15 ideas
6259 | Why can't a wise man doubt everything? [Montaigne] |
Full Idea: Why cannot a wise man dare to doubt anything and everything? | |
From: Michel de Montaigne (Apology for Raymond Sebond [1580], p.0562) | |
A reaction: This question seems to be the start of the Enlightenment Project, of attempting to prove everything. MacIntyre warns of the dangers of this in ethical theory. The story of modern philosophy is the discovery of its impossibility. E.g. Davidson on truth. |
6263 | No wisdom could make us comfortably walk a wide beam if it was high in the air [Montaigne] |
Full Idea: Take a beam wide enough to walk along: suspend it between two towers: there is no philosophical wisdom, however firm, which could make us walk along it just as we would if we were on the ground. | |
From: Michel de Montaigne (Apology for Raymond Sebond [1580], p.0672) | |
A reaction: This proposes great scepticism about the practical application of philosophical wisdom, but if we talk in terms of the wise assessment of risk in any undertaking, our caution on the raised beam makes perfectly good sense. |
6258 | Virtue is the distinctive mark of truth, and its greatest product [Montaigne] |
Full Idea: The distinctive mark of the Truth we hold ought to be virtue, which is the most exacting mark of Truth, the closest one to heaven and the most worthy thing that Truth produces. | |
From: Michel de Montaigne (Apology for Raymond Sebond [1580], p.0493) | |
A reaction: A long way from Tarski and minimalist theories of truth! But not so far from pragmatism. Personally I think Montaigne is making an important claim, which virtue theorists should be attempting to incorporate into their theory. Aristotle would sympathise. |
17824 | The master science is physical objects divided into sets [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The master science can be thought of as the theory of sets with the entire range of physical objects as ur-elements. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], II) | |
A reaction: This sounds like Quine's view, since we have to add sets to our naturalistic ontology of objects. It seems to involve unrestricted mereology to create normal objects. |
17825 | Set theory (unlike the Peano postulates) can explain why multiplication is commutative [Maddy] |
Full Idea: If you wonder why multiplication is commutative, you could prove it from the Peano postulates, but the proof offers little towards an answer. In set theory Cartesian products match 1-1, and n.m dots when turned on its side has m.n dots, which explains it. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], II) | |
A reaction: 'Turning on its side' sounds more fundamental than formal set theory. I'm a fan of explanation as taking you to the heart of the problem. I suspect the world, rather than set theory, explains the commutativity. |
17826 | Standardly, numbers are said to be sets, which is neat ontology and epistemology [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The standard account of the relationship between numbers and sets is that numbers simply are certain sets. This has the advantage of ontological economy, and allows numbers to be brought within the epistemology of sets. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], III) | |
A reaction: Maddy votes for numbers being properties of sets, rather than the sets themselves. See Yourgrau's critique. |
17828 | Numbers are properties of sets, just as lengths are properties of physical objects [Maddy] |
Full Idea: I propose that ...numbers are properties of sets, analogous, for example, to lengths, which are properties of physical objects. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], III) | |
A reaction: Are lengths properties of physical objects? A hole in the ground can have a length. A gap can have a length. Pure space seems to contain lengths. A set seems much more abstract than its members. |
17827 | Sets exist where their elements are, but numbers are more like universals [Maddy] |
Full Idea: A set of things is located where the aggregate of those things is located, ...but a number is simultaneously located at many different places (10 in my hand, and a baseball team) ...so numbers seem more like universals than particulars. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], III) | |
A reaction: My gut feeling is that Maddy's master idea (of naturalising sets by building them from ur-elements of natural objects) won't work. Sets can work fine in total abstraction from nature. |
17830 | Number theory doesn't 'reduce' to set theory, because sets have number properties [Maddy] |
Full Idea: I am not suggesting a reduction of number theory to set theory ...There are only sets with number properties; number theory is part of the theory of finite sets. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], V) |
17823 | If mathematical objects exist, how can we know them, and which objects are they? [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The popular challenges to platonism in philosophy of mathematics are epistemological (how are we able to interact with these objects in appropriate ways) and ontological (if numbers are sets, which sets are they). | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], I) | |
A reaction: These objections refer to Benacerraf's two famous papers - 1965 for the ontology, and 1973 for the epistemology. Though he relied too much on causal accounts of knowledge in 1973, I'm with him all the way. |
17829 | Number words are unusual as adjectives; we don't say 'is five', and numbers always come first [Maddy] |
Full Idea: Number words are not like normal adjectives. For example, number words don't occur in 'is (are)...' contexts except artificially, and they must appear before all other adjectives, and so on. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Sets and Numbers [1981], IV) | |
A reaction: [She is citing Benacerraf's arguments] |
6262 | We lack some sense or other, and hence objects may have hidden features [Montaigne] |
Full Idea: We may all lack some sense or other; because of that defect, most of the features of objects may be concealed from us. | |
From: Michel de Montaigne (Apology for Raymond Sebond [1580], p.0666) | |
A reaction: This strikes me as simple, straightforward common sense, and right. I cannot make sense of the claim that reality really is just the way it appears. We do not have a built-in neutrino detector, for example. |
7566 | The Identity of Indiscernibles is really the same as the verification principle [Jolley] |
Full Idea: Various writers have noted that the Identity of Indiscernibles is really tantamount to the verification principle. | |
From: Nicholas Jolley (Leibniz [2005], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: Both principles are false, because they are the classic confusion of epistemology and ontology. The fact that you cannot 'discern' a difference between two things doesn't mean that there is no difference. Things beyond verification can still be discussed. |
6260 | Sceptics say there is truth, but no means of making or testing lasting judgements [Montaigne] |
Full Idea: Pyrrhonians say that truth and falsehood exist; within us we have means of looking for them, but not of making any lasting judgements: we have no touchstone. | |
From: Michel de Montaigne (Apology for Raymond Sebond [1580], p.0564) | |
A reaction: This states the key difference between sceptics and relativists. The latter are more extreme as they say there is no such thing as truth. The former concede truth, and their scepticism is about the abilities of human beings. I am an anti-relativist. |
6261 | The soul is in the brain, as shown by head injuries [Montaigne] |
Full Idea: The seat of the powers of the soul is in the brain, as is clearly shown by the fact that wounds and accidents affecting the head immediately harm the faculties of the soul. | |
From: Michel de Montaigne (Apology for Raymond Sebond [1580], p.0614) | |
A reaction: At last someone has finally got the facts clear. It seems surprising that the Greeks never clearly grasped this piece of irrefutable evidence - even those Greeks who speculated that the brain was the key. Here we have a fixed fact of philosophy of mind. |