26 ideas
21406 | Because there is only one human reason, there can only be one true philosophy from principles [Kant] |
Full Idea: Considered objectively, there can only be one human reason, there cannot be many philosophies; in other words, there can only be one true philosophy from principles, in however many conflicting ways men have philosophised about the same proposition. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], Pref) | |
A reaction: An idea that embodies the Enlightenment ideal. I like the idea that there is one true philosophy, because there is only one world. Kant is talking of philosophy 'from principles', which means his transendental idealism. |
19527 | We don't acquire evidence and then derive some knowledge, because evidence IS knowledge [Williamson] |
Full Idea: When we acquire new evidence in perception, we do not first acquire unknown evidence and then somehow base knowledge on it later. Rather, acquiring new is evidence IS acquiring new knowledge. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.4) | |
A reaction: This makes his point much better than Idea 19526 does. |
19528 | Knowledge is prior to believing, just as doing is prior to trying to do [Williamson] |
Full Idea: Knowing corresponds to doing, believing to trying. Just as trying is naturally understood in relation to doing, so believing is naturally understood in relation to knowing. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.4) | |
A reaction: An interesting analogy. You might infer that there can be no concept of 'belief' without the concept of 'knowledge', but we could say that it is 'truth' which is indispensible, and leave out knowledge entirely. Belief is to truth as trying is to doing? |
19529 | Belief explains justification, and knowledge explains belief, so knowledge explains justification [Williamson] |
Full Idea: If justification is the fundamental epistemic norm of belief, and a belief ought to constitute knowledge, then justification should be understood in terms of knowledge too. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.5) | |
A reaction: If we are looking for the primitive norm which motivates the whole epistemic game, then I am thinking that truth might well play that role better than knowledge. TW would have to reply that it is the 'grasped truth', rather than the 'theoretical truth'. |
19530 | A neutral state of experience, between error and knowledge, is not basic; the successful state is basic [Williamson] |
Full Idea: A neutral state covering both perceiving and misperceiving (or remembering and misrembering) is not somehow more basic than perceiving, for what unifies the case of each neutral state is their relation to the successful state. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.5-6) | |
A reaction: An alternative is Disjunctivism, which denies the existence of a single neutral state, so that there is nothing to unite the two states, and they don't have a dependence relation. Why can't there be a prior family of appearances, some of them successful? |
19531 | Internalism about mind is an obsolete view, and knowledge-first epistemology develops externalism [Williamson] |
Full Idea: A postulated underlying layer of narrow mental states is a myth, whose plausibility derives from a comfortingly familiar but obsolescent philosophy of mind. Knowledge-first epistemology is a further step in the development of externalism. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.6) | |
A reaction: Williamson is a real bruiser, isn't he? I don't take internalism about mind to be obsolescent at all, but now I feel so inferior for clinging to such an 'obsolescent' belief. ...But then I cling to Aristotle, who is (no doubt) an obsolete philosopher. |
19536 | Knowledge-first says your total evidence IS your knowledge [Williamson] |
Full Idea: Knowledge-first equate one's total evidence with one's total knowledge. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.8) | |
A reaction: Couldn't lots of evidence which merely had a high probability be combined together to give a state we would call 'knowledge'? Many dubious witnesses confirm the truth, as long as they are independent, and agree. |
19526 | Surely I am acquainted with physical objects, not with appearances? [Williamson] |
Full Idea: When I ask myself what I am acquainted with, the physical objects in front of me are far more natural candidates than their appearances. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.3) | |
A reaction: Not very impressive. The word 'acquainted' means the content of the experience, not the phenomena. Do I 'experience' the objects, or the appearances? The answer there is less obvious. If you apply it to colours, it is even less obvious. |
21081 | We are equipped with the a priori intuitions needed for the concept of right [Kant] |
Full Idea: Reason has taken care that the understanding is as fully equipped as possible with a priori intuitions for the construction of the concept of right. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], Intro E) | |
A reaction: A priori intuitions are not the same as innate knowledge or innate concepts, but they must require some sort of inbuilt inner resources. Further evidence that Kant is a rationalist philosopher (if we were unsure). |
19534 | How does inferentialism distinguish the patterns of inference that are essential to meaning? [Williamson] |
Full Idea: Inferentialism faces the grave problem of separating patterns of inference that are to count as essential to the meaning of an expression from those that will count as accidental (a form of the analytic/synthetic distinction). | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.6) | |
A reaction: This sounds like a rather persuasive objection to inferentialism, though I don't personally take that as a huge objection to all internalist semantics. |
19535 | Internalist inferentialism has trouble explaining how meaning and reference relate [Williamson] |
Full Idea: The internalist version of inferentialist semantics has particular difficulty in establishing an adequate relation between meaning and reference. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.6) | |
A reaction: I would have thought that this was a big problem for referentialist semantics too, though evidently Williamson doesn't think so. If he is saying that the meaning is in the external world, dream on. |
19533 | Inferentialist semantics relies on internal inference relations, not on external references [Williamson] |
Full Idea: On internalist inferential (or conceptual role) semantics, the inferential relations of an expression do not depend on what, if anything, it refers to, ...rather, the meaning is something like its place in a web of inferential relations. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.6) | |
A reaction: Williamson says the competition is between externalist truth-conditional referential semantics (which he favours), and this internalist inferential semantics. He is, like, an expert, of course, but I doubt whether that is the only internalist option. |
19532 | Truth-conditional referential semantics is externalist, referring to worldly items [Williamson] |
Full Idea: Truth-conditional referential semantics is an externalist programme. In a context of utterance the atomic expressions of a language refer to worldly items, from which the truth-conditions of sentences are compositionally determined. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.6) | |
A reaction: I just don't see how a physical object can be part of the contents of a sentence. 'Dragons fly' is atomic, and meaningful, but its reference fails. 'The cat is asleep' is just words - it doesn't contain a live animal. |
21082 | A power-based state of nature may not be unjust, but there is no justice without competent judges [Kant] |
Full Idea: The state of nature need not be a state of injustice merely because those who live in it treat one another in terms of power. But it is devoid of justice, for if a dispute over right occurs in it, there is no competent judge to give valid decisions. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], §44) | |
A reaction: Could you not achieve justice by means of personal violence? Might not a revered older person have been accepted as a judge? |
21089 | Monarchs have the highest power; autocrats have complete power [Kant] |
Full Idea: A monarch has the highest power, while an autocrat or absolute ruler is one who has all the power. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], §51) | |
A reaction: If society is strictly hierarchical (like an army) then the monarch also has all the power. At the other extreme the one holding the highest power may have very little power, because so many others have their share of the power. |
21086 | Hereditary nobility has not been earned, and probably won't be earned [Kant] |
Full Idea: A hereditary nobility is a distinction bestowed before it is earned, and since it gives no ground for hoping that it will be earned, it is wholly unreal and fanciful. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], §49 Gen D) | |
A reaction: As the controller of the region of a country, a hereditary noble is the embodiment of a ruling family, which is a well established way of running things. Daft, perhaps, but there are probably worse ways of doing it. Single combat, for example. |
21080 | Actions are right if the maxim respects universal mutual freedoms [Kant] |
Full Idea: Every action which by itself or by its maxim enables the freedom of each individual's will to co-exist with the freedom of everyone else in accordance with a universal law is right. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], Intro C) | |
A reaction: This idea shows the moral basis for Kant's liberalism in politics. If all individuals acted without contact or reference to other individuals (a race of hermits) then that would appear to be optimum moral right, by this standard. |
21083 | Women have no role in politics [Kant] |
Full Idea: Women in general …have no civil personality. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], §46) | |
A reaction: In case you were wondering. This is five years after Mary Wollstonecraft's book. |
21407 | Equality is not being bound in ways you cannot bind others [Kant] |
Full Idea: Our innate equality is independence from being bound by others to more than one can in turn bind them. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], Div B) | |
A reaction: This doesn't seem to capture the whole concept. The two of us may be unequally oppressed by a third. We are unequal with the third, but also with one another, though with no binding relationships. |
21084 | In the contract people lose their rights, but immediately regain them, in the new commonwealth [Kant] |
Full Idea: By the original contract all members of the people give up their external freedom in order to receive it back at once as members of a commonweath. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], §47) | |
A reaction: This tries to give the impression that absolutely nothing is lost in the original alienation of rights. It is probably better to say that you give up one set of freedoms, which are replaced by a different (and presumably superior) set. |
21090 | If someone has largely made something, then they own it [Kant] |
Full Idea: Whatever someone has himself substantially made is his own undisputed property. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], §55) | |
A reaction: To this extent Kant offers clear agreement with Locke about a self-evident property right. Ownership of land is the controversial bit. |
21087 | Human life is pointless without justice [Kant] |
Full Idea: If justice perishes, there is no further point in men living on earth. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], §49 Gen E) | |
A reaction: I suspect that human life is also pointless if it only involves justice, and nothing else worthwhile. Are there other things so good that we might sacrifice justice to achieve them? How about maximal utilitarian happiness? |
21088 | Justice asserts the death penalty for murder, from a priori laws [Kant] |
Full Idea: All murderers …must suffer the death penalty. This is what justice, as the idea of judicial power, wills in accordance with universal laws of a priori origin. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], §49 Gen E) | |
A reaction: Illustration of how giving a principle an a priori origin puts it beyond dispute. Kant is adamant that mercy mustn't interfere with the enactment of justice. And Kant obviously rejects any consequentialist approach. Remind me what is wrong with murder? |
21085 | The church has a political role, by offering a supreme power over people [Kant] |
Full Idea: The church [as opposed to religion] fulfils a genuine political necessity, for it enables the people to regard themselves as subjects of an invisible supreme power to which they must pay homage. | |
From: Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals I: Doctrine of Right [1797], §49 Gen C) | |
A reaction: I'm sure I remember Marx putting a different spin on this point… This idea captures the conservative attitude to established religion, at least in the UK. |
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. |