|
8983
|
If 'red' is vague, then membership of the set of red things is vague, so there is no set of red things [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Sets have sharp boundaries, or are sharp objects; an object either definitely belongs to a set, or it does not. But 'red' is vague; there objects which are neither definitely red nor definitely not red. Hence there is no set of red things.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably that will entail that there IS a set of things which can be described as 'definitely red'. If we describe something as 'definitely having a hint of red about it', will that put it in a set? In fact will the applicability of 'definitely' do?
|
|
8986
|
We should abandon classifying by pigeon-holes, and classify around paradigms [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
We must reject the classical picture of classification by pigeon-holes, and think in other terms: classifying can be, and often is, clustering round paradigms.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §8)
|
|
A reaction:
His conclusion to a discussion of the problem of vagueness, where it is identified with concepts which have no boundaries. Pigeon-holes are a nice exemplar of the Enlightenment desire to get everything right. I prefer Aristotle's categories, Idea 3311.
|
|
8984
|
If concepts are vague, people avoid boundaries, can't spot them, and don't want them [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Vague concepts are boundaryless, ...and the manifestations are an unwillingness to draw any such boundaries, the impossibility of identifying such boundaries, and needlessness and even disutility of such boundaries.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
People have a very fine-tuned notion of whether the sharp boundary of a concept is worth discussing. The interesting exception are legal people, who are often forced to find precision where everyone else hates it. Who deserves to inherit the big house?
|
|
8985
|
Boundaryless concepts tend to come in pairs, such as child/adult, hot/cold [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Boundaryless concepts tend to come in systems of contraries: opposed pairs like child/adult, hot/cold, weak/strong, true/false, and complex systems of colour terms. ..Only a contrast with 'adult' will show what 'child' excludes.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
This might be expected. It all comes down to the sorites problem, of when one thing turns into something else. If it won't merge into another category, then presumably the isolated concept stays applicable (until reality terminates it? End of sheep..).
|
|
9072
|
Defining concepts by abstractions will collect together far too many attributes from entities [Barnes,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we create abstractions by collection of attributes common to groups of entities, we will collect far too many attributes, and wrongly put them into the definition (such as 'having hairless palms' when identifying 'men').
|
|
From:
Jonathan Barnes (Commentary on 'Posterior Analytics [1993], n to 97b7)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] Defining 'man' is a hugely complex business (see Idea 1763!), unlike defining 'hair' or 'red'. Some attributes will strike perceivers immediately, but absence of an attribute is not actually 'perceived' at all.
|
|
7590
|
Consequentialism emphasises value rather than obligation in morality [Scruton]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to consequentialism, the fundamental concept of morality is not obligation (deontological ethics) but value (axiological ethics).
|
|
From:
Roger Scruton (A Dictionary of Political Thought [1982], 'consequentialism')
|
|
A reaction:
These two views could come dramatically apart, in wartime, or in big ecological crises, or in a family breakup, or in religious disputes. Having identified the pair so clearly, why can we not aim for a civilised (virtuous) balance between the two?
|
|
7589
|
Altruism is either emotional (where your interests are mine) or moral (where they are reasons for me) [Scruton]
|
|
Full Idea:
Two distinct motives go by the name of altruism: the emotions of liking, love and friendship, making another's interest automatically mine; and the moral motive of respect or considerateness, where another's interests become reasons for me, but not mine.
|
|
From:
Roger Scruton (A Dictionary of Political Thought [1982], 'altruism')
|
|
A reaction:
The second one has a strongly Kantian flavour, with its notion of impersonal duty. Virtue theorists will aspire to achieve the first state rather than the second, because good actions are then actively desired, and give pleasure to the doer.
|
|
7593
|
Liberals focus on universal human freedom, natural rights, and tolerance [Scruton, by PG]
|
|
Full Idea:
Liberalism believes (roughly) in the supremacy of the individual, who has freedom and natural rights; it focuses on human, not divine affairs; it claims rights and duties are universal; and it advocates tolerance in religion and morality.
|
|
From:
report of Roger Scruton (A Dictionary of Political Thought [1982], 'liberalism') by PG - Db (ideas)
|
|
A reaction:
I find it hard to disagree with these principles, but the upshot in practice is often an excessive commitment to freedom and tolerance, because people fail to realise the subtle long-term erosions of society that can result.
|
|
7587
|
The issue of abortion seems insoluble, because there is nothing with which to compare it [Scruton]
|
|
Full Idea:
The issue of abortion is intractable, partly because of the absence of any other case to which it can be assimilated.
|
|
From:
Roger Scruton (A Dictionary of Political Thought [1982], 'abortion')
|
|
A reaction:
This is the legalistic approach to the problem, which always looks for precedents and comparisons. All problems must hav solutions, though (mustn't they?). The problem, though, is not the value of the foetus, but the unique form of 'ownership'.
|