Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Hermarchus, Ernst Mach and David Galloway

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these philosophers


3 ideas

1. Philosophy / G. Scientific Philosophy / 2. Positivism
Laws of nature are just records of regularities and correlations, with concepts to make recording them easier [Mach, by Harré]
     Full Idea: For Mach, the laws of nature are simply the compendious record of sensory regularities, correlations of elements. Any additional concepts are no more than symbols or devices for the convenient recording of general sensory patterns.
     From: report of Ernst Mach (Popular Scientific Lectures [1894], pp.201-5) by Rom Harré - Laws of Nature 2
     A reaction: Mach is the high priest of scientific positivism, which is really just hard-line empiricism.
11. Knowledge Aims / C. Knowing Reality / 1. Perceptual Realism / b. Direct realism
Direct realism is false, because defeasibility questions are essential to perceptual knowledge [Galloway]
     Full Idea: Since awareness of defeasibility issues is an essential prerequisite for any genuine perceptual knowledge of even straightforward physical objects, any realist theory of perception must be indirect or representative, rather than direct.
     From: David Galloway (lectures [2007]), quoted by PG - lecture notes
     A reaction: [a very compressed summary] A very interesting claim. The issue might be over what direct realism is actually claiming. If it claims full-blown knowledge, then the criticism seems good. But it might survive if it claimed rather less.
25. Social Practice / F. Life Issues / 6. Animal Rights
Animals are dangerous and nourishing, and can't form contracts of justice [Hermarchus, by Sedley]
     Full Idea: Hermarchus said that animal killing is justified by considerations of human safety and nourishment and by animals' inability to form contractual relations of justice with us.
     From: report of Hermarchus (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by David A. Sedley - Hermarchus
     A reaction: Could the last argument be used to justify torturing animals? Or could we eat a human who was too brain-damaged to form contracts?