|
23647
|
Objects have an essential constitution, producing its qualities, which we are too ignorant to define [Reid]
|
|
Full Idea:
Individuals and objects have a real essence, or constitution of nature, from which all their qualities flow: but this essence our faculties do not comprehend. They are therefore incapable of definition.
|
|
From:
Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 4: Conception [1785], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
Aha - he's one of us! I prefer the phrase 'essential nature' of an object, which is understood, I think, by everyone. I especially like the last bit, directed at those who mistakenly think that Aristotle identified the essence with the definition.
|
|
23646
|
Reference is by name, or a term-plus-circumstance, or ostensively, or by description [Reid]
|
|
Full Idea:
An individual is expressed by a proper name, or by a general word joined to distinguishing circumstances; if unknown, it may be pointed out to the senses; when beyond the reach of the senses it may be picked out by an imperfect but true description.
|
|
From:
Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 4: Conception [1785], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] If Putnam, Kripke and Donnellan had read this paragraph they could have save themselves a lot of work! I take reference to be the activity of speakers and writers, and these are the main tools of the trade.
|
|
23279
|
It is important that a person can change their character, and not just be successive 'selves' [Williams,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
I want to emphasise the basic importance of the ordinary idea of a self or person which undergoes changes of character, as opposed to dissolving a changing person into a series of 'selves'.
|
|
From:
Bernard Williams (Persons, Character and Morality [1976], II)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] He mentions Derek Parfit for the rival view. Williams has the Aristotelian view, that a person has an essential nature, which endures through change, and explains that change. But that needs some non-essential character traits.
|
|
23278
|
For utilitarians states of affairs are what have value, not matter who produced them [Williams,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
The basic bearer of value for Utilitarianism is the state of affairs, and hence, when the relevant causal differences have been allowed for, it cannot make any further difference who produces a given state of affairs.
|
|
From:
Bernard Williams (Persons, Character and Morality [1976], I)
|
|
A reaction:
Which is morally better, that I water your bed of flowers, or that it rains? Which is morally better, that I water them from love, or because you threaten me with a whip?
|
|
7339
|
Because human life is what is sacred, Mosaic law has no death penalty for property violations [Johnson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
Where other codes provided the death penalty for offences against property, in Mosaic law no property offence is capital; human life is too sacred, where the rights of property alone are violated.
|
|
From:
Paul Johnson (The History of the Jews [1987], Pt I)
|
|
A reaction:
We still preserve this idea in our law, and also in our culture, where we are keen to insist that catastrophes like earthquakes or major fires are measured almost entirely by the loss of life, not the loss of property. I approve.
|
|
7353
|
The Pharisees undermined slavery, by giving slaves responsibility and status in law courts [Johnson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is no accident that slavery among Jews disappeared with the rise of the Pharisees, as they insisted that all were equal before God in a court. Masters were no longer responsible for actions of slaves, so a slave had status, and slavery could not work.
|
|
From:
Paul Johnson (The History of the Jews [1987], Pt II)
|
|
A reaction:
As in seventeenth century England, the rise of social freedom comes from religious sources, not social sources. A slave has status in the transcendent world of souls, despite being a nobody in the physical world.
|
|
7340
|
Mosaic law was the first to embody the rule of law, and equality before the law [Johnson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
Mosaic law meant that God ruled through his laws, and since all were equally subject to the law, the system was the first to embody the double merits of the rule of law and equality before the law.
|
|
From:
Paul Johnson (The History of the Jews [1987], Pt I)
|
|
A reaction:
If this is correct, it seems to be a hugely important step, combined with Idea 1659, that revenge should be the action of a the state, not of the individual. They are the few simple and essential keys to civilization.
|
|
7338
|
Man's life is sacred, because it is made in God's image [Johnson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
In Mosaic theology, man is made in God's image, and so his life is not just valuable, it is sacred.
|
|
From:
Paul Johnson (The History of the Jews [1987], Pt I)
|
|
A reaction:
The obvious question is what exactly is meant by "in God's image". Physically, spiritually, intellectually, morally? I am guessing that the original idea was intellectual, because we are the only rational animal. The others seem unlikely, or arrogant.
|
|
7355
|
The Torah pre-existed creation, and was its blueprint [Johnson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
The Torah was not just a book about God. It pre-existed creation, in the same way as God did. In fact, it was the blueprint of creation.
|
|
From:
Paul Johnson (The History of the Jews [1987], Pt III)
|
|
A reaction:
You can only become a 'people of the book' (which Moslems resented in Judaism, and then emulated) if you give this stupendously high status to your book. Hence Christian fundamentalism makes sense, with its emphasis on the divinity of the Bible.
|
|
7336
|
A key moment is the idea of a single moral God, who imposes his morality on humanity [Johnson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
The discovery of monotheism, and not just of monotheism but of a sole, omnipotent God actuated by ethical principles and seeking methodically to impose them on human beings, is one of the greatest turning-points in history, perhaps the greatest of all.
|
|
From:
Paul Johnson (The History of the Jews [1987], Pt I)
|
|
A reaction:
'Discovery' begs some questions, but when put like this you realise what a remarkable event it was. It is a good candidate for the most influential idea ever, even if large chunks of humanity, especially in the orient, never took to monotheism.
|
|
7341
|
Sampson illustrates the idea that religious heroes often begin as outlaws and semi-criminals [Johnson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
Sampson is the outstanding example of the point which the Book of Judges makes again and again, that the Lord and society are often served by semi-criminal types, outlaws and misfits, who become folk-heroes and then religious heroes.
|
|
From:
Paul Johnson (The History of the Jews [1987], Pt I)
|
|
A reaction:
This illustrates nicely Nietzsche's claim, that the jews were responsible for his 'inversion of values', in which aristocratic virtues are downgraded, and the virtues of a good slave are elevated (though Sampson may not show that point so well!).
|
|
7344
|
Judaism involves circumcision, Sabbath, Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles, New Year, and Atonement [Johnson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
The practices of Judaism developed during their Exile: circumcision, the Sabbath, the Passover (founding of the nation), Pentecost (giving of the laws), the Tabernacles, the New Year, and the Day of Atonement.
|
|
From:
Paul Johnson (The History of the Jews [1987], Pt II)
|
|
A reaction:
These were the elements of ritual created to replace the existence of a physically located state. An astonishing achievement, not even remotely achieved by any other state that was driven off its lands. A culture is an idea, not a country.
|
|
7347
|
Zoroastrians believed in one eternal beneficent being, Creator through the holy spirit [Johnson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
Cyrus the Great was a Zoroastrian, believing in one, eternal, beneficent being, 'Creator of all things through the holy spirit'.
|
|
From:
Paul Johnson (The History of the Jews [1987], Pt II)
|
|
A reaction:
Is this the actual origin of monotheism, or did they absorb this idea from the Jews? The interesting bit is the fact that the supreme being (called Marduk) is 'beneficent', which one doesn't associate with these remote and supposed pagans.
|
|
7349
|
Immortality based on judgement of merit was developed by the Egyptians (not the Jews) [Johnson,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
The idea of judgement at death and immortality on the basis of merit were developed in Egypt before 1000 BCE. It is not Jewish because it was not in the Torah, and the Sadducees, who stuck to their texts, seemed to have denied the afterlife completely.
|
|
From:
Paul Johnson (The History of the Jews [1987], Pt II)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the idea considered crucial to religion by Immanuel Kant (Idea 1455), who should be declared an honorary Egyptian. To me the idea that only the good go to heaven sounds like sadly wishful thinking - a fictional consolation for an unhappy life.
|