|
21970
|
Philosophy attains its goal if one person feels perfect accord between their system and experience [Fichte]
|
|
Full Idea:
If even a single person is completely convinced of his philosophy; ...if his free judgement in philosophising, and what life obtrudes upon him, are perfectly in accord; then in this person philosophy has completed its circuit and attained its goal.
|
|
From:
Johann Fichte (works [1798], I:512), quoted by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics 06.4
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting to hear a famous idealist offering accordance with real life as a criterion for philosophical success. But that is real life, but not as you and I may know it.... His criterion is very subjective. A bad philosopher might attain it?
|
|
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.
|
|
21964
|
Reason arises from freedom, so philosophy starts from the self, and not from the laws of nature [Fichte]
|
|
Full Idea:
Not by any law of nature do we attain to reason; we achieve it by absolute freedom. ...In philosophy, therefore, we must necessarily start from the self. The materialists' project of deriving the appearance of reason from natural laws is impossible.
|
|
From:
Johann Fichte (works [1798], I:298), quoted by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics
|
|
A reaction:
I blame Descartes' Cogito for this misunderstanding. The underlying idea (in Kant, and probably earlier) is that pure reason needs pure free will. Modern thought usually sees reason as extremely impure.
|
|
21968
|
Abandon the thing-in-itself; things only exist in relation to our thinking [Fichte]
|
|
Full Idea:
We must be rid of the thing-in-itself; for whatever we may think, we are that which thinks therein, and hence nothing could ever come to exist independently of us, for everything is necessarily related to our thinking.
|
|
From:
Johann Fichte (works [1798], I:501), quoted by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics 06.3
|
|
A reaction:
Some statements of idealism are understandable, or even quite plausible, but this one sounds ridiculous. The idea that if human beings die out then reality ceases to exist is absurd humanistic vanity.
|
|
21965
|
Spinoza could not actually believe his determinism, because living requires free will [Fichte]
|
|
Full Idea:
Spinoza could only think his philosophy, not believe it, for it stood in immediate contradiction to his necessary conviction in daily life, whereby he was bound to regard himself as free and independent.
|
|
From:
Johann Fichte (works [1798], I:513), quoted by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics 06.2
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be invoking Kant's idea that we must presuppose free will, rather than an assertion that we actually have it.
|
|
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.
|
|
5492
|
How can essences generate the right powers to vary with distance between objects? [Armstrong]
|
|
Full Idea:
In Newtonian physics the distance between two objects determines the attractive forces between them, but then the objects will have to be sensitive to the distance, in order to 'know' what forces to generate; but distance isn't a causal power.
|
|
From:
David M. Armstrong (Two Problems for Essentialism [2001], p.170)
|
|
A reaction:
Ellis replies that he is not troubled, because he believes in essential properties which are separate from their causal roles. Indeed, how else could you explain their causal roles? Still, distance must be mentioned when explaining gravity.
|