Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'fragments/reports', 'The Nature and Communication of Substance' and 'Ignorance: a Case for Scepticism'

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


9 ideas

13. Knowledge Criteria / C. External Justification / 6. Contextual Justification / b. Invariantism
The meaning of 'know' does not change from courtroom to living room [Unger]
     Full Idea: There is no reason to suppose that the meaning of 'know' changes from the courtroom to the living room and back again; no more than for supposing that 'vacuum' changes from the laboratory to the cannery.
     From: Peter Unger (Ignorance: a Case for Scepticism [1975], 2.1)
     A reaction: I disagree. Lots of words change their meaning (or reference) according to context. Flat, fast, tall, clever. She 'knows a lot' certainly requires a context. The bar of justification goes up and down, and 'knowledge' changes accordingly.
13. Knowledge Criteria / D. Scepticism / 1. Scepticism
No one knows anything, and no one is ever justified or reasonable [Unger]
     Full Idea: I argue for the thesis that no one ever knows about anything, ...and that consequently no one is ever justified or at all reasonable in anything.
     From: Peter Unger (Ignorance: a Case for Scepticism [1975], Intro)
     A reaction: The premiss of his book seems to be that knowledge is assumed to require certainty, and is therefore impossible. Unger has helped push us to a more relaxed and fallibilist attitude to knowledge. 'No one is reasonable' is daft!
13. Knowledge Criteria / D. Scepticism / 4. Demon Scepticism
An evil scientist may give you a momentary life, with totally false memories [Unger]
     Full Idea: The evil scientist might not only be deceiving you with his electrodes; maybe he has just created you with your ostensible memory beliefs and experiences, and for good measure he will immediately destroy you, so in the next moment you no longer exist.
     From: Peter Unger (Ignorance: a Case for Scepticism [1975], 1.12)
     A reaction: This is based on Russell's scepticism about memory (Idea 2792). Even this very train of thought may not exist, if the first half of it was implanted, rather than being developed by you. I cannot see how to dispute this possibility.
17. Mind and Body / A. Mind-Body Dualism / 5. Parallelism
Maybe mind and body are parallel, like two good clocks [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: Two clocks in perfect agreement must be by natural influence, or the control of a craftsman, or their perfect construction at the beginning. Only the third way (of "preestablished harmony" by God) is possible.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (The Nature and Communication of Substance [1690], p.121)
     A reaction: Presumably 'natural influence' would cover the possibility that (unnoticed by you, apparently) one clock is attached to the other clock at the relevant points. If they are unconnected, presumably they are quite unaware of one another's existence.
19. Language / F. Communication / 3. Denial
Contradiction is impossible, since only one side of the argument refers to the true facts [Prodicus, by Didymus the Blind]
     Full Idea: Prodicus insists that contradiction is impossible, since if two people are contradicting each other, they cannot both be speaking of the same fact. Only the one who is speaking the truth is speaking of facts as they are; the other does not speak facts.
     From: report of Prodicus (fragments/reports [c.423 BCE]) by Didymus the Blind - Commentary on Ecclesiastes (frags)
     A reaction: cf. Kant's 100 thalers example
28. God / B. Proving God / 3. Proofs of Evidence / b. Teleological Proof
If the universe is a perfect agreement of uncommunicating substances, there must be a common source [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: The perfect agreement of so many substances which have no communication whatever with each other can only come from a common source.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (The Nature and Communication of Substance [1690], p.120)
28. God / B. Proving God / 3. Proofs of Evidence / c. Teleological Proof critique
People used to think anything helpful to life was a god, as the Egyptians think the Nile a god [Prodicus]
     Full Idea: In the old days people regarded the sun, the moon, rivers, springs, and everything else which is helpful for life as gods, because we are helped by them, just as the Egyptians regard the Nile as a god.
     From: Prodicus (fragments/reports [c.423 BCE], B05), quoted by Sextus Empiricus - Against the Professors (six books) 9.18
28. God / C. Attitudes to God / 5. Atheism
The gods are just personified human benefits [Prodicus]
     Full Idea: Things from which benefits to human life have been derived have come to be considered deities, such as Demeter and Dionysus.
     From: Prodicus (fragments/reports [c.423 BCE], B5), quoted by (who?) - where?
He denied the existence of the gods, saying they are just exaltations of things useful for life [Prodicus]
     Full Idea: He says that the gods worshipped by men neither exist nor have knowledge, but that the ancients exalted crops and everything else which is useful for life.
     From: Prodicus (fragments/reports [c.423 BCE]), quoted by Anon (Herc) - fragments 1428 19.12