|
5078
|
Kant and Mill both try to explain right and wrong, without a divine lawgiver [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
Kant and Mill were in total agreement in trying to give content to the distinction between moral right and wrong, without recourse to any divine lawgiver.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.14)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice analysis, in tune with MacIntyre and others, who see such attempts as failures. It is hard, however, to deny the claims of rational principles, or of suffering, in our moral framework. I agree with Taylor's move back to virtue, but it ain't simple.
|
|
5067
|
Morality based on 'forbid', 'permit' and 'require' implies someone who does these things [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
If morality is based on wrong (meaning 'forbidden'), right ('permitted'), and obligatory ('required'), we are led to ask 'Who is it that thus permits, forbids or requires that certain things be done or not done?'
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Clear reinforcement for Nietzsche's attack on conventional morals, which Taylor sees as a relic of medieval religious attitudes. Taylor says Kant offered a non-religious version of the same authority. I agree. Back to the Greek pursuit of excellence!
|
|
5079
|
Pleasure can have a location, and be momentary, and come and go - but happiness can't [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
Pleasures can be located in a particular part of the body, and can be momentary, and come and go, but this is not the case with happiness.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.16)
|
|
A reaction:
Probably no one ever thought that pleasure and happiness were actually identical - merely that pleasure is the only cause and source of happiness. These are good objections to that hypothesis. Pleasure simply isn't 'the good'.
|
|
5068
|
'Eudaimonia' means 'having a good demon', implying supreme good fortune [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
The word 'eudaimonia' means literally 'having a good demon', which is apt, because it suggests some kind of supreme good fortune, of the sort which might be thought of as a bestowal.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.5)
|
|
A reaction:
Beware of etymology. This implies that eudaimonia is almost entirely beyond a person's control, but Aristotle doesn't think that. A combination of education and effort can build on some natural gifts to create a fully successful life.
|
|
5077
|
The modern idea of obligation seems to have lost the idea of an obligation 'to' something [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
In modern moral thinking, obligation is something every responsible person is supposed to have, but it is not an obligation to the state, or society, or humanity, or even to God. It is an obligation standing by itself.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.12)
|
|
A reaction:
This nicely pinpoints how some our moral attitudes are relics of religion. Taylor wants a return to virtue, but one could respond by opting for the social contract (with very clear obligations) or Kantian 'contractualism' (answering to rational beings).
|
|
5066
|
If we are made in God's image, pursuit of excellence is replaced by duty to obey God [Taylor,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
Once people are declared to be images of God, just by virtue of minimal humanity, they have, therefore, no greater individual excellence to aspire to, and their purpose became one of obligation, that is, obedience to God's will.
|
|
From:
Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.2)
|
|
A reaction:
An interesting and plausible historical analysis. There is a second motivation for the change, though, in Grotius's desire to develop a more legalistic morality, focusing on actions rather than character. Taylor's point is more interesting, though.
|
|
12759
|
There are atoms of substance, but no atoms of bulk or extension [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk [moles], that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §11)
|
|
A reaction:
Leibniz has a constant battle for the rest of his career to explain what these 'atoms of substance' are, since they have location but no extension, they are self-sufficient yet generate force, and are non-physical but interact with matter.
|
|
12718
|
Secondary matter is active and complete; primary matter is passive and incomplete [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
I understand matter as either secondary or primary. Secondary matter is, indeed, a complete substance, but it is not merely passive; primary matter is merely passive, but it is not a complete substance. So we must add a soul or form...
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §12), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 4
|
|
A reaction:
It sounds as if primary matter is redundant, but Garber suggests that secondary matter is just the combination of primary matter with form.
|
|
11854
|
If there is some trace of God in things, that would explain their natural force [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the law of God does indeed leave some vestige of him expressed in things...then it must be granted that there is a certain efficacy residing in things, a form or force such as we usually designate by the name of nature, from which the phenomena follow.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §06)
|
|
A reaction:
I wouldn't rate this as a very promising theory of powers, but it seems to me important that Leibniz recognises the innate power in things as needing explanation. If you remove divine power, you are left with unexplained intrinsic powers.
|
|
12758
|
It is plausible to think substances contain the same immanent force seen in our free will [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we attribute an inherent force to our mind, a force acting immanently, then nothing forbids us to suppose that the same force would be found in other souls or forms, or, if you prefer, in the nature of substances.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §10)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the kind of bizarre idea that you are driven to, once you start thinking that God must have a will outside nature, and then that we have the same thing. Why shouldn't such a thing pop up all over the place? Only Leibniz spots the slippery slope.
|
|
5994
|
Is the cosmos open or closed, mechanical or teleological, alive or inanimate, and created or eternal? [Robinson,TM, by PG]
|
|
Full Idea:
The four major disputes in classical cosmology were whether the cosmos is 'open' or 'closed', whether it is explained mechanistically or teleologically, whether it is alive or mere matter, and whether or not it has a beginning.
|
|
From:
report of T.M. Robinson (Classical Cosmology (frags) [1997]) by PG - Db (ideas)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice summary. The standard modern view is closed, mechanistic, inanimate and non-eternal. But philosophers can ask deeper questions than physicists, and I say we are entitled to speculate when the evidence runs out.
|
|
19408
|
To say that nature or the one universal substance is God is a pernicious doctrine [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
To say that nature itself or the substance of all things is God is a pernicious doctrine, recently introduced into the world or renewed by a subtle or profane author.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], 8)
|
|
A reaction:
The dastardly profane author is, of course, Spinoza, whom Leibniz had met in 1676. The doctrine may be pernicious to religious orthodoxy, but to me it is rather baffling, since in my understanding nature and God have almost nothing in common.
|