9 ideas
20062 | If a desire leads to a satisfactory result by an odd route, the causal theory looks wrong [Chisholm] |
Full Idea: If someone wants to kill his uncle to inherit a fortune, and having this desire makes him so agitated that he loses control of his car and kills a pedestrian, who turns out to be his uncle, the conditions of the causal theory seem to be satisfied. | |
From: Roderick Chisholm (Freedom and Action [1966]), quoted by Rowland Stout - Action 6 'Deviant' | |
A reaction: This line of argument has undermined all sorts of causal theories that were fashionable in the 1960s and 70s. Explanation should lead to understanding, but a deviant causal chain doesn't explain the outcome. The causal theory can be tightened. |
20054 | There has to be a brain event which is not caused by another event, but by the agent [Chisholm] |
Full Idea: There must be some event A, presumably some cerebral event, which is not caused by any other event, but by the agent. | |
From: Roderick Chisholm (Freedom and Action [1966], p.20), quoted by Rowland Stout - Action 4 'Agent' | |
A reaction: I'm afraid this thought strikes me as quaintly ridiculous. What kind of metaphysics can allow causation outside the natural nexus, yet occuring within the physical brain? This is a relic of religious dualism. Let it go. |
18225 | If we can't reason about value, we can reason about the unconditional source of value [Korsgaard] |
Full Idea: If you can only know what is intrinsically valuable through intuition (as Moore claims), you can still argue about what is unconditionally valuable. There must be something unconditionally valuable because there must be a source of value. | |
From: Christine M. Korsgaard (Aristotle and Kant on the Source of Value [1986], 8 'Three') | |
A reaction: If you only grasped the values through intuition, does that give you enough information to infer the dependence relations between values? |
18228 | An end can't be an ultimate value just because it is useless! [Korsgaard] |
Full Idea: If what is final is whatever is an end but never a means, ...why should something be more valuable just because it is useless? | |
From: Christine M. Korsgaard (Aristotle and Kant on the Source of Value [1986], 8 'Finality') | |
A reaction: Korsgaard is offering this as a bad reading of what Aristotle intends. |
18224 | Goodness is given either by a psychological state, or the attribution of a property [Korsgaard] |
Full Idea: 'Subjectivism' identifies good ends with or by reference to some psychological state. ...'Objectivism' says that something is good as an end if a property, intrinsic goodness, is attributed to it. | |
From: Christine M. Korsgaard (Aristotle and Kant on the Source of Value [1986], 8 'Three') |
18233 | Contemplation is final because it is an activity which is not a process [Korsgaard] |
Full Idea: It is because contemplation is an activity that is not also a process that Aristotle identifies it as the most final good. | |
From: Christine M. Korsgaard (Aristotle and Kant on the Source of Value [1986], 8 'Activity') | |
A reaction: Quite a helpful way of labelling what Aristotle has in mind. So should we not aspire to be involved in processes, except reluctantly? I take the mind itself to be a process, so that may be difficult! |
18226 | For Aristotle, contemplation consists purely of understanding [Korsgaard] |
Full Idea: Contemplation, as Aristotle understand it, is not research or inquiry, but an activity that ensues on these: an activity that consists in understanding. | |
From: Christine M. Korsgaard (Aristotle and Kant on the Source of Value [1986], 8 'Aristotle') | |
A reaction: Fairly obvious, when you read the last part of 'Ethics', but helpful in grasping Aristotle, because understanding is the objective of 'Posterior Analytics' and 'Metaphysics', so he tells you how to achieve the ideal moral state. |
16713 | Philosophers are the forefathers of heretics [Tertullian] |
Full Idea: Philosophers are the forefathers of heretics. | |
From: Tertullian (works [c.200]), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 20.2 |
6610 | I believe because it is absurd [Tertullian] |
Full Idea: I believe because it is absurd ('Credo quia absurdum est'). | |
From: Tertullian (works [c.200]), quoted by Robert Fogelin - Walking the Tightrope of Reason n4.2 | |
A reaction: This seems to be a rather desperate remark, in response to what must have been rather good hostile arguments. No one would abandon the support of reason if it was easy to acquire. You can't deny its engaging romantic defiance, though. |