|
15998
|
Perfect love is not in spite of imperfections; the imperfections must be loved as well [Kierkegaard]
|
|
Full Idea:
To love another in spite of his weaknesses and errors and imperfections is not perfect love. No, to love is to find him lovable in spite of, and together with, his weaknesses and errors and imperfections.
|
|
From:
Søren Kierkegaard (Works of Love [1847], p.158)
|
|
A reaction:
A true romantic at heart, Kierkegaard ideally posits perfect love as unconditional love, and not just of good attributes, predicates and conditions. However, the real question for both me and Kierkegaard is, is perfect love desirable or even possible?[SY]
|
|
11904
|
Express natural kinds as a posteriori predicate connections, not as singular terms [Putnam, by Mackie,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
Putnam implies dispensing with the designation of natural kinds by singular terms in favour of the postulation of necessary but a posteriori connections between predicates. ...We might call this 'predicate essentialism', but not 'de re essentialism'.
|
|
From:
report of Hilary Putnam (Explanation and Reference [1973]) by Penelope Mackie - How Things Might Have Been 10.1
|
|
A reaction:
It is characteristic of modern discussion that the logical form of natural kind statements is held to be crucial, rather than an account of nature in any old ways that do the job. So do I prefer singular terms, or predicate-connections. Hm.
|
|
8404
|
Explain single events by general rules, or vice versa, or probability explains both, or they are unconnected [Field,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some think singular causal claims should be explained in terms of general causal claims; some think the order should be reversed; some think a third thing (e.g. objective probability) will explain both; and some think they are only loosely connected.
|
|
From:
Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
I think Ducasse gives the best account, which is the second option, of giving singular causal claims priority. Probability (Mellor) strikes me as a non-starter, and the idea that they are fairly independent seems rather implausible.
|
|
8401
|
Physical laws are largely time-symmetric, so they make a poor basis for directional causation [Field,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is sometimes pointed out that (perhaps with a few minor exceptions) the fundamental physical laws are completely time-symmetric. If so, then if one is inclined to found causation on fundamental physical law, it isn't evident how directionality gets in.
|
|
From:
Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
All my instincts tell me that causation is more fundamental than laws, and that directionality is there at the start. That, though, raises the nice question of how, if causation explains laws, the direction eventually gets left OUT!
|
|
8402
|
The only reason for adding the notion of 'cause' to fundamental physics is directionality [Field,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
Although it is true that the notion of 'cause' is not needed in fundamental physics, even statistical physics, still directionality considerations don't preclude this notion from being consistently added to fundamental physics.
|
|
From:
Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
This only makes sense if the notion of cause already has directionality built into it, which I think is correct. The physicist might reply that they don't care about directionality, but the whole idea of an experiment seems to depend on it (Idea 8363).
|