern. These are Locke's 'essence of particulars', or Putnam's 'hidden structures'. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.5) | |
A reaction: They seemed to be ashamed of themselves for proposing this, and call it a 'second-best' epistemological device. They seem to imply that they are useful fictions, but why shouldn't the hidden structures be real? They might both identify and explain. |
14958 | A continuous object might be a type, with instances at each time [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Why should not 'Napoleon' be a type, of which 'Napoleon in 1805' and 'Napoleon in 1813' are instances? | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 5.6) | |
A reaction: That is very nice. That might be a view that suits presentism, where the timed instances never co-exist, and so have the sort of abstract existence that we associate with types. |
14903 | Quantum mechanics seems to imply single-case probabilities [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Quantum mechanics seems to imply single-case probabilities. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.3) | |
A reaction: I know they keep telling us about such things, but I remain cautious. I think all the physicists have done is delved a bit deeper into something they don't understand. |
14923 | In quantum statistics, two separate classical states of affairs are treated as one [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: In quantum statistics, what would be regarded as two possible states of affairs classically is treated as one possible state of affairs. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.1) |
3726 | The categorical imperative is a practical synthetic a priori proposition [Kant] |
Full Idea: With the categorical imperative or law of morality we have a very serious difficulty, because it is a synthetic a priori practical proposition. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 420.50) |
14955 | Rats find some obvious associations easier to learn than less obvious ones [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Contrary to early behaviourist dogma, associations are not all equally learnable. Rats learn to associate eating with nausea, and a flash with a shock, much more easily than either complementary pairing. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 5.2) | |
A reaction: That looks like an argue for some sort of innate knowledge, but experiments to disentangle eating from nausea must be rather hard to set up. |
14918 | The doctrine of empiricism does not itself seem to be empirically justified [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: If to be an empiricist is to believe that 'experience is the sole source of information about the world', the problem is that this does not itself seem to be justifiable by experience. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.3.1) | |
A reaction: [The quotation is from Van Fraassen 1985 p.253] This is the classic 'turning the tables' move in argument, invented by the Greeks. It is hard to offer anything other than intuition in the first move of any metaphysical theory. |
14891 | There is no reason to think our intuitions are good for science or metaphysics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: There is no reason to imagine that our habitual intuitions and inferential responses are well designed for science or for metaphysics. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.1) |
14916 | What matters is whether a theory can predict - not whether it actually does so [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: We suggest a modal account of novel prediction. That a theory could predict some unknown phenomenon is what matters, not whether it actually did so predict. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.1.3) | |
A reaction: They also emphasise predicting new types of thing, rather than particular items. Some theories are powerful on explanation, but not so concerned with prediction. See Idea 14915. |
14915 | The theory of evolution was accepted because it explained, not because of its predictions [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Darwin's theory of evolution was accepted by the scientific community because of its systematizing and explanatory power, and in spite of its lack of novel predictive success. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.1.3) | |
A reaction: I am keen on the centrality of explanation to all of our thinking, metaphysical as well as physical, so I like this one. In general I like accounts of science that pay more attention to biology, and less to physics. |
14921 | The Ramsey-sentence approach preserves observations, but eliminates unobservables [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: If one replaces the assertions of a first-order theory with its Ramsey sentence (giving a quantified predicate variable for a theoretical term), the observational consequences are carried over, but direct reference to unobservables is eliminated. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.4.1) | |
A reaction: Thus this rewriting of theories is popular with empiricists, and this draws attention to the way you can change the ontological commitments simply by paraphrase. ...However, see Idea 14922. |
14922 | The Ramsey sentence describes theoretical entities; it skips reference, but doesn't eliminate it [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is a mistake to think that the Ramsey sentence allows us to eliminate theoretical entities, for it still states that they exist. It is just that they are referred to not directly, by means of theoretical terms, but by description. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.4.1) |
14953 | Induction is reasoning from the observed to the unobserved [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Induction is any form of reasoning that proceeds from claims about observed phenomena to claims about unobserved phenomena. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.5) | |
A reaction: Most accounts of induction seem to imply that they lead to generalisations, rather than just some single unobserved thing. This definition is in line with David Lewis's. |
14914 | Inductive defences of induction may be rule-circular, but not viciously premise-circular [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The inductive defence of induction may be circular but not viciously so, because it is rule circular (defending the rule being used) but not premise circular (where the conclusion is in one of the premises). | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: [They cite Braithwaite 1953 and Carnap 1952 for this] This strikes me as clutching at straws, when the whole procedure of induction is inescapably precarious. It is simply all we have available. |
14913 | We explain by deriving the properties of a phenomenon by embedding it in a large abstract theory [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Theoretical explanation is the derivation of the properties of a relatively concrete and observable phenomenon by means of an embedding into some larger, relatively abstract and unobservable theoretical structure. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.1.1) | |
A reaction: [they are citing Michael Friedman 1981 p.1] This sounds like covering law explanation, but the theoretical structure will be a set of intersecting laws, rather than a single law. How do you explain the theoretical structure? |
14930 | Maybe the only way we can think about a domain is by dividing it up into objects [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Speculating cautiously about psychology, it is possible that dividing a domain up into objects is the only way we can think about it. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.5) | |
A reaction: Typical physicists - they speculate about psychology instead of studying it. Have they no respect for science? Neverthless my speculative psychology agrees with theirs. This fact may well be the key to all of metaphysics. |
3739 | Free will is a kind of causality which works independently of other causes [Kant] |
Full Idea: Will is a kind of causality belonging to living beings so far as they are rational. Freedom would then be the property this causality has of being able to work independently of determination by alien causes. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 446.97) |
3741 | We shall never be able to comprehend how freedom is possible [Kant] |
Full Idea: We shall never be able to comprehend how freedom is possible. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 456.115) |
3740 | We cannot conceive of reason as being externally controlled [Kant] |
Full Idea: We cannot possibly conceive of a reason as being consciously directed from outside in regard to its judgements. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 448.101) |
5296 | Kant made the political will into a pure self-determined "free" will [Kant, by Marx/Engels] |
Full Idea: Kant made the materially motivated determinations of the will of the French bourgeois into pure self-determinations of the "free will", of the will in and for itself. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by K Marx / F Engels - The German Ideology §II | |
A reaction: This is the social determinism of Marx and Engels. Most commentators would say that Kant was taking the idea of "free will" from religion rather than politics, but presumably Marx would merely reply "same thing!" |
14939 | Two versions of quantum theory say that the world is deterministic [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: In the Bohm version of quantum theory, and the Everett approach, the world comes out deterministic after all. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.2) | |
A reaction: This is just in case anyone wants to trumpet the idea that quantum theory has established indeterminism. It is particularly daft to think that quantum indeterminacy makes free will possible (or even actual). |
14911 | Science is opposed to downward causation [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: When someone pronounces for downward causation they are in opposition to science. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.6 n54) | |
A reaction: Downward causation is the key issue in any debate about whether minds exhibit excitingly 'emergent' properties that somehow put them outside the realm of normal physics. I take that to be nonsense, and I side with science here. |
24011 | Kant thought emotions are too random and passive to be part of morality [Kant, by Williams,B] |
Full Idea: Kant thinks emotions can't contribute to moral worth because emotions are too capricious, they are too passive, and they are fortuitously distributed by nature. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Bernard Williams - Morality and the emotions p.226 | |
A reaction: [compressed] If, like Kant, you want morality to be concerned with rational principles, then you will want morality to be clear, stable and consistent - which emotions are not. I'm with Williams on this one. |
5074 | Kant united religion and philosophy, by basing obedience to law on reason instead of faith [Taylor,R on Kant] |
Full Idea: Kant united the two ideas of virtue (as being and as doing) into the idea of a law that is founded not upon faith but upon reason. Thus in one stroke he united the seemingly irreconcilable philosophical and religious ethics, preserving the best of both. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Richard Taylor - Virtue Ethics: an Introduction Ch.8 | |
A reaction: An interesting analysis that sounds exactly right. Taylor's point is that Kant subjects himself to an authority, when the underpinnings of the authority are no longer there. There is a religious strand in the altruistic requirements of utilitarianism too. |
8024 | The categorical imperative says nothing about what our activities and ends should be [MacIntyre on Kant] |
Full Idea: As to what activities we ought to engage in, what ends we should pursue, the categorical imperative seems to be silent. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Alasdair MacIntyre - A Short History of Ethics Ch.14 | |
A reaction: I think this is the fatal objection to Kant's view. He says, for example, that promise-breaking is inconsistent with a belief that promises are good, but who said promises are good? No ethical system can get started without values. |
22390 | Kant thought human nature was pure hedonism, so virtue is only possible via the categorical imperative [Foot on Kant] |
Full Idea: Kant was a psychological hedonist about all actions except those done for the sake of the moral law, and this faulty theory of human nature prevented him from seeing that moral virtue might be compatible with the rejection of the categorical imperative. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Philippa Foot - Morality as system of hypothetical imperatives p.165 | |
A reaction: Nice. Kant wasn't unusual in his view, which seems standard in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Aristotle understood that it is human nature, on the whole, to want to be a good citizen, since we are social beings. |
9750 | We must only value what others find acceptable [Kant, by Korsgaard] |
Full Idea: We are limited to pursuits which are acceptable from the standpoint of others; ..hence we can't value just anything, and there are things which we must value. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Christine M. Korsgaard - Intro to 'Creating the Kingdom of Ends' x | |
A reaction: This at least moves towards greater objectivity, compared with Idea 9749, but it now seems deeply conservative. Our values become lowest common denominator. We need space for the Nietzschean moral hero, who creates new values. |
20160 | Kant focuses exclusively on human values, and neglects cultural and personal values [Kekes on Kant] |
Full Idea: Kant grossly inflated the importance of the human dimension of value in which moral considerations are indeed overriding. He unjustifiably denied the perfectly reasonable contributions of the cultural and personal dimensions to human well-being. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by John Kekes - The Human Condition 05.5 | |
A reaction: Excellent to see someone talking about the ultimate values that reside behind Kant's theory. Without such assumptions his theory is, frankly, ridiculous (as Mill explained). |
9749 | Our rational choices confer value, arising from the sense that we ourselves are important [Kant, by Korsgaard] |
Full Idea: According to Kant, we confer value on the objects of our rational choices. ..When we choose things because they are important to us we are taking ourselves to be important. Hence our humanity is a source of value. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Christine M. Korsgaard - Intro to 'Creating the Kingdom of Ends' ix | |
A reaction: He's trying to filter to out our gormless choices with the word 'rational', but it is common sense that I may choose things despite thinking they have little value, like watching soap opera. A more objective account of value seems needed. See 9750! |
7671 | Values are created by human choices, and are not some intrinsic quality, out there [Kant, by Berlin] |
Full Idea: Kant's fundamental sermon is that a value is made a value (or, at least, a duty) by human choice and not by some intrinsic quality in itself, out there. Values are what humans freely choose to live, fight and die for. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Isaiah Berlin - The Roots of Romanticism Ch.4 | |
A reaction: If this is right, then it would appear that the great Kant is the father of relativism, which wouldn't please him. However, his whole system rests on what is consistent and rational, and that seems to a value that is above our choices. |
3717 | Reverence is awareness of a value which demolishes my self-love [Kant] |
Full Idea: Reverence is awareness of a value which demolishes my self-love. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 401.16 n) | |
A reaction: Presumably simple love of someone or something could achieve this, without the addition of reverence. I'm suspicious of this idea, because some dreadful people have commanded reverence. |
3720 | We may claim noble motives, but we cannot penetrate our secret impulses [Kant] |
Full Idea: We are pleased to flatter ourselves with the false claim to a nobler motive, but in fact we can never, even by the most strenuous self-examination, get to the bottom of our secret impulsions. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 407.26) | |
A reaction: Sounds more like Nietzsche than Kant. If some impulsions are totally hidden from us, then they are presumably irrelevant to any rational or moral thinking. Look at the deeds. |
3725 | The good of an action is in the mind of the doer, not the consequences [Kant] |
Full Idea: What is essentially good in an action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 416.43) | |
A reaction: Dreadful idea. I always claim that consequences are relevant in Kant, in formulating and choosing maxims for action, but this idea seems to refute my view. This is a slogan for the Spanish Inquisition. |
3712 | A good will is not good because of what it achieves [Kant] |
Full Idea: A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 394.3) | |
A reaction: This invites the obvious objection of the well-meaning fool, who causes misery despite meaning well. I firmly hold the view that what matters is what we do, not what we intend. |
3733 | The 'golden rule' cannot be a universal law as it implies no duties [Kant] |
Full Idea: The 'golden rule' is merely derivative from our principle, but it cannot be a universal law since it isn't the ground of duties to oneself or others (since it implies a breakable contract). | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 430.68 n) |
3736 | Virtue lets a rational being make universal law, and share in the kingdom of ends [Kant] |
Full Idea: A morally good attitude of mind (or virtue) claims the intrinsic value of dignity, because it affords a rational being a share in the making of universal law, which therefore fits him to be a member in a possible kingdom of ends. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 435.79) |
3544 | Kant thinks virtue becomes passive, and hence morally unaccountable [Kant, by Annas] |
Full Idea: Kant thinks that if virtue becomes a stable disposition of the person, then it turns into a rigid mechanical habit, with respect to which the person is passive, and thus not fully morally accountable. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Julia Annas - The Morality of Happiness 2.1 |
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'). |
7674 | Generosity and pity are vices, because they falsely imply one person's superiority to another [Kant, by Berlin] |
Full Idea: For Kant, generosity is a vice, because it is a form of condescension and patronage, and pity is detestable, because it entails a superiority on the part of the pitier, which Kant stoutly denied. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Isaiah Berlin - The Roots of Romanticism | |
A reaction: An interesting view, but being too proud to receive help from friends strikes me as a greater vice. How can friendship and community be built, if we do not rush to help one another when needed? The virtue is generosity without condescension. |
21029 | Kantian respect is for humanity and reason (not from love or sympathy or solidarity) [Kant, by Sandel] |
Full Idea: Kantian respect is unlike love. It's unlike sympathy. It's unlike solidarity or fellow feeling. ...Kantian respect is for humanity as such, for a rational capacity that resides, undifferentiated, in all of us. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Michael J. Sandel - Justice: What's the right thing to do? 05 | |
A reaction: Why is it 'undifferentiated'? If reason is the source of the respect, why don't greater powers of reason command greater respect? The nice thing is that the rejected versions involve bias, but Kant's version does not. |
3710 | The only purely good thing is a good will [Kant] |
Full Idea: It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 393.1) | |
A reaction: This is precisely the thought of Epictetus, that the will is the source of goodness, because morality resides in choices (as opposed to character, or states of affairs). |
3715 | Other causes can produce nice results, so morality must consist in the law, found only in rational beings [Kant] |
Full Idea: Agreeable results could be brought about by other causes;…therefore nothing but the idea of the law in itself, which is present only in a rational being, can constitute that pre-eminent good which we call moral. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 401.15) |
7105 | If 'maxims' are deeper underlying intentions, Kant can be read as a virtue theorist [Kant, by Statman] |
Full Idea: It has been argued that by 'maxim' Kant does not mean a specific intention for some discrete act, but the underlying intention by which the agent orchestrates his numerous more specific intentions, ...which leads to a virtue reading of Kant. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Daniel Statman - Introduction to Virtue Ethics §7 | |
A reaction: Kant admired virtue of character, and would want to fit it into the framework of his moral duties. Nevertheless a virtue would often seem to be beyond words, and principles seem to crumble in the face of complex cases. |
4024 | Kant follows Rousseau in defining freedom and morality in terms of each other [Taylor,C on Kant] |
Full Idea: Kant follows Rousseau in defining freedom and morality essentially in terms of each other. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Charles Taylor - Sources of the Self §20.2 | |
A reaction: An interesting comment on the modern tendency to overvalue freedom at the expense of the other civic virtues. |
7625 | We can ask how rational goodness is, but also why is rationality good [Putnam on Kant] |
Full Idea: We can reverse the terms of the comparison and ask not how rational is goodness, but why is it good to be rational? | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Hilary Putnam - Reason, Truth and History | |
A reaction: [Putnam doesn't mention Kant]. This seems to me to be the biggest question for Kant. See Idea 1403. The main point of tbe romantic movement, I take it, is that purely rational living does not bring happiness or fulfilment. |
20715 | It is basic that moral actions must be done from duty [Kant] |
Full Idea: The first proposition of morality is that to have moral worth an action must be done from duty. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], p.19), quoted by Brian Davies - Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion 9 'Religion' | |
A reaction: [p.19 in Beck tr] In Aristotle's account these are 'controlled' actions [enkrateia], which are a step below virtuous actions, which combine reason and pleasure. |
3737 | The will is good if its universalised maxim is never in conflict with itself [Kant] |
Full Idea: The will is absolutely good if it cannot be evil - that is, if its maxim, when made into a universal law, can never be in conflict with itself. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 437.81) |
5295 | Kant was happy with 'good will', even if it had no result [Kant, by Marx/Engels] |
Full Idea: Kant was satisfied with "good will" alone, even if it remained entirely without result. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by K Marx / F Engels - The German Ideology §II | |
A reaction: Kant is obviously a million miles away from Marxist pragmatism. And yet the members of the revolutionary class can only be identified and endorsed if they show a particular kind of will. |
3735 | Men are subject to laws which are both self-made and universal [Kant] |
Full Idea: Man is subject only to laws which are made by himself and yet are universal. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 432.73) |
6695 | Kant has to attribute high moral worth to some deeply unattractive human lives [Kant, by Graham] |
Full Idea: An implausible and uncomfortable conclusion to be drawn from Kant's conception of morality is that we must attribute high moral worth to deeply unattractive human lives. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Gordon Graham - Eight Theories of Ethics Ch.6 | |
A reaction: Graham quotes a loathsome character from a Victorian novel, who coldly 'does her duty'. Indeed it might be that a robot could be programmed with the categorical imperative (though it would need a table of values first). Virtue theory is the answer. |
8028 | Kantian duty seems to imply conformism with authority [MacIntyre on Kant] |
Full Idea: Anyone educated into the Kantian notion of duty will (so far) have been educated into easy conformism with authority. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Alasdair MacIntyre - A Short History of Ethics Ch.14 | |
A reaction: The Nazi Eichmann cited Kant at his trial for mass murder. I'm not sure the criticism is fair. There are surely times when the categorical imperative will go quite contrary to what the irrational authorities are implementing? |
3714 | Dutiful actions are judged not by purpose, but by the maxim followed [Kant] |
Full Idea: An action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose to be attained by it, but in the maxim according to which it is decided upon. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 399.13) |
3718 | Telling the truth from duty is quite different from doing so to avoid inconvenience [Kant] |
Full Idea: To tell the truth for the sake of duty is something entirely different from doing so out of concern for inconvenient results. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 402.18) |
3724 | A categorical imperative sees an action as necessary purely for its own sake [Kant] |
Full Idea: A categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself apart from its relation to a further end. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 414.39) |
3723 | There are no imperatives for a holy will, as the will is in harmony with moral law [Kant] |
Full Idea: For the divine or holy will there are no imperatives: 'I ought' is here out of place, because 'I will' is already of itself necessarily in harmony with the law. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 414.39) |
8026 | Almost any precept can be consistently universalized [MacIntyre on Kant] |
Full Idea: With sufficient ingenuity, almost every precept can be consistently universalized. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Alasdair MacIntyre - A Short History of Ethics Ch.14 | |
A reaction: A concise statement of J.S.Mill's point (Idea 3762). The point is that Kant seems to allow burglary, as long as you don't complain when you are burgled. What sort of maxim would a suicidal mass murderer being willing to universalize? |
3727 | Act as if your maxim were to become a universal law of nature [Kant] |
Full Idea: The universal imperative may also run as follows: 'Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature'. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 421.52) |
4413 | The categorical imperative smells of cruelty [Nietzsche on Kant] |
Full Idea: The categorical imperative smells of cruelty. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Friedrich Nietzsche - On the Genealogy of Morals II.§6 | |
A reaction: I presume this is because it is so pure and impersonal. Seems harsh. Nowadays we don't think pure just has to be cruel, but Nietzsche may have assumed it had to be. |
15673 | The intuition behind the categorical imperative is that one ought not to make an exception of oneself [Kant, by Finlayson] |
Full Idea: Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative is supposed to capture the widespread intuition that one ought not to make an exception of oneself. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by James Gordon Finlayson - Habermas Ch.6:83 | |
A reaction: Interesting. I always take the plain English version to be 'what if everybody did that?' Suppose I were to forgive everyone, except myself? |
8068 | Universalising a maxim needs to first stipulate the right description for the action [Anscombe on Kant] |
Full Idea: Kant's rule about universalisable maxims is useless without stipulations as to what shall count as a relevant description of an action with a view to constructing a maxim about it. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by G.E.M. Anscombe - Modern Moral Philosophy p.176 | |
A reaction: This is one of the key objections to Kant (along with his need for preliminary values). One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'. The charge adds up to Nietzsche's view, that Kant could never shake off his very conventional prejudices. |
8025 | The categorical imperative will not suggest maxims suitable for testing [MacIntyre on Kant] |
Full Idea: The doctrine of the categorical imperative provides me with a test for rejecting proposed maxims; it does not tell me whence I am to derive the maxims which first provide the need for a test. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Alasdair MacIntyre - A Short History of Ethics Ch.14 | |
A reaction: Nice objection. 'What if we all stood on one leg for an hour (in this crisis)?' Question for Kant: what sort of maxims should we consider, when faced with a dilemma. Mill will obviously suggest happiness as a target. Good of society? My own good? |
3762 | Why couldn't all rational beings accept outrageously immoral rules of conduct? [Mill on Kant] |
Full Idea: Kant fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any logical or physical impossibility in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by John Stuart Mill - Utilitarianism Ch.1 |
8027 | I can universalize a selfish maxim, if it is expressed in a way that only applies to me [MacIntyre on Kant] |
Full Idea: If we enquire whether I can consistently universalize the maxim 'I may break my promises only when.....', the gap can be filled by a description devised so that it will apply to my present circumstances, but to very few others. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Alasdair MacIntyre - A Short History of Ethics Ch.14 | |
A reaction: Another good objection to Kant. There is just a huge problem with how you state the maxim under discussion. One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'. 'Do everything possible to implement the will of God'. |
3728 | Suicide, false promises, neglected talent, and lack of charity all involve contradictions of principle [Kant, by PG] |
Full Idea: Kant's four illustrations of the Categorical Imperative are: the contradiction of suicide, the contradiction of false promises, the contradiction of neglecting your talents, and the contradiction of neglecting charity. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 422.53) by PG - Db (ideas) |
22008 | Always treat yourself and others as an end, and never simply as a means [Kant] |
Full Idea: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], AA429 p.96), quoted by Terry Pinkard - German Philosophy 1760-1860 02 | |
A reaction: This sets up the Kingdom of Ends. Note that this does not prohibit using people as a means. It just asks you to respect waiters and shop assistants. It seems to say you should not treat 'your own person' merely as a means. Prostitution? |
3719 | If lying were the universal law it would make promises impossible [Kant] |
Full Idea: I can indeed will to lie, but I can by no means will a universal law of lying; for by such a law there could properly be no promises at all. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 403.19) |
22009 | Morality is the creation of the laws that enable a Kingdom of Ends [Kant] |
Full Idea: Morality consists in the relation of all action to the making of laws whereby alone a kingdom of ends is possible. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], AA434 p.102), quoted by Terry Pinkard - German Philosophy 1760-1860 02 | |
A reaction: Each individual gives themselves a law in the categorical imperative. Presumably the kingdom of ends is the convergence of these laws, because the categorical imperative has to be rational. |
3716 | Act according to a maxim you can will as a universal law [Kant] |
Full Idea: I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 402.17) |
3731 | Rational beings necessarily conceive their own existence as an end in itself [Kant] |
Full Idea: Rational nature exists as an end in itself; this is the way in which a man necessarily conceives his own existence. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 429.66) |
22050 | The maxim of an action is chosen, and not externally imposed [Kant, by Bowie] |
Full Idea: Kant does not dictate what the maxim (the principle) of my action should be, and this is the crux. The individual has to decide the basis for their actions, rather than have it imposed on them, which differentiates us from the world of nature. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Andrew Bowie - German Philosophy: a very short introduction 1 | |
A reaction: Apparenty this inspired the Romantic era (the Age of Freedom?) just as much as the French Revolution. It is the chief doctrine of extreme individualism - except that the maxim chosen should be one on which rational beings should agree. |
6694 | Always treat humanity as an end and never as a means only [Kant] |
Full Idea: Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another always as an end and never as a means only. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]), quoted by Gordon Graham - Eight Theories of Ethics Ch.6 | |
A reaction: Does this really mean that I can't just negligently buy a newspaper without making an effort to respect its seller? How do I ensure that I treat myself as an end, and don't slip into treating myself as a means? What would that be like? Prostitution? |
3711 | Only a good will makes us worthy of happiness [Kant] |
Full Idea: A good will seems to constitute the indispensable condition of our very worthiness to be happy. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 393.2) |
3713 | The function of reason is to produce a good will [Kant] |
Full Idea: Since reason has been imparted to us as a practical power, which thus influences the will, its true function must be to produce a will which is good. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 396.7) |
4345 | For Kant, even a person who lacks all sympathy for others still has a motive for benevolence [Kant, by Hursthouse] |
Full Idea: Kant, we may suppose, would say that if a man were 'cold in temperament and indifferent to the sufferings of others', he would still find in himself a source that would enable him to do what is benevolent. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Rosalind Hursthouse - On Virtue Ethics Ch.4 | |
A reaction: This identifies a strong appeal of Kant's theory - that whether we are morally good should not be a matter of luck in our upbringing or natural temperament. How is the vicious person to be saved, if not by reason? |
4251 | If we are required to give moral thought the highest priority, this gives morality no content [Williams,B on Kant] |
Full Idea: The Kantian view of what is important is that people should give moral considerations the highest deliberative priority, which Hegel attacked because it gives moral thought no content. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Bernard Williams - Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy Ch.10 | |
A reaction: Interesting. This points towards empathy and compassion as motivators, rather than reason, because there is some content to the morality, which calls out to us. |
16004 | If Kant lives by self-administered laws, this is as feeble as self-administered punishments [Kierkegaard on Kant] |
Full Idea: Kant thought that man is his own law - he binds himself under the law which he gives himself. This is how lawlessness or experimentation is established. This is no more rigorously earnest than Sancho Panza's self-administered blows to his own ass. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Søren Kierkegaard - The Journals of Kierkegaard JP-I, 188 | |
A reaction: It really is tempting to go easy on yourself rather than on others. Kant had the right ideas, but human beings aren't as disciplined as the categorical imperative requires. [SY] |
4344 | Actions where people spread happiness because they enjoy it have no genuine moral worth [Kant] |
Full Idea: There are many spirits of so sympathetic a temper that they find an inner pleasure in spreading happiness around them. ..I maintain that an action of this kind, however right and amiable it may be, has still no genuinely moral worth. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], p.66) | |
A reaction: We understand what he means (that principle is everything), but this still seems a big hole in his account, one which drives us to Aristotle's sensible views about what a nice person is really like. |
3729 | Our inclinations are not innately desirable; in fact most rational beings would like to be rid of them [Kant] |
Full Idea: Inclinations, as a source of needs, are so far from having an absolute value to make them desirable for their own sake that it must rather be the universal wish of every rational being to be wholly free from them. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 428.65) |
3732 | Rational beings have a right to share in the end of an action, not just be part of the means [Kant] |
Full Idea: A violator of the rights of man intends to use the person of others merely as a means, not considering that they should be used only as beings who must themselves be able to share in the end of the very same action. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 430.68) |
7670 | Kant is the father of the notion of exploitation as an evil [Kant, by Berlin] |
Full Idea: Kant is the father of the notion of exploitation as an evil. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Isaiah Berlin - The Roots of Romanticism Ch.3 | |
A reaction: This is central to the idea of Kant as the main father of liberalism, the idea that every individual deserves respect, and hence has rights. The idea would also be a crucial element in Europe turning against slavery. |
7591 | Kant completed Grotius's project of a non-religious basis for natural law [Scruton on Kant] |
Full Idea: Kant is often held to have completed a task begun by Grotius, giving a basis for natural law which does not invoke the will of God, but rather commands God himself to obedience. | |
From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Roger Scruton - A Dictionary of Political Thought 'Kant' | |
A reaction: This project, if successful, would clinch the naturalistic response to the Euthyphro Question (Ideas 336 and 337). It is a key issue for atheists, who generally wish to deny that their lack of religion leads inevitably to amorality. |
7673 | Retributive punishment is better than being sent to hospital for your crimes [Kant, by Berlin] |
Full Idea: Kant believed in retributive punishment, because he thought that a man would prefer being sent to prison to going to hospital. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Isaiah Berlin - The Roots of Romanticism Ch.4 | |
A reaction: That is, even criminals welcome the dignity of being treated as if they are actually responsible for their deeds, and are not just victims of inner forces. Criminals demand free will! Truth is best, though; many of them are not responsible at all. |
3730 | Non-rational beings only have a relative value, as means rather than as ends [Kant] |
Full Idea: Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature have, if they are non-rational beings, only a relative value as means and are consequently called 'things' (rather than 'persons'). | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 428.65) | |
A reaction: Ugh. Is there nothing in between 'persons' and 'things'? How about a deeply comatose human, or an embryo? It is a gross distortion to think of a chimpanzee as a 'thing'. |
14956 | Explanation by kinds and by clusters of properties just express the stability of reality [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Philosophers sometimes invoke natural kinds as if they explain the possibility of explanation. This is characteristically neo-scholastic. That anything can be explained, and that properties cluster together, express one fact: reality is relatively stable. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 5.6) | |
A reaction: Odd idea. I would have thought that if there are indeed kinds and clusters, this would explain a great deal more than mere stability. Or, more accurately, they would invite a more substantial explanation than mere stability would seem to need. |
14957 | There is nothing more to a natural kind than a real pattern in nature [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Everything that a naturalist could legitimately want from the concept of a natural kind can be had simply by reference to real patterns. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 5.6) | |
A reaction: I think I agree with this, and with the general idea that natural kinds are overrated. There are varying degrees of stability in nature, and where there is a lot of stability our inductive reasoning can get to work. And that's it. |
14954 | Causation is found in the special sciences, but may have no role in fundamental physics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: The idea of causation, as it is used in science, finds its exemplars in the special sciences, and it is presently open empirical question whether that notion will have any ultimate role to play in fundamental physics. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.5) | |
A reaction: Note that they seem to always have a notion of 'ultimate' physics hovering over their account. I wonder. There is nothing in this idea to make me think that I should eliminate the idea of causation from my metaphysics. |
14902 | Science may have uninstantiated laws, inferred from approaching some unrealised limit [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is possible that uninstantiated laws can be established in science, and consequently bear explanatory weight, ..if we need reasons for thinking that the closer conditions get to some limit, the more they approximate to some ideal. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.3) | |
A reaction: [The cite Hüttemann 2004] I am dubious about laws, but I take this to be a point in favour of inference to the best explanation, and against accounts of laws as supervenient of how things actually are. |
14937 | That the universe must be 'made of' something is just obsolete physics [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is a metaphysical residue of obsolete physics to suppose that the universe is 'made of' anything. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.2) | |
A reaction: They quote Smolin as saying that it is 'processes' which are fundamental. And yet surely there must be something there to undergo a process? Surely we don't have eternal platonic processes? |
14900 | In physics, matter is an emergent phenomenon, not part of fundamental ontology [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Physics has taught us that matter in the sense of extended stuff is an emergent phenomenon that has no counterpart in fundamental ontology. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.3) | |
A reaction: They contrast this point with futile debates among philosopher between atomists (partless particles) and gunkists (parts all the way down). |
14924 | If spacetime is substantial, what is the substance? [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It is fair to ask: if spacetime is a substance, what is the substance in question? | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.2) | |
A reaction: Personally I love the question 'If it exists, what is it made of?', though physicists seem to think that this reveals a gormless misunderstanding. To my question Keith Hossack retorted 'What are the atoms made of?' |
14901 | Spacetime may well be emergent, rather than basic [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: Contemporary physics takes very seriously the idea that spacetime itself is emergent from some more fundamental structure. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.2.3) |
14938 | A fixed foliation theory of quantum gravity could make presentism possible [Ladyman/Ross] |
Full Idea: It has been pointed out that presentism is an open question in so far as a fixed foliation theory of quantum gravity has not been ruled out. | |
From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.2 n75) | |
A reaction: [They cite B.Monton for this point] I don't understand this idea, but I'll have it anyway. Google 'fixed foliation' for me, as I'm too busy. |
8046 | We can only know we should obey God if we already have moral standards for judging God [Kant, by MacIntyre] |
Full Idea: On Kant's view it never follows that we ought to do what God commands, for we would have to know that we always ought to do what God commands, but that would need a standard of moral judgement independent of God's commands. God's commands are redundant. | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Alasdair MacIntyre - After Virtue: a Study in Moral Theory Ch.4 | |
A reaction: This strikes me as a very powerful argument, even an undeniable one. How could you accept any authority if you didn't have some standards for accepting it, even if the standard was just to be awestruck by someone's charisma and will-power? |
3721 | We judge God to be good by a priori standards of moral perfection [Kant] |
Full Idea: Where do we get the concept of God as the highest good? Solely from the idea of moral perfection, which reason traces a priori. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785], 408.29) |
20714 | God is not proved by reason, but is a postulate of moral thinking [Kant, by Davies,B] |
Full Idea: Kant speaks of God not as something known or proved to exist by virtue of rational argument, but as a postulate of moral reflection (that is, of 'practical reason'). | |
From: report of Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Brian Davies - Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion 9 'Morality' | |
A reaction: Presumably it is a necessary postulate, which makes this a transcendental argument, surely? |