11 ideas
20349 | Metaphysics aims at the essence of things, and a system to show how this explains other truths [Richardson] |
Full Idea: The core of metaphysics is an account of the 'essence' or 'being' of things. ...And metaphysics needs system, to show how these primary truths reach out into all the other truths, to help us see that, and how, they are true. | |
From: John Richardson (Nietzsche's System [2002], Intro) | |
A reaction: I like the phrase 'the essential nature' of things, because it doesn't invoke rather dodgy entities called 'essences', but everyone understands the idea of focusing on what is essential, and on things having a distinct 'nature'. |
20351 | Metaphysics needs systems, because analysis just obsesses over details [Richardson] |
Full Idea: Metaphysics makes system a virtue, contrary to the tendency of analysis, which breaks a problem into ever finer parts and then absorbs itself in these. | |
From: John Richardson (Nietzsche's System [2002], Intro) | |
A reaction: I disagree, because it seems to rule out analytic metaphysics. I prefer Bertrand Russell's view. Admittedly analysis oftens gets stuck in the bog, especially if it hopes for salvation in logic, only to discover its certainties endlessly receding. |
20350 | Metaphysics generalises the data, to get at the ontology [Richardson] |
Full Idea: The evidence lies at the periphery of the [metaphysical] system and runs in from there, through decreasingly specific accounts of the data, to the central ontology. | |
From: John Richardson (Nietzsche's System [2002], Intro) | |
A reaction: Philosophy is the study of high level generalisations, IMHO. Studying them means studying the reasons for asserting them. Richardson puts it very nicely. |
12430 | Classical logic is our preconditions for assessing empirical evidence [Kitcher] |
Full Idea: In my terminology, classical logic (or at least, its most central tenets) consists of propositional preconditions for our assessing empirical evidence in the way we do. | |
From: Philip Kitcher (A Priori Knowledge Revisited [2000], §VII) | |
A reaction: I like an even stronger version of this - that classical logic arises out of our experiences of things, and so we are just assessing empirical evidence in terms of other (generalised) empirical evidence. Logic results from induction. Very unfashionable. |
12431 | I believe classical logic because I was taught it and use it, but it could be undermined [Kitcher] |
Full Idea: I believe the laws of classical logic, in part because I was taught them, and in part because I think I see how those laws are used in assessing evidence. But my belief could easily be undermined by experience. | |
From: Philip Kitcher (A Priori Knowledge Revisited [2000], §VII) | |
A reaction: Quine has one genuine follower! The trouble is his first sentence would fit witch-doctoring just as well. Kitcher went to Cambridge; I hope he doesn't just believe things because he was taught them, or because he 'sees how they are used'! |
12428 | Many necessities are inexpressible, and unknowable a priori [Kitcher] |
Full Idea: There are plenty of necessary truths that we are unable to express, let alone know a priori. | |
From: Philip Kitcher (A Priori Knowledge Revisited [2000], §II) | |
A reaction: This certainly seems to put paid to any simplistic idea that the a priori and the necessary are totally coextensive. We might, I suppose, claim that all necessities are a priori for the Archangel Gabriel (or even a very bright cherub). Cf. Idea 12429. |
12429 | Knowing our own existence is a priori, but not necessary [Kitcher] |
Full Idea: What is known a priori may not be necessary, if we know a priori that we ourselves exist and are actual. | |
From: Philip Kitcher (A Priori Knowledge Revisited [2000], §II) | |
A reaction: Compare Idea 12428, which challenges the inverse of this relationship. This one looks equally convincing, and Kripke adds other examples of contingent a priori truths, such as those referring to the metre rule in Paris. |
20356 | Humans dominate because, unlike other animals, they have a synthesis of conflicting drives [Richardson] |
Full Idea: In contrast to the other animals, man has cultivated an abundance of contrary drives and impulses within himself: thanks to this synthesis, he is master of the earth. | |
From: John Richardson (Nietzsche's System [2002], §966) | |
A reaction: If this is true, it presents the fundamental challenge of politicial philosophy - to visual a successful social system for a creature which does not have a clear and focused nature. For Nietzsche, this 'synthesis' continually evolves. |
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. |
20366 | A mind that could see cause and effect as a continuum would deny cause and effect [Richardson] |
Full Idea: An intellect that could see cause and effect as a continuum and a flux, and not, as we do, in terms of an arbitrary division and dismemberment, would repudiate the concept of cause and effect. | |
From: John Richardson (Nietzsche's System [2002], §112) | |
A reaction: Maybe we do see it as a continuum? The racket swings and the ball is propelled, but the contact is a unity, not two separate events. |
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. |