Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'fragments/reports', 'Interview with Baggini and Stangroom' and 'Process Philosophy'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


7 ideas

7. Existence / B. Change in Existence / 2. Processes
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?
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.
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!
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 1. Goodness / g. Consequentialism
Consequentialism wrongly assumes a clear line between an act and its consequences [Crisp,R]
     Full Idea: What is wrong with consequentialism is that it assumes that there is agreement about when an act ends and when its consequences begin.
     From: Roger Crisp (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.31)
     A reaction: I certainly agree that this is a mistake in consequentialism, which has a crude idea of what an action is, though I am not convinced that this is the key fault in the theory. The theory doesn't distinguish acts by people from those by machines.
25. Social Practice / E. Policies / 5. Education / b. Education principles
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.
27. Natural Reality / D. Time / 1. Nature of Time / d. Time as measure
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.
27. Natural Reality / G. Biology / 4. Ecology
Does the environment have value in itself? [Crisp,R]
     Full Idea: The debate which dominates environmental ethics is whether the environment has value in itself.
     From: Roger Crisp (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.37)
     A reaction: I say the answer has to be 'yes'. If it only has value in relation to conscious or human life, it will be difficult to demonstrate that they have value. Pleasure and pain, or wisdom, can't imply value on their own; a bigger picture is needed.