11 ideas
22664 | I do not care if my trivial beliefs are false, and I have no interest in many truths [Nozick] |
Full Idea: I find that I do not mind at all the thought that I have some false beliefs (of US state capitals), and there are many truths I do not care to know at all (total grains of sand on the beach). | |
From: Robert Nozick (The Nature of Rationality [1993], p.67) | |
A reaction: A useful corrective to anyone who blindly asserts that truth is the supreme human value. I would still be annoyed if someone taught me lies about these two types of truth. |
22665 | Maybe James was depicting the value of truth, and not its nature [Nozick] |
Full Idea: We might see William James's pragmatic view that truth is what works as depicting the value of truth, and not its nature. | |
From: Robert Nozick (The Nature of Rationality [1993], p.68) | |
A reaction: James didn't think that he was doing this. He firmly says that this IS truth, not just the advantages of truth. Another view is that pragmatists are giving a test for truth. |
19480 | Process philosophy places the dynamic nature of being at the centre of our theories [Seibt] |
Full Idea: Process philosophy is based on the premise that being is dynamic and that the dynamic nature of being should be the primary focus of any comprehensive philosophical account of reality and our place within it. | |
From: Johanna Seibt (Process Philosophy [2012], Intro) | |
A reaction: Put like that, the chief ancestor of this approach would be Leibniz, even though his central idea concerns substances. Heraclitus is the most famous ancestor of Process Philosophy. Powers are dynamic, but powers of what? |
19479 | Reductionists identify processes by their 'owner', but tornadoes etc. are processes without owners [Seibt] |
Full Idea: On the reductionist view of processes, they are all 'owned' and we identify them by their owner (such as the murder of Caesar), ...but many processes (e.g. tornadoes, lightning bolts, the NY rush hour) lack a proper 'subject' altogether. | |
From: Johanna Seibt (Process Philosophy [2012], 2) | |
A reaction: This seems to be a fairly conclusive refutation of the view that processes are just objects changing their properties. |
19481 | Traditionally small things add up to processes, but quantum mechanics reverses this [Seibt] |
Full Idea: Instead of very small things (atoms) combining to produce standard processes (snowstorms), modern physics envisions very small processes (quantum phenomena) combining to produce standard things. | |
From: Johanna Seibt (Process Philosophy [2012], 4 (i)) | |
A reaction: Though electrons seem to be distinct things with a fixed set of properties, so this is not a clear point. Where do fields come into it? Beware of citing quantum mechanics in metaphysics! |
7458 | The reliability of witnesses depends on whether they benefit from their observations [Laplace, by Hacking] |
Full Idea: The credibility of a witness is in part a function of the story being reported. When the story claims to have infinite value, the temptation to lie for personal benefit is asymptotically infinite. | |
From: report of Pierre Simon de Laplace (Philosophical Essay on Probability [1820], Ch.XI) by Ian Hacking - The Emergence of Probability Ch.8 | |
A reaction: Laplace seems to especially have reports of miracles in mind. This observation certainly dashes any dreams one might have of producing a statistical measure of the reliability of testimony. |
3441 | If a supreme intellect knew all atoms and movements, it could know all of the past and the future [Laplace] |
Full Idea: An intelligence knowing at an instant the whole universe could know the movement of the largest bodies and atoms in one formula, provided his intellect were powerful enough to subject all data to analysis. Past and future would be present to his eyes. | |
From: Pierre Simon de Laplace (Philosophical Essay on Probability [1820]), quoted by Mark Thornton - Do we have free will? p.70 |
22662 | In the instrumental view of rationality it only concerns means, and not ends [Nozick] |
Full Idea: On the instrumental conception of rationality, it consists in the effective and efficient achievement of goals, ends, and desires. About the goals themselves it has little to say. | |
From: Robert Nozick (The Nature of Rationality [1993], p.64) | |
A reaction: [He quotes Russell 1954 p.viii as expressing this view] A long way from Greek logos, which obviously concerns the rational selection of right ends (for which, presumably, reasons can be given). In practice our ends may never be rational, of course. |
22663 | Rationality is normally said to concern either giving reasons, or reliability [Nozick] |
Full Idea: The two themes permeating the philosophical literature are that rationality is a matter of reasons, or that rationality is a matter of reliability. | |
From: Robert Nozick (The Nature of Rationality [1993], p.64) | |
A reaction: Since a clock can be reliable, I would have thought it concerns reasons. Or an unthinking person could reliably recite truths from memory. There is also the instrumental view of rationality. |
22666 | Is it rational to believe a truth which leads to permanent misery? [Nozick] |
Full Idea: If a mother is presented with convincing evidence that her son has committed a grave crime, but were she to believe it that would make her life thereafter miserable, is it rational for her to believe her son is guilty? | |
From: Robert Nozick (The Nature of Rationality [1993], p.69) | |
A reaction: I assume there is a conflict of rationalities, because there are conflicting ends. Presumably most mothers love the truth, but most of us also aim for happy lives. It is perfectly rational to avoid discovering a horrible family truth. |
22667 | Rationality needs some self-consciousness, to also evaluate how we acquired our reasons [Nozick] |
Full Idea: Rationality involves some degree of self-consciousness. Not only reasons are evaluated, but also the processes by which information arrives, is stored, and recalled. | |
From: Robert Nozick (The Nature of Rationality [1993], p.74) | |
A reaction: I defend the idea that animals have a degree of rationality, because they can make sensible judgements, but I cannot deny this idea. Rationality comes in degrees, and second-level thought is a huge leap forward in degree. |