Two states at once
Green and red.
Is pleasure good or not?
I Kant [sic!] do these.
Citizens, know your morals! Or perhaps not!
Turning the tables on reality.
Can something be red and green at the same time? I assume that this means the thing can simultaneously red and green without these being discrete colours or some wavelength in the visible spectrum which stands halfway between them (somewhere between orange and yellow). As far as colours are concerned, such a thing isn’t possible, although I can imagine some state in which the colours shimmer a bit like an animated blend function in a graphics program.
According to the book, there are things which can be in two complementary states simultaneously such as negative numbers which, when multiplied together, produce a positive number, but which can have square roots. Unfortunately, I think Cohen has misunderstood i. Also, I don’t think this is necessarily an example of something being X and not X simultaneously. I’m not sure.
If anything, specific opinions may contradict our general outlook. Think of Dave “Lost my bike again” Cameron. He’s a Tory, but I believe he’s very pro NHS, which is contrary to Tory philosophy in general. Or both main political parties which are meant to be different, but aren’t.
Perhaps we have to follow Meinong here with notions of real but doesn’t exist.
According to the book, there are things which can be in two complementary states simultaneously such as negative numbers which, when multiplied together, produce a positive number, but which can have square roots. Unfortunately, I think Cohen has misunderstood i. Also, I don’t think this is necessarily an example of something being X and not X simultaneously. I’m not sure.
If anything, specific opinions may contradict our general outlook. Think of Dave “Lost my bike again” Cameron. He’s a Tory, but I believe he’s very pro NHS, which is contrary to Tory philosophy in general. Or both main political parties which are meant to be different, but aren’t.
Perhaps we have to follow Meinong here with notions of real but doesn’t exist.
Is pleasure good or not?
Define “pleasure” and I’ll try to tell you.
μηδὲν ἄγαν, said the Greeks. In other words, pleasure is good, but not to excess.
Apparently, this seems to be a real/not real and existent/non-existent problem. G.E. Moore, a Cambridge philosopher, said that “is” should only be used of natural properties (e.g. The sky is blue), but never in sentences like “Pleasure is good”. As the book notes, Moore never really explained how “good” wasn’t a natural property.
μηδὲν ἄγαν, said the Greeks. In other words, pleasure is good, but not to excess.
Apparently, this seems to be a real/not real and existent/non-existent problem. G.E. Moore, a Cambridge philosopher, said that “is” should only be used of natural properties (e.g. The sky is blue), but never in sentences like “Pleasure is good”. As the book notes, Moore never really explained how “good” wasn’t a natural property.
I Kant [sic!] do these.
I quote
Can I even understand the questions? Strangely enough, I think I sort of can. That is, I can until I see what the discussion in the book says and find that I haven’t understood them at all.
I’m assuming the terms “analytic” and “synthetic” are normally used with a priori and a posteriori respectively. And that’s about as much as I understand. This strikes me as being another paradox.
Well, the discussion in the book claims that “analytic” comes from Latin, whereas it comes from the Greek ἀναλύω “to unloose, set free; analyse” (cf. ἀνάλυσις “a loosing, releasing”); and that “synthetic” comes from the same language, whereas it comes from Greek συνθετικός “skilled in putting together; constructive” which is from the verb συντίθημι “to put together”. But etymological errors aside, it seems that I was right about such statements a.) being a bit incomprehensible to me and b.) being a paradox.
Can there be analytic a posteriori propositions? Or synthetic a priori propositions?
Can I even understand the questions? Strangely enough, I think I sort of can. That is, I can until I see what the discussion in the book says and find that I haven’t understood them at all.
I’m assuming the terms “analytic” and “synthetic” are normally used with a priori and a posteriori respectively. And that’s about as much as I understand. This strikes me as being another paradox.
Well, the discussion in the book claims that “analytic” comes from Latin, whereas it comes from the Greek ἀναλύω “to unloose, set free; analyse” (cf. ἀνάλυσις “a loosing, releasing”); and that “synthetic” comes from the same language, whereas it comes from Greek συνθετικός “skilled in putting together; constructive” which is from the verb συντίθημι “to put together”. But etymological errors aside, it seems that I was right about such statements a.) being a bit incomprehensible to me and b.) being a paradox.
Citizens, know your morals! Or perhaps not!
Again I quote
Er, yes. No. Yes and no. How the hell should I know?
Actually, I’d guess that we learn our morals as we learn our native language – without the slightest idea we’re learning them. Since the morality of a society is not innate in the children which are born into it, they can’t be a priori, but it might be possible to show that a sense of morality (well, ethics perhaps) is innate without being specific about what is moral.
Are all moral claims synthetic? Or analytic? Or a priori? Or a posteriori? Or both? Or neither? Or both of both, or neither of either??
Er, yes. No. Yes and no. How the hell should I know?
Actually, I’d guess that we learn our morals as we learn our native language – without the slightest idea we’re learning them. Since the morality of a society is not innate in the children which are born into it, they can’t be a priori, but it might be possible to show that a sense of morality (well, ethics perhaps) is innate without being specific about what is moral.
Turning the tables on reality.
Apparently I’m meant to ask whether the table exists. I know it’s there in the other room, but I can’t see it because the curtains to this room are always drawn (in lieu of a wall, I suppose). I suppose it’s fun to think that nothing exists if there’s no one around to perceive it, but that’s a bit like saying that Uranus didn’t exist until 1781, and Neptune until 1846 (or the 17th century; it doesn’t matter either way on this occasion). If there’s a planet beyond Neptune (excluding Pluto, which is a dwarf planet and thus doesn’t count), then it exists whether we can see it or detect it or not. Same goes for atomic and subatomic particles which we’re unable to perceive directly, but there they are.
I can’t say that I have much regard for such questions, which do rather seem to assume that existence revolves around the human race.
I can’t say that I have much regard for such questions, which do rather seem to assume that existence revolves around the human race.
We’re off to the doctor’s tomorrow. I’m going to have to learn how to spell ‘inoculate’ again.
Comments