|
13966
|
Analytic philosophy loved the necessary a priori analytic, linguistic modality, and rigour [Soames]
|
|
Full Idea:
The golden age of analytic philosophy (mid 20th c) was when necessary, a priori and analytic were one, all possibility was linguistic possibility, and the linguistic turn gave philosophy a respectable subject matter (language), and precision and rigour.
|
|
From:
Scott Soames (Significance of the Kripkean Nec A Posteriori [2006], p.166)
|
|
A reaction:
Gently sarcastic, because Soames is part of the team who have put a bomb under this view, and quite right too. Personally I think the biggest enemy in all of this lot is not 'language' but 'rigour'. A will-o-the-wisp philosophers dream of.
|
|
13974
|
If philosophy is analysis of meaning, available to all competent speakers, what's left for philosophers? [Soames]
|
|
Full Idea:
If all of philosophy is the analysis of meaning, and meaning is fundamentally transparent to competent speakers, there is little room for philosophically significant explanations and theories, since they will be necessary or a priori, or both.
|
|
From:
Scott Soames (Significance of the Kripkean Nec A Posteriori [2006], p.186)
|
|
A reaction:
He cites the later Wittgenstein as having fallen into this trap. I suppose any area of life can have its specialists, but I take Shakespeare to be a greater master of English than any philosopher I have ever read.
|
|
13972
|
Two-dimensionalism reinstates descriptivism, and reconnects necessity and apriority to analyticity [Soames]
|
|
Full Idea:
Two-dimensionalism is a fundamentally anti-Kripkean attempt to reinstate descriptivism about names and natural kind terms, to reconnect necessity and apriority to analyticity, and return philosophy to analytic paradigms of its golden age.
|
|
From:
Scott Soames (Significance of the Kripkean Nec A Posteriori [2006], p.183)
|
|
A reaction:
I presume this is right, and it is so frustrating that you need Soames to spell it out, when Chalmers is much more low-key. Philosophers hate telling you what their real game is. Why is that?
|
|
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').
|
|
7824
|
If suicide is lawful, but assisting suicide is unlawful, powerless people are denied their rights [Grayling]
|
|
Full Idea:
An anomaly created by England's 1961 Suicide Act is that it is lawful to take one's own life, but unlawful to help anyone else to do it. This means anyone unable to commit suicide without help is denied one of their fundamental rights.
|
|
From:
A.C. Grayling (What is Good? [2003], Ch.8)
|
|
A reaction:
There is a difference, not really captured either by law or by reason, between tolerating an activity, and encouraging and helping it. I think the test question is "this activity is legal, but would you want your child to do it?"
|
|
7819
|
Religion gives answers, comforts, creates social order, and panders to superstition [Grayling]
|
|
Full Idea:
The four standard explanations given for religion are that it provides answer, that it gives comfort, that it makes for social order, and that it rests on mere superstition.
|
|
From:
A.C. Grayling (What is Good? [2003], Ch.4)
|
|
A reaction:
All four of these could be correct, though the first and fourth would be incompatible if religion gives correct answers. Why religion begins might be not the same as the reason why it continues.
|