12 ideas
3067 | A philosopher should have principles ready for understanding, like a surgeon with instruments [Aurelius] |
Full Idea: As physicians have always their instruments and knives ready for cases which suddenly require their skill, so should you have principles ready for the understanding of things divine and human. | |
From: Marcus Aurelius (The Meditations (To Himself) [c.170], 3.13) | |
A reaction: Nice. Philosophy is the training ground where wisdom and good living are made possible, but it cannot be a substitute for living. |
3072 | Everything is changing, including yourself and the whole universe [Aurelius] |
Full Idea: All things are changing; and you yourself are in continuous mutation and in a manner in continuous destruction, and the whole universe too. | |
From: Marcus Aurelius (The Meditations (To Himself) [c.170], 9.19) |
3061 | Anaxarchus said that he was not even sure that he knew nothing [Anaxarchus, by Diog. Laertius] |
Full Idea: Anaxarchus said that he was not even sure that he knew nothing. | |
From: report of Anaxarchus (fragments/reports [c.340 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 09.10.1 |
22179 | Explanatory facts also predict, and predictive facts also explain [Hempel, by Okasha] |
Full Idea: Hempel said every scientific explanation is potentially a prediction - it would have predicted the phenomenon in question, had it not already been known. But also the information used to make a prediction is potentially an explanation. | |
From: report of Carl Hempel (Aspects of Scientific Explanation [1965]) by Samir Okasha - Philosophy of Science: Very Short Intro (2nd ed) 3 | |
A reaction: Sounds too neatly glib to be quite true. If you explain a single event there is nothing to predict. You might predict accurately from a repetitive pattern, with no understanding at all of the pattern. |
21507 | Scientific explanation aims at a unifying account of underlying structures and processes [Hempel] |
Full Idea: What theoretical scientific explanation aims at is an objective kind of insight that is achieved by a systematic unification, by exhibiting the phenomena as manifestations of common underlying structures and processes that conform to testable principles. | |
From: Carl Hempel (Philosophy of Natural Science [1967], p.83), quoted by Laurence Bonjour - The Structure of Empirical Knowledge 5.3 | |
A reaction: This is a pretty good statement of scientific essentialism, and structures and processes are what I take Aristotle to have had in mind when he sought 'what it is to be that thing'. Structures and processes give stability and powers. |
17083 | The covering-law model is for scientific explanation; historical explanation is quite different [Hempel] |
Full Idea: To put forward the covering-law models of scientific explanation is not to deny that there are other contexts in which we speak of explanation. ….That it does not fit explaining the rules of Hanoverian succession is to miss the intent of our model. | |
From: Carl Hempel (Aspects of Scientific Explanation [1965], p. 412-3), quoted by David-Hillel Ruben - Explaining Explanation Ch 1 | |
A reaction: Important to get that clear. It then requires a clear demarcation between science and the rest, and it had better not rule out biology because it is having a love affair with physics. |
6755 | For Hempel, explanations are deductive-nomological or probabilistic-statistical [Hempel, by Bird] |
Full Idea: Hempel proposes that explanations involve covering laws and antecedent conditions; this view (the 'covering law' view) has two versions, the deductive-nomological model and the probabilistic-statistical model of explanation. | |
From: report of Carl Hempel (Aspects of Scientific Explanation [1965]) by Alexander Bird - Philosophy of Science Ch.2 | |
A reaction: The obvious problem with this approach, it seem to me, is that the laws themselves need explanation, and I don't see how a law can be foundational unless there is a divine law-giver. Are the laws arbitrary and axiomatic? |
13052 | Hempel rejects causation as part of explanation [Hempel, by Salmon] |
Full Idea: Hempel explicitly rejects the idea that causality plays any essential explanatory role. | |
From: report of Carl Hempel (Aspects of Scientific Explanation [1965], p.352) by Wesley Salmon - Four Decades of Scientific Explanation 1.1 | |
A reaction: Hempel champions the 'covering-law' model of explanation. It strikes me that Hempel is so utterly wrong about this that his views aren't even a candidate for correctness, but then for a long time his views were orthodoxy. |
3066 | Nothing is evil which is according to nature [Aurelius] |
Full Idea: Nothing is evil which is according to nature. | |
From: Marcus Aurelius (The Meditations (To Himself) [c.170], 2.17) | |
A reaction: A bit hopeful. Sounds tautological. I.e. anything which is agreed to be evil is probably immediately labelled as 'unnatural'. What would he agree was evil? |
3071 | Justice has no virtue opposed to it, but pleasure has temperance opposed to it [Aurelius] |
Full Idea: In the constitution of the rational animal I see no virtue which is opposed to justice; but I see a virtue which is opposed to pleasure, and that is temperance. | |
From: Marcus Aurelius (The Meditations (To Himself) [c.170], 8.39) | |
A reaction: There are plenty of hideous things opposed to justice, but presumably that immediately disqualifies them from being virtues. |
3069 | The art of life is more like the wrestler's than the dancer's [Aurelius] |
Full Idea: The art of life is more like the wrestler's than the dancer's. | |
From: Marcus Aurelius (The Meditations (To Himself) [c.170], 7.61) |
3065 | Humans are naturally made for co-operation [Aurelius] |
Full Idea: We are made for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. To act against one another, then, is contrary to nature. | |
From: Marcus Aurelius (The Meditations (To Himself) [c.170], 2.1) |