13 ideas
19690 | 'Grasping' a structure seems to be modal, because we must anticipate its behaviour [Grimm] |
Full Idea: 'Graspng' a structure would seem to bring into play something like a modal sense or ability, not just to register how things are, but also to anticipate how certain elements of the system would behave. | |
From: Stephen R. Grimm (Understanding [2011], 2) | |
A reaction: In the case of the chronology of some historical events, talking of 'grasping' or 'understanding' seems wrong because the facts are static and invariant. That seems to support the present idea. But you might 'understand' a pattern if you can reproduce it. |
19691 | Unlike knowledge, you can achieve understanding through luck [Grimm] |
Full Idea: It may be that understanding is compatible with luck, in a way that knowledge is not. | |
From: Stephen R. Grimm (Understanding [2011], 3) | |
A reaction: [He cites Kvanvig and Prichard] If so, then we cannot say that knowledge is a lesser type of understanding. If you ask a trusted person how a mechanism works, and they have a wild guess that is luckily right, you would then understand it. |
19692 | You may have 'weak' understanding, if by luck you can answer a set of 'why questions' [Grimm] |
Full Idea: There may be a 'weak' sense of understanding, where all you need to do is to be able to answer 'why questions' successfully, where one might have come by this ability in a lucky way. | |
From: Stephen R. Grimm (Understanding [2011], 3) | |
A reaction: We can see this point (in Idea 19691), but the idea that one could come by true complex understanding of something by purely lucky means is a bit absurd. Surely you would get one or two why questions wrong? 100%, just by luck? |
3282 | The general form of moral reasoning is putting yourself in other people's shoes [Nagel] |
Full Idea: I believe the general form of moral reasoning is to put yourself in other people's shoes. | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Equality [1977], §9) |
3278 | An egalitarian system must give priority to those with the worst prospects in life [Nagel] |
Full Idea: What makes a system egalitarian is the priority it gives to the claims of those whose overall life prospects put them at the bottom. | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Equality [1977], §6) |
3275 | Equality was once opposed to aristocracy, but now it opposes public utility and individual rights [Nagel] |
Full Idea: Egalitarianism was once opposed to aristocratic values, but now it is opposed by adherents of two non-aristocratic values: utility (increase benefit, even if unequally) and individual rights (which redistribution violates). | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Equality [1977], §2) |
3277 | In judging disputes, should we use one standard, or those of each individual? [Nagel] |
Full Idea: In assessing equality of claims, it must be decided whether to use a single, objective standard, or whether interests should be ranked by the person's own estimation. Also should they balance momentary or long-term needs? | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Equality [1977], §6) |
3281 | The ideal of acceptability to each individual underlies the appeal to equality [Nagel] |
Full Idea: The ideal of acceptability to each individual underlies the appeal to equality. | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Equality [1977], §8) |
3273 | Equality nowadays is seen as political, social, legal and economic [Nagel] |
Full Idea: Contemporary political debate recognises four types of equality: political, social, legal and economic. | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Equality [1977], §1) | |
A reaction: Meaning equality of 1) power and influence, 2) status and respect, 3) rights and justice, 4) wealth. |
3274 | Equality can either be defended as good for society, or as good for individual rights [Nagel] |
Full Idea: The communitarian defence of equality says it is good for society as a whole, whereas the individualistic defence defends equality as a correct distributive principle. | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Equality [1977], §2) |
3276 | A morality of rights is very minimal, leaving a lot of human life without restrictions or duties [Nagel] |
Full Idea: The morality of rights tends to be a limited, even minimal, morality. It leaves a great deal of human life ungoverned by moral restrictions or requirements. | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Equality [1977], §5) |
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. |