|
12251
|
Substantial forms are not understood, and explain nothing [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
Clearly no explanation can be given by these substantial forms for any natural action, since their defenders admit that they are occult and that they do not understand them themselves, ...so they explain nothing.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Letters to Regius [1642], 1642.01), quoted by David S. Oderberg - Real Essentialism 267 n5
|
|
A reaction:
[Oderberg gives refs for attack by Locke and Hume, p.66] Descartes' target is Aristotle's hylomorphism. The problem seems to be understanding what Aristotle meant, which is much more than mere 'shape'. More like 'controlling principle'.
|
|
22449
|
When we say 'is red' we don't mean 'seems red to most people' [Foot]
|
|
Full Idea:
One might think that 'is red' means the same as 'seems red to most people', forgetting that when asked if an object is red we look at it to see if it is red, and not in order to estimate the reaction that others will have to it.
|
|
From:
Philippa Foot (Moral Relativism [1979], p.23)
|
|
A reaction:
True, but we are conscious of our own reliability as observers (e.g. if colourblind, or with poor hearing or eyesight). I don't take my glasses off, have a look, and pronounce that the object is blurred. Ordinary language philosophy in action.
|
|
22451
|
All people need affection, cooperation, community and help in trouble [Foot]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a great deal that all men have in common; all need affection, the cooperation of others, a place in a community, and help in trouble.
|
|
From:
Philippa Foot (Moral Relativism [1979], p.33)
|
|
A reaction:
There seem to be some people who don't need affection or a place in a community, though it is hard to imagine them being happy. These kind of facts are the basis for any sensible cognitivist view of ethics. They are basic to Foot's view.
|
|
22452
|
Do we have a concept of value, other than wanting something, or making an effort to get it? [Foot]
|
|
Full Idea:
Do we know what we mean by saying that anything has value, or even that we value it, as opposed to wanting it or being prepared to go to trouble to get it?
|
|
From:
Philippa Foot (Moral Relativism [1979], p.35)
|
|
A reaction:
Well, I value Rembrandt paintings, but have no aspiration to own one (and would refuse it if offered, because I couldn't look after it properly). And 'we' don't want to move the Taj Mahal to London. She has not expressed this good point very well.
|
|
16772
|
An angelic mind would not experience pain, even when connected to a human body [Descartes, by Pasnau]
|
|
Full Idea:
Descartes points out that an angelic mind, even if causally connected to a human body, would not experience the same sort of bodily sensations; it would, instead, simply observe flesh being torn, like a piece of paper.
|
|
From:
report of René Descartes (Letters to Regius [1642], III:493) by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 25.6
|
|
A reaction:
Does that mean that the angel could not have the experience even if it wanted to have it. So they can't pick up a cup either? So they can't make themselves known to us, even if they are desperate to? So the Annunciation never happened?
|