105 ideas
12926 | Wisdom is the science of happiness [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Wisdom is the science of happiness. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1690.03.23) | |
A reaction: That probably comes down to common sense, or Aristotle's 'phronesis'. I take wisdom to involve understanding, as well as the quest for happiness. |
12903 | Wise people have fewer acts of will, because such acts are linked together [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: The wiser one is, the fewer separate acts of will one has and the more one's views and acts of will are comprehensive and linked together. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.04.12) | |
A reaction: [letter to Landgrave, about Arnauld] It is unusual to find a philosopher who actually tries to analyse the nature of wisdom, instead of just paying lipservice to it. I take Leibniz to be entirely right here. He equates wisdom with rational behaviour. |
12914 | Metaphysics is geometrical, resting on non-contradiction and sufficient reason [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: I claim to give metaphysics geometric demonstrations, assuming only the principle of contradiction (or else all reasoning becomes futile), and that nothing exists without a reason, or that every truth has an a priori proof, from the concept of terms. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 XI) | |
A reaction: For the last bit, see Idea 12910. This idea is the kind of huge optimism about metaphysic which got it a bad name after Kant, and in modern times. I'm optimistic about metaphysics, but certainly not about 'geometrical demonstrations' of it. |
6779 | Instrumentalists say distinctions between observation and theory vanish with ostensive definition [Bird] |
Full Idea: Instrumentalists treat the theoretical/non-theoretical and the observational/non-observational distinctions as the same, ..because they think words get their meaning by way of ostensive definition. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: To be honest, I'm not sure I quite understand this, but it sounds interesting... Ostensive definition seems to match the pragmatic spirit of instrumentalism (for which, see Idea 6778). Bird explains it all more fully. |
12915 | Definitions can only be real if the item is possible [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Definitions to my mind are real, when one knows that the thing defined is possible; otherwise they are only nominal, and one must not rely on them. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 XI) | |
A reaction: It is interesting that things do not have to actual to have real definitions. For Leibniz, what is possible will exist in the mind of God. For me what is possible will exist in the potentialities of the powers of what is actual. |
19333 | A truth is just a proposition in which the predicate is contained within the subject [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: In every true affirmative proposition, necessary or contingent, universal or particular, the concept of the predicate is in a sense included in that of the subject; the predicate is present in the subject; or else I do not know what truth is. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14) | |
A reaction: Why did he qualify this with "in a sense"? This is referred to as the 'concept containment theory of truth'. This is an odd view of the subject. If the truth is 'Peter fell down stairs', we don't usually think the concept of Peter contains such things. |
12910 | The predicate is in the subject of a true proposition [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: In a true proposition the concept of the predicate is always present in the subject. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
A reaction: This sounds very like the Kantian notion of an analytic truth, but Leibniz is applying it to all truths. So Socrates must contain the predicate of running as part of his nature (or essence?), if 'Socrates runs' is to be true. |
12920 | There is no multiplicity without true units [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: There is no multiplicity without true units. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30) | |
A reaction: Hence real numbers do not embody 'multiplicity'. So either they don't 'embody' anything, or they embody 'magnitudes'. Does this give two entirely different notions, of measure of multiplicity and measures of magnitude? |
12319 | What is not truly one being is not truly a being either [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: What is not truly one being is not truly a being either. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30), quoted by Alain Badiou - Briefings on Existence 1 | |
A reaction: Badiou quotes this as identifying Being with the One. I say Leibniz had no concept of 'gunk', and thought everything must have a 'this' identity in order to exist, which is just the sort of thing a logician would come up with. |
12922 | A thing 'expresses' another if they have a constant and fixed relationship [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: One thing 'expresses' another (in my terminology) when there exists a constant and fixed relationship between what can be said of one and of the other. This is the way that a perspectival projection expresses its ground-plan. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.10.09) | |
A reaction: Arnauld was puzzled by what Leibniz might mean by 'express', and it occurs to me that Leibniz was fishing for the modern concept of 'supervenience'. It also sounds a bit like the idea of 'covariance' between mind and world. Maybe he means 'function'. |
6780 | Anti-realism is more plausible about laws than about entities and theories [Bird] |
Full Idea: There is anti-realism with regard to unobservable entities and the theories that purport to mention them, but the more plausible version attaches to theories concerning what laws of nature are. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: This sounds right. I certainly find anti-realism about the entities of science utterly implausible. I also doubt whether there is any such thing as a law, above and beyond the behaviour of matter. Theories float between the two. |
13079 | A substance contains the laws of its operations, and its actions come from its own depth [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Each indivisible substance contains in its nature the law by which the series of its operations continues, and all that has happened and will happen to it. All its actions come from its own depths, except for dependence on God. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1688.01.4/14) | |
A reaction: I take the combination of 'laws' and 'forces', which Leibniz attributes to Aristotelian essences, to be his distinctive contribution towards giving us an Aristotelian metaphysic which is suitable for modern science. |
12745 | Philosophy needs the precision of the unity given by substances [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Philosophy cannot be better reduced to something precise, than by recognising only substances or complete beings endowed with a true unity, with different states that succeed one another; all else is phenomena, abstractions or relations. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 7 | |
A reaction: This idea bothers me. Has the whole of modern philosophy been distorted by this yearning for 'precision'? It has put mathematicians and logicians in the driving seat. Do we only attribute unity because it suits our thinking? |
12921 | Accidental unity has degrees, from a mob to a society to a machine or organism [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: There are degrees of accidental unity, and an ordered society has more unity than a chaotic mob, and an organic body or a machine has more unity than a society. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30) | |
A reaction: This immediately invites questions about the extremes. Why does the very highest degree of 'accidental unity' not achieve 'true unity'? And why cannot a very ununified aggregate have a bit of unity (as in unrestricted mereological composition)? |
12746 | We find unity in reason, and unity in perception, but these are not true unity [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: A pair of diamonds is merely an entity of reason, and even if one of them is brought close to another, it is an entity of imagination or perception, that is to say a phenomenon; contiguity, common movement and the same end don't make substantial unity. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 7 | |
A reaction: This invites the question of what you have to do to two objects to give them substantial unity. The distinction between unity 'of reason' and unity 'of perception' is good. |
12916 | A body is a unified aggregate, unless it has an indivisible substance [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: One will never find a body of which it may be said that it is truly one substance, ...because entities made up by aggregation have only as much reality as exists in the constituent parts. Hence the substance of a body must be indivisible. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.11) | |
A reaction: Leibniz rejected atomism, and he evidently believed that pure materialists must deny the real existence of physical objects. Common sense suggests that causal bonds bestow a high degree of unity on bodies (if degrees are allowed). |
12919 | Unity needs an indestructible substance, to contain everything which will happen to it [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Substantial unity requires a complete, indivisible and naturally indestructible entity, since its concept embraces everything that is to happen to it, which cannot be found in shape or motion. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.11.28/12.8) | |
A reaction: Hence if a tile is due to be broken in half (Arnauld's example), it cannot have had unity in the first place. To what do we refer when we say 'the tile was broken'? |
12923 | Every bodily substance must have a soul, or something analogous to a soul [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Every bodily substance must have a soul, or at least an entelechy which is analogous to the soul. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.10.09) | |
A reaction: He routinely commits to a 'soul', and then pulls back and says it may only be an 'analogy'. He had deep doubts about his whole scheme, which emerged in the late correspondence with Des Bosses. This not monads, says Garber. |
12704 | Aggregates don’t reduce to points, or atoms, or illusion, so must reduce to substance [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: In aggregates one must necessarily arrive either at mathematical points from which some make up extension, or at atoms (which I dismiss), or else no reality can be found in bodies, or finally one must recognises substances that possess a true unity. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 2 | |
A reaction: Garber calls this Leibniz's Aggregate Argument. Leibniz is, of course, talking of physical aggregates which have unity. He consistently points out that a pile of logs has no unity at all. But is substance just that-which-provides-unity? |
13077 | Basic predicates give the complete concept, which then predicts all of the actions [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Apart from those that depend on others, one must only consider together all the basic predicates in order to form the complete concept of Adam adequate to deduce from it everything that is ever to happen to him, as much as is necessary to account for it. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.06) | |
A reaction: This (implausibly) goes beyond mere prediction of properties. Eve's essence seems to be relevant to Adam's life. Note that the complete concept is not every predicate, but only those 'necessary' to predict the events. Cf Idea 13082. |
12908 | Essences exist in the divine understanding [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Essences exist in the divine understanding before one considers will. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
A reaction: This is a sort of religious neo-platonism. The great dream seems to be that of mind-reading God, and the result is either Pythagoras (it's numbers!), or Plato (it's pure ideas!), or this (it's essences!). See D.H.Lawrence's poem on geranium and mignottes. |
12706 | Bodies need a soul (or something like it) to avoid being mere phenomena [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Every substance is indivisible and consequently every corporeal substance must have a soul or at least an entelechy which is analogous to the soul, since otherwise bodies would be no more than phenomena. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], G II 121), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 2 | |
A reaction: There is a large gap between having 'a soul' and having something 'analogous to a soul'. I take the analogy to be merely as originators of action. Leibniz wants to add appetite and sensation to the Aristotelian forms (but knows this is dubious!). |
12906 | Truths about species are eternal or necessary, but individual truths concern what exists [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: The concept of a species contains only eternal or necessary truths, whereas the concept of an individual contains, regarded as possible, what in fact exists or what is related to the existence of things and to time. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.06) | |
A reaction: This seems to be what is behind the preference some have for kind-essences rather than individual essences. But the individual must be explained, as well as the kind. Not all tigers are identical. The two are, of course, compatible. |
6796 | Subjective probability measures personal beliefs; objective probability measures the chance of an event happening [Bird] |
Full Idea: Subjective probability measures a person's strength of belief in the truth of a proposition; objective probability concerns the chance a certain sort of event has of happening, independently of whether anyone thinks it is likely to occur or not. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.6) | |
A reaction: The challenge to the second one is that God would know for certain whether a meteor will hit the Earth next week. The impact looks like 'bad luck' to us, but necessary to one who really knows. |
6797 | Objective probability of tails measures the bias of the coin, not our beliefs about it [Bird] |
Full Idea: In tossing a coin, the objective probability of tails is a measure of the bias of the coin; the bias and the probability are objective features of the coin, like its mass and shape; these properties have nothing to do with our beliefs about the coin. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.6) | |
A reaction: Despite my reservation that God would not seem to be very interested in the probabilities of coin-tossing, since he knows each outcome with certaintly, this is fairly convincing. God might say that the coin has a 'three-to-two bias'. |
12904 | If varieties of myself can be conceived of as distinct from me, then they are not me [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: I can as little conceive of different varieties of myself as of a circle whose diameters are not all of equal length. These variations would all be distinct one from another, and thus one of these varieties of myself would necessarily not be me. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.05.13) | |
A reaction: This seems to be, at the very least, a rejection of any idea that I could have a 'counterpart'. It is unclear, though, where he would place a version of himself who learned a new language, or who might have had, but didn't have, a haircut. |
11981 | If someone's life went differently, then that would be another individual [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: If the life of some person, or something went differently than it does, nothing would stop us from saying that it would be another person, or another possible universe which God had chosen. So truly it would be another individual. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.14) | |
A reaction: Plantinga quotes this as an example of 'worldbound individuals'. This sort of remark leads to people saying that Leibniz believes all properties are essential, since they assume that his notion of essence is bound up with identity. But is it? |
12905 | I cannot think my non-existence, nor exist without being myself [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: I am assured that as long as I think, I am myself. For I cannot think that I do not exist, nor exist so that I be not myself. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.05.13) | |
A reaction: Elsewhere he qualifies the Cogito, but here he seems to straighforwardly endorse it. |
19334 | I can't just know myself to be a substance; I must distinguish myself from others, which is hard [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: It is not enough for understanding the nature of myself, that I feel myself to be a thinking substance, one would have to form a distinct idea of what distinguishes me from all other possible minds; but of that I have only a confused experience. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14) | |
A reaction: Not a criticism I have encountered before. Does he mean that I might be two minds, or might be a multitude of minds? It seems to be Hume's problem, that you are aware of experiences, but not of the substance that unites them. |
6800 | Many philosophers rate justification as a more important concept than knowledge [Bird] |
Full Idea: Many philosophers take the notion of justification to be more important or more basic than the concept of knowledge. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.7) | |
A reaction: Intriguing. Given the obvious social and conventional element in 'knowledge' ("do we agree that the candidate really knows the answer?"), justification may well be closer to where the real action is. 'Logos', after all, is at the heart of philosophy. |
5033 | Nothing should be taken as certain without foundations [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Nothing should be taken as certain without foundations. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30) | |
A reaction: This might leave open the option, if you were a modern 'Fallibilist', that something might lack foundations, and so not be certain, and yet still qualify as 'knowledge'. That is my view. Knowledge resides somewhere between opinion and certainty. |
6786 | As science investigates more phenomena, the theories it needs decreases [Bird] |
Full Idea: A remarkable fact about modern science is that as the number of phenomena which science has investigated has grown, the number of theories needed to explain them has decreased. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: This rebuts the idea that theories are probably false because we are unlikely to have thought of the right one (Idea 6784). More data suggests more theories, yet we end up with fewer theories. Why is simplification of theories possible? |
6792 | If theories need observation, and observations need theories, how do we start? [Bird] |
Full Idea: If we cannot know the truth of theories without observation, and we cannot know the truth of observations without theories, where do we start? | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.5) | |
A reaction: See Idea 6793. You make a few observations, under the illusion that they are objective, then formulate a promising theory, then go back and deconstruct the observations, then tighten up the theory, and so on. |
6757 | Explanation predicts after the event; prediction explains before the event [Bird] |
Full Idea: Explanation is prediction after the event and prediction is explanation before the event. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: A nice slogan, fitting Hempel's 'covering law' view of explanation. It doesn't seem quite right, because explanations and predictions are couched in very different language. Prediction implies an explanation; explanation implies a prediction. |
6805 | Relativity ousted Newtonian mechanics despite a loss of simplicity [Bird] |
Full Idea: The theories of relativity ousted Newtonian mechanics despite a loss of simplicity. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998]) | |
A reaction: This nicely demonstrates that simplicity is not essential, even if it is desirable. The point applies to the use of Ockham's Razor (Idea 6806), and to Hume's objection to miracles (Idea 2227), where strange unnatural events may be the truth. |
6777 | Realists say their theories involve truth and the existence of their phenomena [Bird] |
Full Idea: A realist says of their theories that they can be evaluated according to truth, they aim at truth, their success favours their truth, their unobserved entities probably exist, and they would explain the observable phenomena. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: This seems to me to be the only sensible attitude towards scientific theories, even if they do become confusing down at the level of quantum theory. Theories aim to be true explanations. |
6804 | There is no agreement on scientific method - because there is no such thing [Bird] |
Full Idea: I find little concurrence as to what scientific method might actually be - the reason being, I conclude, that there is no such thing. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.8) | |
A reaction: I take the essence of science to be two things: first, becoming very fussy about empirical evidence; second, setting up controlled conditions to get at the evidence that seems to be needed. I agree that there seems to be no distinctive way of thinking. |
6778 | Instrumentalists regard theories as tools for prediction, with truth being irrelevant [Bird] |
Full Idea: Instrumentalism is so called because it regards theories not as attempts to describe or explain the world, but as instruments for making predictions; for the instrumentalist, asking about the truth of a theory is a conceptual mistake. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: It cannot be denied that theories are used to make predictions, and there is nothing wrong with being solely interested in predictions. I cannot make head or tail of the idea that truth is irrelevant. Why is a given theory so successful? |
6775 | Induction is inference to the best explanation, where the explanation is a law [Bird] |
Full Idea: Induction can be seen as inference to the best explanation, where the explanation is a law. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: I like this. I increasingly think of explanation as central to rational thought, as the key route for empiricists to go beyond their immediate and verifiable experience. Laws can be probabilistic. |
6790 | Anything justifying inferences from observed to unobserved must itself do that [Bird] |
Full Idea: Whatever could do the job of justifying an inference from the observed to the unobserved must itself be an inference from the observed to the unobserved. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.5) | |
A reaction: We must first accept that the unobserved might not be like the observed, no matter how much regularity we have, so it can't possibly be a logical 'inference'. Essences generate regularities, but non-essences may not. |
6791 | If Hume is right about induction, there is no scientific knowledge [Bird] |
Full Idea: If Hume is right about induction then there is no scientific knowledge. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.5) | |
A reaction: The first step is to recognise that induction is not deductively valid, but that does not make it irrational. If something happens five times, get ready for the sixth. If we discover the necessary features of nature, we can predict the future. |
6738 | Any conclusion can be drawn from an induction, if we use grue-like predicates [Bird] |
Full Idea: It looks as if any claim about the future can be made to be a conclusion of an inductive argument from any premises about the past, as long as we use a strange enough grue-like predicate. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Intro) | |
A reaction: So don't use strange grue-like predicates. If all our predicates randomly changed their reference each day, we would be unable to talk to one another at all. Emeralds don't change their colour-properties, so why change the predicates that refer to them? |
6739 | Several months of observing beech trees supports the deciduous and evergreen hypotheses [Bird] |
Full Idea: If someone were to observe beech trees every day over one summer they would have evidence that seems to support both the hypothesis that beech trees are deciduous and the hypothesis that they are evergreens. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Intro) | |
A reaction: Bird offers this to anyone who (like me) is tempted to dismiss the 'grue' problem as ridiculous. Obviously he is right; 'deciduous' works like 'grue'. But we invented the predicate 'deciduous' to match an observed property. |
6799 | We normally learn natural kinds from laws, but Goodman shows laws require prior natural kinds [Bird] |
Full Idea: We know what natural kinds there are by seeing which properties appear in the laws of nature. But one lesson of Goodman's problem is that we cannot identify the laws of nature without some prior identification of natural kinds. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.7) | |
A reaction: For Goodman's problem, see Idea 4783. The essentialist view is that the natural kinds come first, and the so-called 'laws' are just regularities in events that arise from the interaction of stable natural kinds. (Keep predicates and properties separate). |
6798 | Bayesianism claims to find rationality and truth in induction, and show how science works [Bird] |
Full Idea: Keen supporters of Bayesianism say it can show how induction is rational and can lead to truth, and it can reveal the underlying structure of actual scientific reasoning. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.6) | |
A reaction: See Idea 2798 for Bayes' Theorem. I find it intuitively implausible that our feeling for probabilities could be reduced to precise numbers, given the subjective nature of the numbers we put into the equation. |
6752 | The objective component of explanations is the things that must exist for the explanation [Bird] |
Full Idea: There is an 'objective', non-epistemic component to explanations, consisting of the things that must exist for A to be able to explain B, and the relations those things have to one another. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: There seems to be some question-begging here, in that you have to decide what explanation you are after before you can decide which existences are of interest. There are objective facts, though, about what causally links to what. |
6754 | We talk both of 'people' explaining things, and of 'facts' explaining things [Bird] |
Full Idea: We talk both of 'people' explaining things, and of 'facts' explaining things. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: An important point, and it is the job of philosophers to pull the two apart. How we talk does not necessarily show how it is. The concept of explanation is irrelevant in a universe containing no minds, or one containing only God. People seek the facts. |
12913 | Nature is explained by mathematics and mechanism, but the laws rest on metaphysics [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: One must always explain nature along mathematical and mechanical lines, provided one knows that the very principles or laws of mechanics or of force do not depend upon mathematical extension alone but upon certain metaphysical reasons. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
A reaction: I like this, and may even use it as the epigraph of my masterwork. Recently Stephen Hawking (physicist) has been denigrating philosophy, but I am with Leibniz on this one. |
6750 | Explanations are causal, nomic, psychological, psychoanalytic, Darwinian or functional [Bird] |
Full Idea: Explanations can be classified as causal, nomic, psychological, psychoanalytic, Darwinian and functional. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: These could be subdivided, perhaps according to different types of cause. Personally, being a reductionist (like David Lewis, see Idea 3989), I suspect that all of these explanations could be reduced to causation. Essences explain causes. |
6761 | Contrastive explanations say why one thing happened but not another [Bird] |
Full Idea: A 'contrastive explanation' explains why one thing happened but not another. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: If I explain why the ship sank, is this contrastive, or just causal, or both? Am I explaining why it sank rather than turned into a giraffe? An interesting concept, but I can't see myself making use of it. |
6758 | 'Covering law' explanations only work if no other explanations are to be found [Bird] |
Full Idea: The fact that something fits the 'covering law' model of explanation is no guarantee that it is an explanation, for that depends on what other explanations are there to be found. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: He gives Achinstein's example of a poisoned man who is run over by a bus. It has to be a basic requirement of explanations that they are the 'best', and not just something that fits a formula. |
6759 | Livers always accompany hearts, but they don't explain hearts [Bird] |
Full Idea: All animals with a liver also have a heart; so we can deduce from this plus the existence of Fido's liver that he also has a heart, but his liver does not explain why he has a heart. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: This is a counterexample to Hempel's deductive-nomological view of explanation. It seems a fairly decisive refutation of any attempt to give a simple rule for explaining things. Different types of explanation compete, and there is a subjective element. |
13089 | To fully conceive the subject is to explain the resulting predicates and events [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Even in the most contingent truths, there is always something to be conceived in the subject which serves to explain why this predicate or event pertains to it, or why this has happened rather than not. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.06) | |
A reaction: The last bit, about containing what has happened, seems absurd, but the rest of it makes sense. It is just the Aristotelian essentialist view, that a full understanding of the inner subject will both explain and predict the surface properties. |
6756 | Probabilistic-statistical explanations don't entail the explanandum, but makes it more likely [Bird] |
Full Idea: The probabilistic-statistical view of explanation (also called inductive-statistical explantion) is similar to deductive-nomological explanation, but instead of entailing the explanandum a probabilistic-statistical explantion makes it very likely. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: If people have umbrellas up, does that explain rain? Does the presence of a psychopath in the audience explain why I don't go to a rock concert? Still, it has a point. |
6760 | An operation might reduce the probability of death, yet explain a death [Bird] |
Full Idea: An operation for cancer might lead to a patient's death, and so it explains the patient's death while at the same time reducing the probability of death. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: This attacks Hempel's 'covering law' approach. Increasing probability of something clearly does not necessarily explain it, though it often will. Feeding you contaminated food will increase the probability of your death, and may cause it. |
6785 | Inference to the Best Explanation is done with facts, so it has to be realist [Bird] |
Full Idea: Explanation of a fact is some other fact or set of facts. And so Inference to the Best Explanation is inference to facts; someone who employs it cannot but take a realist attitude to a theory which is preferred on these grounds. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: So my personal commitment to abduction is entailed by my realism, and my realism is entailed by my belief in the possibility of abduction. We can't explain the properties of a table just by referring to our experiences of tables. |
6788 | Maybe bad explanations are the true ones, in this messy world [Bird] |
Full Idea: It is objected to 'best explanation' that this may well not be the best of all possible worlds - so why think that the best explanation is true? Maybe bad (complicated, unsystematic and weak) explanations are true. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: The only rebuttal of this objection to best explanation seems to be a priori. It would just seem an odd situation if very simple explanations fitted the facts and yet were false, like the points on a graph being a straight line by pure coincidence. |
6787 | Which explanation is 'best' is bound to be subjective, and no guide to truth [Bird] |
Full Idea: It is objected to 'best explanation' that beauty is in the eye of the beholder - the goodness of possible explanations is subjective, and so the choice of best explanation is also subjective, and hence not a suitable guide to truth. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: Explanation is indeed dependent both on the knowledge of the person involved, and on their interests. That doesn't, though, mean that you can choose any old explanation. Causal networks are features of the world. |
6751 | Maybe explanation is so subjective that it cannot be a part of science [Bird] |
Full Idea: Some philosophers have thought that explanation is hopelessly subjective, so subjective even that it is should have no part in proper science. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: God requires no explanations, and children require many. If fundamental explanations are causal, then laying bare the causal chains is the explanation, whether you want it or not. God knows all the explanations. See Idea 6752. |
5034 | Mind is a thinking substance which can know God and eternal truths [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Minds are substances which think, and are capable of knowing God and of discovering eternal truths. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.10.09) | |
A reaction: 'God' is there because the ability to grasp the ontological argument is seen as basic. Note a firm commitment to substance-dualism, and a rationalist commitment to the spotting of necessary truths as basic. He is not totally wrong. |
5032 | It seems probable that animals have souls, but not consciousness [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: It appears probable that the brutes have souls, though they are without consciousness. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.12.08) | |
A reaction: This will be a response to Descartes, who allowed animals sensations, but not minds or souls. Personally I cannot make head or tail of Leibniz's claim. What makes it "apparent" to him? |
5031 | Everything which happens is not necessary, but is certain after God chooses this universe [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: It is not the case that everything which happens is necessary; rather, everything which happens is certain after God made choice of this possible universe, whose notion contains this series of things. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.05) | |
A reaction: I think this distinction is best captured as 'metaphysical necessity' (Leibniz's 'necessity'), and 'natural necessity' (his 'certainty'). 'Certainty' seems a bad word, as it is either certain de dicto or de re. Is God certain, or is the thing certain? |
12911 | Concepts are what unite a proposition [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: There must always be some basis for the connexion between the terms of a proposition, and it is to be found in their concepts. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
A reaction: We face the problem that bothered Russell, of the unity of the proposition. We are also led to the question of HOW our concepts connect the parts of a proposition. Do concepts have valencies? Are they incomplete, as Frege suggests? |
12925 | Beauty increases with familiarity [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: The more one is familiar with things, the more beautiful one finds them. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1688.01.4/14) | |
A reaction: This is always the reply given to those who say that science kills our sense of beauty. The first step in aesthetic life is certainly to really really pay attention to things. |
12927 | Happiness is advancement towards perfection [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Happiness, or lasting contentment, consists of continual advancement towards a greater perfection. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1690.03.23) | |
A reaction: To the modern mind this smacks of the sort of hubris to which only the religious mind can aspire, but it's still rather nice. The idea of grubby little mammals approaching perfection sounds wrong, but which other animal has even thought of perfection? |
13304 | Learned men gain more in one day than others do in a lifetime [Posidonius] |
Full Idea: In a single day there lies open to men of learning more than there ever does to the unenlightened in the longest of lifetimes. | |
From: Posidonius (fragments/reports [c.95 BCE]), quoted by Seneca the Younger - Letters from a Stoic 078 | |
A reaction: These remarks endorsing the infinite superiority of the educated to the uneducated seem to have been popular in late antiquity. It tends to be the religions which discourage great learning, especially in their emphasis on a single book. |
15955 | I think the corpuscular theory, rather than forms or qualities, best explains particular phenomena [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: I still subscribe fully to the corpuscular theory in the explanation of particular phenomena; in this sphere it is of no value to speak of forms or qualities. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 14.07.1686) | |
A reaction: I am puzzled by Garber's summary in Idea 12728, and a bit unclear on Leibniz's views on atoms. More needed. |
6767 | Rubies and sapphires are both corundum, with traces of metals varying their colours [Bird] |
Full Idea: Both rubies (valuable) and sapphires (less valuable) are corundum (Al2O3), differing only in their colours, for which traces of iron, titanium and chomium are responsible. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: A nice example which illustrates how natural kinds determined by nominal essence could be drastically different from those suggested by real essence. It certainly suggests that corundum might be a natural kind, but ruby isn't. |
6768 | Tin is not one natural kind, but appears to be 21, depending on isotope [Bird] |
Full Idea: If real essences are decided by microstructure, then what we call the element tin is not a natural kind, but a mixture of 21 different kinds, one for each isotope. There also exist two different allotropes of tin - white tin and grey tin. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: This example vividly brings out the difficulties of the Kripke-Putnam view. If natural kinds 'overlap', then there would be a very extensive overlap among the 21 isotopes of tin. |
6770 | Membership of a purely random collection cannot be used as an explanation [Bird] |
Full Idea: One might randomly collect diverse things and give the collection a name, but one would not expect it to explain anything to say that a certain object belonged to this collection. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: This is in support of Bird's view that natural kinds are formulated because of their explanatory role. There is, though, an undeniable subjective aspect to explanation, in that explanations arise from the ignorance and interests of persons. |
6771 | Natural kinds may overlap, or be sub-kinds of one another [Bird] |
Full Idea: It seems clear that in some cases one natural kind may be a subkind of another, while in other cases natural kinds may overlap without one being the subkind of another. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: Given the enormous difficulty of pinpointing natural kinds (e.g. Idea 6768), it is hard to know whether the comment is correct or not. Ellis says natural kinds come 'in hierarchies', which would make subkinds normal, but overlapping unlikely. |
6776 | Natural kinds are those that we use in induction [Bird] |
Full Idea: Natural kinds are the kinds one should make use of in inductive inference (if that is explanation which leads to laws). | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: The problem with this is that it is epistemological rather than ontological. In induction we use superficial resemblences that are immediately obvious, whereas the nature of kinds can be buried deep in the chemistry or physics. |
6773 | If F is a universal appearing in a natural law, then Fs form a natural kind [Bird] |
Full Idea: The proposal is that if F is a universal appearing in some natural law, then Fs form a natural kind. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: Such proposals always invite the question 'What is it about F that enables it to be a universal in a natural law?' Nothing can be ultimately defined simply by its role. The character (essence, even) of the thing makes the role possible. |
6769 | In the Kripke-Putnam view only nuclear physicists can know natural kinds [Bird] |
Full Idea: In the Kripke-Putnam view, it is very difficult for anyone except nuclear physicists to pick out natural kinds, since everything else is made out of compounds of different isotopes. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: The concept of a rigid 'natural kind' does not have to be sacred. Tin might be considered a natural kind, despite having 21 isotopes. What matters is protons, not the neutrons. |
6774 | Darwinism suggests that we should have a native ability to detect natural kinds [Bird] |
Full Idea: Creatures that are able to recognise natural kinds and laws have a selective advantage, so Darwinism suggests that we should have some native ability to detect natural kinds. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: This seems right, but it makes 'natural kind' a rather instrumental concept, relative to our interests. True natural kinds cut across our interests, as when we discover by anatomy that whales are not fish, or that rubies and sapphires are both corundum. |
6764 | Nominal essence of a natural kind is the features that make it fit its name [Bird] |
Full Idea: The nominal essence of a natural kind K consists of those features a thing must have to deserve the name 'a K' by virtue of the meaning of that name. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: Some people think 'nominal essence' is the only essence there is, which would make it relative to human languages. The rival view is that there are 'real essences'. I favour the latter view. |
6766 | Jadeite and nephrite are superficially identical, but have different composition [Bird] |
Full Idea: There might be more than one natural kind that shares the same superficial features, …jade, for example, has two forms, jadeite and nephrite, which are similar in superficial properties, but have different chemical composition and structure. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: It might be questioned whether jadeite and nephrite really are natural kinds, either together or separately. |
6808 | Reference to scientific terms is by explanatory role, not by descriptions [Bird] |
Full Idea: I propose that reference to scientific terms, such as natural kinds and theoretical terms, is not determined by a sense or description attached to the term, but by its explanatory role. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.8) | |
A reaction: He gives the example of an electron, which had the same role in electrical theory, despite changes in understanding its nature. One might talk of its 'natural' (causal) role, rather than its 'explanatory' role (which implies a human viewpoint). |
6753 | Laws are more fundamental in science than causes, and laws will explain causes [Bird] |
Full Idea: I think laws are fundamental and where there is a cause there is always a set of laws that encompasses the cause; identifying a cause will never be the final word in an scientific investigation, but will be open to supplementation by the underlying law. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: I think this is wrong. I would say (from the essentialist angle) that essences have causes, and the laws are the regularities that are caused by the essences. If laws are the lowest level of explanation, why these laws and not others? God? |
12907 | Each possible world contains its own laws, reflected in the possible individuals of that world [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: As there exist an infinite number of possible worlds, there exists also an infinite number of laws, some peculiar to one world, some to another, and each individual of any one world contains in the concept of him the laws of his world. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.06) | |
A reaction: Since Leibniz's metaphysics is thoroughly God-driven, he will obviously allow God to create any laws He wishes, and hence scientific essentialism seems to be rejected, even though Leibniz is keen on essences. Unless the stuff is different... |
6762 | Newton's laws cannot be confirmed individually, but only in combinations [Bird] |
Full Idea: None of Newton's laws individually records anything that can be observed; it is only from combinations of Newton's laws that we can derive the measurable motions of bodies. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: This certainly scuppers any traditional positivist approach to how we confirm laws of nature. It invites the possibility that a different combination might fit the same observations. Experiments attempt to isolate laws. |
6763 | Parapsychology is mere speculation, because it offers no mechanisms for its working [Bird] |
Full Idea: Wegener's theory of continental drift was only accepted when the theory of plate tectonics was developed, providing a mechanism. While some correlations exist for parapsychology, lack of plausible mechanisms leaves it as speculation. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: But parapsychology is not even on a par with Wegener's speculation, because his was consistent with known physical laws, whereas parapsychology flatly contradicts them. The so-called correlations are also not properly established. |
6772 | Existence requires laws, as inertia or gravity are needed for mass or matter [Bird] |
Full Idea: I suspect that what we mean by 'mass' and 'matter' depends on our identifying the existence of laws of inertia and gravity; hence the idea of a world without laws is incoherent, for there to be anything at all there must be some laws and some kinds. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: I find this counterintuitive. Reasonably stable existence requires something reasonably like laws. We only understand the physical world because we interact with it. But neither of those is remotely as strong as Bird's claim. |
6746 | There may be many laws, each with only a few instances [Bird] |
Full Idea: It might be that there is a large number of laws each of which has only a small number of instances. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: This is a problem for the Ramsey-Lewis view (Idea 6745) that the laws of nature are a simple, powerful and coherent system. We must be cautious about bringing a priori principles like Ockham's Razor (Idea 3667) to bear on the laws of nature. |
6740 | 'All uranium lumps are small' is a law, but 'all gold lumps are small' is not [Bird] |
Full Idea: 'Uranium lumps have mass of less than 1000 kg' is a law, but 'gold lumps have mass of less than 1000kg' is not a law. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: A nice example. Essentialists talk about the nature of the substances; regularity theorists prefer to talk of nested or connected regularities (e.g. about explosions). In induction, how do you decide what your duty requires you to observe? |
6741 | There can be remarkable uniformities in nature that are purely coincidental [Bird] |
Full Idea: Bode's non-law (of 1772, about the gaps between the planets) shows that there can be remarkable uniformities in nature that are purely coincidental. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: If Bode's law really were confirmed, even for asteroids and newly discovered planets, it might suggest that an explanation really is required, and there is some underlying cause. How likely is the coincidence? Perhaps we have no way of telling. |
6742 | A law might have no instances, if it was about things that only exist momentarily [Bird] |
Full Idea: A law might have no instances at all; for example, about the chemical and electrical behaviour of the transuranic elements, which only exist briefly in laboratories. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: Nice example. We need to distinguish, though, (as Bird reminds us) between laws and theories. We have no theories in this area, but there are counterfactual truths about what the transuranic elements would do in certain circumstances. |
6743 | If laws are just instances, the law should either have gaps, or join the instances arbitrarily [Bird] |
Full Idea: For the simple regularity theorist, the function ought to be a gappy one, leaving out values not actually instantiated; …one function would fit the actual points on the graph as well as any other. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: The 'simple' theorist says there is nothing more to a law than its instances. Clearly Bird is right; if the points line up, we join them with a straight line, making counterfactual assumptions about points which were not actually observed. |
6744 | Where is the regularity in a law predicting nuclear decay? [Bird] |
Full Idea: If a law of nuclear physics says that nuclei of a certain kind have a probability p of decaying within time t, what is the regularity here? | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: Hume gives an answer, in terms of regularities observed among previous instances. Nevertheless the figure p given in the law does not itself have any instances, so the law is predicting something that may never have actually happened before. |
6747 | Laws cannot explain instances if they are regularities, as something can't explain itself [Bird] |
Full Idea: It can be objected that laws cannot do the job of explaining their instances if they are merely regularities, ...because something cannot explain itself. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: A nice point. The objection assumes that a law should explain things, rather than just describing them. I take the model to be smoking-and-cancer; the statistics describe what is happening, but only lung biochemistry will explain it. |
6749 | We can only infer a true regularity if something binds the instances together [Bird] |
Full Idea: We cannot infer a regularity from its instances unless there is something stronger than the regularity itself binding the instances together. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: Spells out the implication of the example in Idea 6748. The reply to this criticism would be that no account can possibly be given of the 'something stronger' than further regularities, at a lower level (e.g. in the physics). |
6748 | Similar appearance of siblings is a regularity, but shared parents is what links them [Bird] |
Full Idea: There may be a regularity of siblings looking similar, but the tie that binds them is not their similarity, but rather their being born of the same parents. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: A nice objection to the regularity view. Regularities, as so often in philosophy (e.g. Idea 1364), may be the evidence or test for a law, rather than the law itself, which requires causal mechanisms, ultimately based (I think) in essences. |
6803 | If we only infer laws from regularities among observations, we can't infer unobservable entities. [Bird] |
Full Idea: If the naïve inductivist says we should see well-established regularities among our observations, and take that to be the law or causal connection…this will not help us to infer the existence of unobservable entities. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.8) | |
A reaction: The obvious solution to this difficulty is an appeal to 'best explanation'. Bird is obviously right that we couldn't survive in the world, let alone do science, if we only acted on what we had actually observed (e.g. many bodies, but not the poison). |
6801 | Accidental regularities are not laws, and an apparent regularity may not be actual [Bird] |
Full Idea: Many actual regularities are not laws (accidental regularities), and many perceived regularities are not actual ones (a summer's worth of observing green leaves). | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.8) | |
A reaction: These problems are not sufficient to refute the regularity view of laws. Accidental regularities can only be short-lived, and perceived regularities support laws without clinching them. There is an awful lot of regularity behind laws concerning gravity. |
6745 | A regularity is only a law if it is part of a complete system which is simple and strong [Bird] |
Full Idea: The systematic (Ramsey-Lewis) regularity theory says that a regularity is a law of nature if and only if it appears as a theorem or axiom in that true deductive system which achieves a best combination of simplicity and strength. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: Personally I don't accept the regularity view of laws, but this looks like the best account anyone has come up with. Individual bunches of regularities can't add up to or demonstrate a law, but coherence with all regularities might do it. |
6802 | With strange enough predicates, anything could be made out to be a regularity [Bird] |
Full Idea: We learned from Goodman's problem that with strange enough predicates anything could be made out to be a regularity. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.8) | |
A reaction: For Goodman's problem, see Idea 4783. The point, as I see it, is that while predicates can be applied arbitrarily (because they are just linguistic), properties cannot, because they are features of the world. Emeralds are green. |
6789 | If flame colour is characteristic of a metal, that is an empirical claim needing justification [Bird] |
Full Idea: I might say that flame colours are a characteristic feature of metals, but this is an empirical proposition which is in part about the unobserved, and stands in need of justification. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.5) | |
A reaction: This draws attention to the fact that essentialism is not just a metaphysical theory, but is also part of the scientific enterprise. Among things to research about metals is the reason why they have a characteristic flame. |
12924 | Motion alone is relative, but force is real, and establishes its subject [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Motion in itself separated from force is merely relative, and one cannot establish its subject. But force is something real and absolute. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1688.01.4/14) | |
A reaction: The striking phrase here is that force enables us to 'establish its subject'. That is, force is at the heart of reality, and hence, through causal relations, individuates objects. That's how I read it. |
6807 | In Newton mass is conserved, but in Einstein it can convert into energy [Bird] |
Full Idea: According to Newton mass is conserved, while in Einstein's theory mass is not conserved but can be converted into and from energy. | |
From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998]) | |
A reaction: Perhaps this is the most fundamental difference between the theories. It certainly suggests that 'mass' was a conventional concept rather than a natural one. Maybe the relative notion of 'weight' is more natural than 'mass'. |
20820 | Time is an interval of motion, or the measure of speed [Posidonius, by Stobaeus] |
Full Idea: Posidonius defined time thus: it is an interval of motion, or the measure of speed and slowness. | |
From: report of Posidonius (fragments/reports [c.95 BCE]) by John Stobaeus - Anthology 1.08.42 | |
A reaction: Hm. Can we define motion or speed without alluding to time? Looks like we have to define them as a conjoined pair, which means we cannot fully understand either of them. |
12909 | Everything, even miracles, belongs to order [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Everything, even miracles, belongs to order. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
A reaction: This is very reminiscent of Plato, for whom there was no more deeply held belief than that the cosmos is essentially orderly. Coincidences are a nice problem, if they are events with no cause. |
5030 | Miracles are extraordinary operations by God, but are nevertheless part of his design [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Miracles, or the extraordinary operations of God, none the less belong within the general order; they are in conformity with the principal designs of God, and consequently are included in the notion of this universe, which is the result of those designs. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.05) | |
A reaction: Some philosophers just make up things to suit themselves. What possible grounds can he have for claiming this? At best this is tautological, saying that, by definition, if anything at all happens, it must be part of God's design. Move on to Hume… |
12912 | Immortality without memory is useless [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Immortality without memory would be useless. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
A reaction: I would say that having a mind of any sort needs memory. The question for immortality is whether it extends back to human life. See 'Wuthering Heights' (c. p90) for someone who remembers Earth as so superior to paradise that they long to return there. |
12917 | The soul is indestructible and always self-aware [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: Not only is the soul indestructible, but it always knows itself and remains self-conscious. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.11) | |
A reaction: Personally I am not even self-aware during much of my sleeping hours, and I would say that I cease to be self-aware if I am totally absorbed in something on which I concentrate. |
12918 | Animals have souls, but lack consciousness [Leibniz] |
Full Idea: It appears probable that animals have souls although they lack consciousness. | |
From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.11) | |
A reaction: Personally I would say that they lack souls but have consciousness, but then I am in no better position to know the answer than Leibniz was. Arnauld asks what would happen to the souls of 100,000 silkworms if they caught fire! |