Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Rescher,N/Oppenheim,P, Peter Lipton and Seneca the Younger

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


105 ideas

1. Philosophy / A. Wisdom / 1. Nature of Wisdom
Wisdom does not lie in books, and unread people can also become wise [Seneca]
     Full Idea: What grounds could I possibly have for supposing that a person who has no acquaintance with books will never be a wise man? For wisdom does not lie in books.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 088)
     A reaction: A useful warning to the likes of me, who may have retreated from the hurly-burly of the agora (see Callicles in Plato's 'Gorgias'), under the illusion that detachment is needed for wisdom. Maybe involvement is needed for wisdom.
1. Philosophy / A. Wisdom / 2. Wise People
A wise man is not subservient to anything [Seneca]
     Full Idea: I do not call any man wise who is subservient to anything.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On the Happy Life [c.60], §11)
     A reaction: At the very least, a wise man should be subservient to a wiser man.
Wise people escape necessity by willing it [Seneca]
     Full Idea: There is nothing a wise man does reluctantly; he escapes necessity because he wills what necessity is going to force on him.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 054)
     A reaction: He is discussing death in this letter. The difficulty here is sliding into fatalism. For instance, if you are informed that you have cancer, it is tempting to become 'wise' and will your own death, but lots of people fight it, and win.
1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 5. Aims of Philosophy / a. Philosophy as worldly
Philosophy aims at happiness [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Philosophy takes as her aim the state of happiness.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 090)
     A reaction: A startlingly forthright view. It seems to neglect what I take to be the main aim of philosophy, which is to achieve understanding. I presume true happiness would follow from that. Seneca must now explain why soporific pleasure is wrong.
What philosophy offers humanity is guidance [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Shall I tell you what philosophy holds out for humanity? Counsel.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 048)
     A reaction: See Quine for a flat modern denial of this claim (Idea 9764). There is a modern tendency to see ethics and political thought operating at a meta- or metameta- level. I take the main ethical theories to be very illuminating of real life.
1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 3. Analysis of Preconditions
That something is a necessary condition of something else doesn't mean it caused it [Seneca]
     Full Idea: There's no reason for you to assume that, X being something without which Y could never have come about, Y came about as a result of the assistance of X.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 088)
     A reaction: This thought originates with Carneades, reported by Cicero. This is a clear message to the likes of Mackie, who are in danger of thinking that giving the preconditions of something is sufficient to give its causes.
1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 5. Linguistic Analysis
Even philosophers have got bogged down in analysing tiny bits of language [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Even the philosophers have descended to the level of drawing distinctions between the uses of different syllables and discussing the proper meanings of prepositions and conjunctions.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 088)
     A reaction: How wonderfully prescient! The vast industry of modern philosophy of language exactly fits Seneca's description. I don't quite share his contempt, of course, and I think Seneca would have a bit of sympathy with modern analysis (just a bit!).
2. Reason / A. Nature of Reason / 4. Aims of Reason
Good inference has mechanism, precision, scope, simplicity, fertility and background fit [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Among the inferential virtues commonly cited are mechanism, precision, scope, simplicity, fertility or fruitfulness, and fit with background beliefs.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 08 'the guiding')
     A reaction: [He cites Hempel, Kuhn, Quine, and Newton-Smith] I take the over-arching term 'coherence' to cover much of this, though a bolder hypothesis offers more than mere coherence.
2. Reason / B. Laws of Thought / 4. Contraries
Contrary pairs entail contradictions; one member entails negation of the other [Lipton]
     Full Idea: All pairs of contraries entail a pair of contradictories, since one member of such a pair always entails the negation of the other. P&Q and not-P are contraries, but the first entails P, which is contradictory of not-P.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 09 'Is the best')
9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 8. Parts of Objects / c. Wholes from parts
A whole must have one characteristic, an internal relation, and a structure [Rescher/Oppenheim]
     Full Idea: A whole must possess an attribute peculiar to and characteristic of it as a whole; there must be a characteristic relation of dependence between the parts; and the whole must have some structure which gives it characteristics.
     From: Rescher,N/Oppenheim,P (Logical Analysis of Gestalt Concepts [1955], p.90), quoted by Peter Simons - Parts 9.2
     A reaction: Simons says these are basically sensible conditions, and tries to fill them out. They seem a pretty good start, and I must resist the temptation to rush to borderline cases.
11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 2. Understanding
Understanding is not mysterious - it is just more knowledge, of causes [Lipton]
     Full Idea: On the causal model of explanation, understanding is unmysterious and objective; it is not some sort of super-knowledge, but simply more knowledge; knowledge of causes.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 03 'Fact')
     A reaction: There seems to be some distinction between revealing some causes, and revealing a cause which 'makes the light dawn'.
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 3. Evidentialism / a. Evidence
How do we distinguish negative from irrelevant evidence, if both match the hypothesis? [Lipton]
     Full Idea: How can Best Explanation distinguish negative evidence from irrelevant evidence, when the evidence is logically consistent with the hypothesis?
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 05 'A case')
     A reaction: There seems no answer to this other than to assess batches of evidence by their coherence, rather than one at a time. Anomalies can be conclusive, or pure chance.
14. Science / A. Basis of Science / 1. Observation
The inference to observables and unobservables is almost the same, so why distinguish them? [Lipton]
     Full Idea: The inferential path to unobservables is often the same as to unobserved observables. In these two sorts of case, the reason for belief can be equally strong, so the suggestion that we infer truth in one case but not the other seems perverse.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 09 'Voltaire's')
     A reaction: [Van Fraassen 1980 is the target of this] Van F seems to be in the grip of some sort of verificationism, which I always disliked on the grounds that speculation can be highly meaningful. Why embrace something because it 'could' be observed?
14. Science / A. Basis of Science / 2. Demonstration
Inductive inference is not proof, but weighing evidence and probability [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Inductive inference is a matter of weighing evidence and judging probability, not of proof.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 01 'Underd')
     A reaction: This sounds like a plausible fallibilist response to the optimistic view of Aristotle.
We infer from evidence by working out what would explain that evidence [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Explanatory considerations are an important guide to inference, …we work out what to infer from our evidence by thinking about what would explain that evidence.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], Pref 2nd ed)
     A reaction: I take this to be inferences about the physical world, rather than of pure logic. The thesis sounds a bit thin, since there is no logical sense of 'infer' here, so all it could mean is 'what caused that?'.
14. Science / A. Basis of Science / 4. Prediction
It is more impressive that relativity predicted Mercury's orbit than if it had accommodated it [Lipton]
     Full Idea: We are more impressed by the fact that the special theory of relativity was used to predict the shift in the perihelion of Mercury than we would have been if we knew that the theory was constructed in order to account for that effect.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 10 'The fudging')
     A reaction: Lipton has a nice discussion of the relative merits of predicting data and accommodating it. He invites astrologers to predict events, rather than accommodate past ones.
Predictions are best for finding explanations, because mere accommodations can be fudged [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Accommodations are often worth less than predictions, because only they have to face the possibility that the best explanation of the fit between the theory and data is that the theoretical system was fudged.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 11 'Circularity')
     A reaction: Lipton illuminatingly explores the discovery by Semmelweiss of the cause of childbed fever. He predicted various explanations, and tested them out in a hospital. It clicks when the prediction occurs.
14. Science / B. Scientific Theories / 1. Scientific Theory
If we make a hypothesis about data, then a deduction, where does the hypothesis come from? [Lipton]
     Full Idea: The cost of the hypothetico-deductive method …is that we are left in the dark about the source of the hypotheses themselves.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 05 'Explanation')
     A reaction: How do we distinguish a wild hypothesis from a plausible one? It can only be from patterns in the data, rather than mere accumulations of data. If water causes cholera, or smoking causes cancer, the hypothesis guides the data search.
14. Science / C. Induction / 1. Induction
Induction is repetition, instances, deduction, probability or causation [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Five attempts to describe induction are 'more of the same', the instantial model, the hypothetico-deductive model, the Bayesian approach …and causal inference.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 01 'Descr')
     A reaction: This interesting list totally fails to mention the best answer, which is essentialism! If you observe some instances, you only begin to think that there will be more of the same if you think you have discerned the essence. Ravens are black things!
14. Science / C. Induction / 3. Limits of Induction
Standard induction does not allow for vertical inferences, to some unobservable lower level [Lipton]
     Full Idea: One of the problems of the extrapolation and instantial models of confirmation is that they do not cover vertical inferences, where we infer from what we observe to something at a different level that is often unobservable.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 04 'Attractions')
     A reaction: This is my preferred essentialist view of induction, that we don't just infer that future swans will be white, but also that whiteness is built into the biology of swans. There seems to be predictive induction and explanatory induction.
14. Science / C. Induction / 4. Reason in Induction
An inductive inference is underdetermined, by definition [Lipton]
     Full Idea: If an inference is inductive, then by definition it is underdetermined by the evidence and the rules of deduction.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 01 'Underd')
We can argue to support our beliefs, so induction will support induction, for believers in induction [Lipton]
     Full Idea: There is nothing illegitimate about giving arguments for beliefs one already holds. …So inductive justification of induction, while impotent against the skeptic, is legitimate for those who already rely on induction.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 11 'Circularity')
     A reaction: Not so fast! The first sentence is generally right, but if the 'beliefs one already holds' are beliefs about methods of argument, that is a different case. Compare 'this book is the word of God, because it says so in the book'. Can logic prove logic?
14. Science / C. Induction / 5. Paradoxes of Induction / b. Raven paradox
If something in ravens makes them black, it may be essential (definitive of ravens) [Lipton]
     Full Idea: We are considering that there is something in ravens, a gene perhaps, that makes them black, and this cause is part of the essence of ravens. Birds lacking this cause could not interbreed with ravens.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 05 'Unsuitable')
     A reaction: At last, the essentialist approach to induction! Of course, it is tricky to decide a priori whether there could be albino ravens. It only takes one white (interbreeding) raven to ruin a nice essentialist story. Individuals matter.
My shoes are not white because they lack some black essence of ravens [Lipton]
     Full Idea: The reason my shoe is white is not that it lacks some feature essential to ravens that makes them black.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 06 'The Method')
     A reaction: Good, but not totally true. If my shoes were made to grow from genes, and then had some raven spliced into them, we might manage it. That is an explanation, but a long way from the best one. Enquiry is explanations, not deductions.
A theory may explain the blackness of a raven, but say nothing about the whiteness of shoes [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Explanatory considerations help with the raven paradox since, while the raven hypothesis may provide an explanation for the blackness of a particular raven, neither the original hypothesis nor its contrastive explanation explain why the shoe is white.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 06 'Unsuitable')
     A reaction: For me, the examination of ravens is a search for the essence of ravenhood, which is why non-ravens don't help. Of course, if you eliminate all culprits except one, you have your culprit, but will your evidence stand up in court?
We can't turn non-black non-ravens into ravens, to test the theory [Lipton]
     Full Idea: We cannot transform a non-black non-raven into a raven to see whether we get a simultaneous transformation from non-black to black, in the way we can transform a flame without sodium into a flame with sodium.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 06 'Unsuitable')
     A reaction: A white shoe would be an example of a non-black non-raven. People mesmerised by the raven paradox are too concerned with investigation being a 'logical' process. Lipton makes a nice point. We need to know the nature of ravens.
To pick a suitable contrast to ravens, we need a hypothesis about their genes [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Without something like a hypothesis about the genes of ravens, we simply do not know what would count as a relevantly similar bird for comparison.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 06 'Unsuitable')
     A reaction: Lipton is endorsing the view that explanation should be 'contrastive', as well as aiming to discover the inner nature of ravens. He makes a good case for the contrastive approach.
14. Science / C. Induction / 6. Bayes's Theorem
Bayes seems to rule out prior evidence, since that has a probability of one [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Old evidence seems to provide some confirmation, but Bayesianism does not allow for this, since old evidence will have a prior probability of one, and so have no effect on the posterior probability of the hypothesis.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 01 'Descr')
A hypothesis is confirmed if an unlikely prediction comes true [Lipton]
     Full Idea: In English, Bayes's Theorem says that there is a high confirmation when your hypothesis entails an unlikely prediction that turns out to be correct - a very plausible claim.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 01 'Descr')
     A reaction: Presumably the simple point is that a likely prediction could have been caused by many things, but an unlikely prediction will probably only be caused by that thing.
Bayes involves 'prior' probabilities, 'likelihood', 'posterior' probability, and 'conditionalising' [Lipton]
     Full Idea: In p(H|E) = p(E|H)p(H)/p(E), the left side is the 'posterior' probability of H given E, p(E|H) is the 'likelihood' of E given H, and the others are the 'priors' of H and E. Moving from right to left is known as 'conditionalization'.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 07 'The Bayesian')
Explanation may be an important part of implementing Bayes's Theorem [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Explanatory considerations may play an important role in the actual mechanisms by which inquirers 'realize' Bayesian reasoning.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 07 'The Bayesian')
     A reaction: Lipton's strategy for making peace between IBE and Bayesians. Explanations give likeliness. The background question for Bayesians always seems to be how the initial probabilities are assigned. Pure logic won't do that job.
Bayes is too liberal, since any logical consequence of a hypothesis confirms it [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Since the Bayesian account says a hypothesis is confirmed by any of its logical consequences …it seems to inherit the over-permissiveness of the hypothetico-deductive model.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 01 'Descr')
     A reaction: This sounds like Hempel's Raven Paradox, where the probability of some logical consequences seems impossible to assess.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 1. Explanation / a. Explanation
Explanation may describe induction, but may not show how it justifies, or leads to truth [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Explanation is a partial answer to the descriptive problem of induction, …but the justificatory problem is recalcitrant, since it may seem particularly implausible that explanatory considerations should be a reliable guide to truth.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 09 'Voltaire's')
     A reaction: His claim that explanation is a guide to inference is intended to bridge the gap. One might say that a good explanation has to be true, so just make sure your explanation is 'good', according to a few criteria.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 1. Explanation / b. Aims of explanation
An explanation gives the reason the phenomenon occurred [Lipton]
     Full Idea: According to the reason model of explanation, to explain a phenomenon is to give a reason to believe that the phenomenon occurs.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 02 'Reason')
     A reaction: [He cites Hempel 1965] Put like that, it doesn't sound very promising. Personally I believe things occur if my wife tells me they do, because I trust her. Lipton says knowing that it occurs is not understanding why it occurs.
An explanation is what makes the unfamiliar familiar to us [Lipton]
     Full Idea: On the 'familiarity' model of explanation, unfamiliar phenomena call for explanation, and good explanations somehow make them familiar.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 02 'Reason')
     A reaction: Lipton notes that his encourages explanation by analogy, but that may not add to understanding. A better version is that an explanation makes a phenomenon less surprising (but that sounds rather relative and subjective).
An explanation is what is added to knowledge to yield understanding [Lipton]
     Full Idea: The question about explanation can be put this way: What has to be added to knowledge to yield understanding?
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 02 'Underst')
     A reaction: In the spirit of Aristotle, I take 'understanding' to be the end of all enquiry, even if it's rather open-ended, relative and vague. Presumably there are lots of true explanations which don't deliver understanding, because baffling ingredients are cited.
Seaching for explanations is a good way to discover the structure of the world [Lipton]
     Full Idea: One of the points of our obsessive search for explanations is that this is a peculiarly effective way of discovering the structure of the world.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 04 'Attractions')
     A reaction: This remark is a nice corrective to the sceptical view that explanations are entirely subjective, pragmatic, and even conventional. Whether this means that there are 'real' and 'objective' explanations is another matter.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / a. Types of explanation
To the four causes Plato adds a fifth, the idea which guided the event [Seneca]
     Full Idea: To the four Aristotelian causes Plato adds a fifth in the model - what he himself calls the 'idea' - this being what the sculptor had constantly before his eyes as he executed the intended work.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 065)
     A reaction: A very interesting interpretation. I take the four 'causes' to be primarily the four 'explanations', and it exactly fits how we should understand Plato, as offer a crucial underlying explanation. The statue is Aristotle's example.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / b. Contrastive explanations
In 'contrastive' explanation there is a fact and a foil - why that fact, rather than this foil? [Lipton]
     Full Idea: In a 'contrastive' explanation what gets explained is not 'Why this?', but 'Why this rather than that?'. There is a fact and a foil, and one fact may have several foils. Why do leaves turn yellow in November rather than in January?
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 03 'Fact')
     A reaction: Lipton really likes this, and builds his story around it. Maybe, but it looks to me like an easier step towards a proper explanation. The foils are infinite. Why turn yellow rather than radioactive, insincere, divisible by three, or expensive?
With too many causes, find a suitable 'foil' for contrast, and the field narrows right down [Lipton]
     Full Idea: The class of possible causes is often too big, …but if we are lucky or clever enough to find or produce a contrast where fact and foil have similar histories, most potential explanations are immediately 'cancelled out', and we have a research programme.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 05 'A case')
     A reaction: He has a nice example of a triumph in 19th century German epidemiology. Once you get a good hypothesis, you can set up comparisons, based on a possible fact and a good foil. Genius is spotting hypothesis and foil. Nice.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / c. Explanations by coherence
An explanation unifies a phenomenon with our account of other phenomena [Lipton]
     Full Idea: According to the 'unification' model of explanation, we come to understand a phenomenon when we see how it fit together with other phenomena into unified whole.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 02 'Reason')
     A reaction: [He cites Kitcher 1989] This works quite well for a lot of explanation, but a revolutionary explanation might involve a completely new theory. Lipton says it is rather linguistic, and has no room for a regress of causes, or for singular explanations.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / e. Lawlike explanations
Deduction explanation is too easy; any law at all will imply the facts - together with the facts! [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Deduction models of explanation make it far too easy to explain. You can explain that planets move in an ellipse from the conjunction of the fact that they do, together with any law you please, say a law in economics.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 02 'Reason')
We reject deductive explanations if they don't explain, not if the deduction is bad [Lipton]
     Full Idea: The hypothetico-deductive model does not account for the negative impact of explanatory failure. We reject hypotheses because they fail to explain contrasts, not because they are logically incompatible with them.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 05 'Explanation')
     A reaction: The general move in modern accounts of investigation is away from an excessive emphasis on logic that used to be favoured. The underpinning of this is that science concerns mechanisms more than equations.
Good explanations may involve no laws and no deductions [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Many ordinary explanations include no laws and allow no deduction, yet are not incomplete or mere sketches.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 02 'Reason')
     A reaction: The simplest sort of explanation simply shows the underlying cause.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / f. Necessity in explanations
An explanation shows why it was necessary that the effect occurred [Lipton]
     Full Idea: According to the 'necessity' model of explanation, an explanation shows that the phenomenon in question had to occur.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 02 'Reason')
     A reaction: [He cites Glymour 1980] Lipton objects that the sort of necessity involved is too uncertain, can't account for the 'why-regress', and doesn't fit everyday explanation, like why we abandoned the football match.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / g. Causal explanations
A cause may not be an explanation [Lipton]
     Full Idea: I take it that we may think about causes without thinking especially about explanations, and so we might judge likeliest cause without considering loveliest explanation.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 08 'From cause')
To explain is to give either the causal history, or the causal mechanism [Lipton]
     Full Idea: According to the causal model of explanation, to explain a phenomenon is simply to give information about its causal history, or, where the phenomenon is itself a causal regularity, to give information about the mechanism linking cause and effect.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 03 'Fact')
     A reaction: [He cites Lewis's 1986 paper] Simply citing causal regularity seems to me to explain nothing. It happened because it always happens. Mechanism, on the other hand, is just what we are after.
Mathematical and philosophical explanations are not causal [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Mathematical explanations are never causal, and philosophical explanations seldom are.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 03 'Fact')
     A reaction: There may still be a 'direction' of explanation in mathematics, as when the nature of the triangle explains the Pythagoras Theorem, but the theorem may not give you the basic nature of triangles. Lipton suggests 'determination' for 'causation'.
Explanations may be easier to find than causes [Lipton]
     Full Idea: It is often easier to say what a factor would explain than it is to say what it would cause.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 08 'From cause')
     A reaction: Presumably the presence of some factor might explain something, but the factor itself might have mysterious causal powers. A catalyst, for example. We don't need to understand the factor that explains.
Causal inferences are clearest when we can manipulate things [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Our most secure basis for causal inference is manipulation, as when flicking the switch causes the light to go on.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 08 'From cause')
     A reaction: Correct, but Woodward elevates this into an entire theory of causation, which does not convince me.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / i. Explanations by mechanism
We want to know not just the cause, but how the cause operated [Lipton]
     Full Idea: We understand a phenomenon better when we know not just what caused it, but how the cause operated.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 08 'the guiding')
     A reaction: This is the key point behind the desire for 'mechanism' in explanation. It strikes me as undeniable.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / l. Probabilistic explanations
To maximise probability, don't go beyond your data [Lipton]
     Full Idea: If all we wanted was to maximise probability, we would never venture beyond our data.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 07 'friends')
14. Science / D. Explanation / 3. Best Explanation / a. Best explanation
Is Inference to the Best Explanation nothing more than inferring the likeliest cause? [Lipton]
     Full Idea: A suspicion is that Inference to the Best Explanation is nothing more than Inference to the Likeliest Cause in fancy dress, and so fails to account for the symptoms of likeliness.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 04 'Attractions')
     A reaction: In a lot of cases the cause is the explanation. An explanation might be the absence of a cause (as in 'you forgot to switch it on'). Lipton's 'lovely' explanations go further, and reveal a network of causes.
Best Explanation as a guide to inference is preferable to best standard explanations [Lipton]
     Full Idea: The core idea of Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) is that explanatory considerations are a guide to inference. …Inserting one of the standard models of explanation yields disappointing results, because of their backward state.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 04 'Spelling')
     A reaction: Inferences tend to come one at a time, but I see best explanations as the formation of coherent pictures. The tricky bit is when to decide the coherence makes it acceptable. Lipton has that problem too, with his inferences. 'Working explanations'.
The 'likeliest' explanation is the best supported; the 'loveliest' gives the most understanding [Lipton]
     Full Idea: There is a distinction between the explanation best supported by the evidence, and the explanation that would provide the most understanding: in short, between the 'likeliest' and the 'loveliest' explanation.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 04 'Spelling')
     A reaction: A very nice, very real and very illuminating distinction. Presumably truth must play an important role in both likelihood and loveliness.
IBE is inferring that the best potential explanation is the actual explanation [Lipton]
     Full Idea: According to Inference to the Best Explanation we do not infer the best actual explanation; rather we infer that the best of the available potential explanations is an actual explanation.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 04 'Spelling')
     A reaction: Clearly to say that you should just accept the best available explanation is asking for trouble, if all the available explanations are absurd. But what are the criteria for saying the best one is the actual one?
Finding the 'loveliest' potential explanation links truth to understanding [Lipton]
     Full Idea: We should considere Inference to the Loveliest Potential Explanation, …which links the search for truth and the search for understanding in a fundamental way.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 04 'Spelling')
IBE is not passive treatment of data, but involves feedback between theory and data search [Lipton]
     Full Idea: The slogan 'Inference to the Best Explanation' may bring to mind an excessively passive picture of scientific enquiry, …but there is the feedback between hypothesis formation and data acquisition that characterises actual enquiry.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 05 'Explanation')
     A reaction: Perhaps it should be renamed 'Search for the Best Explanation'.
A contrasting difference is the cause if it offers the best explanation [Lipton]
     Full Idea: We are to infer that a difference marks a cause just in case the difference would provide the best explanation of the contrast.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 08 'Improved')
     A reaction: Lipton's offers this as his distinctive contribution to Mill's methods of enquiry. His point is that we draw inferences for explanatory reasons. He rests on Mill, and on contrastive explanation. It sounds rightish, but a bit optimistic.
We select possible explanations for explanatory reasons, as well as choosing among them [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Explanatory considerations can play a role in the generation of potential explanations as well as in the subsequent selection from among them.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 09 'The two-stage')
     A reaction: Lipton offers this to meet an obvious objection to Inference to the Best Explanation - that compiling the possible explanations seems to need guidance. Seems a good reply.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 3. Best Explanation / c. Against best explanation
Must we only have one explanation, and must all the data be made relevant? [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Two problems for IBE are that only one explanation can be inferred from any set of data, and that the only data that are relevant to a hypothesis are data the hypothesis explains.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 04 'Spelling')
     A reaction: I don't see why the theory prohibits a tie for what is 'best', given that you don't have to commit. The second one is partly to do with what observers should do about anomalies, and it is sometimes right to ignore them.
Bayesians say best explanations build up an incoherent overall position [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Bayesians object to inference to the best explanation, because someone who favoured powerful ('lovely') explanations would end up with an incoherent distribution of states of belief. They would be persuaded by loss-making wagers (a 'dutch book').
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 07 'The Bayesian')
     A reaction: [compressed; he cites Van Fraassen 1989 Ch.7] Lipton's Ch. 7 tries to address this issue.
The best theory is boring: compare 'all planets move elliptically' with 'most of them do' [Lipton]
     Full Idea: The best theory is almost always boring. …The claim that all planets move in ellipses is interesting, and the claim that some do not is not interesting.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 09 'Is the best')
     A reaction: This applies to any extraction of a universal 'law' by induction. The best theory just affirms what has been observed. How could generalising about what you haven't observed be 'better'? Answer: because it goes via the essence.
Best explanation can't be a guide to truth, because the truth must precede explanation [Lipton]
     Full Idea: Inference to the best explanation cannot be epistemically effective, since an actual explanation must be true, so one would have to know the truth before one could infer an explanation.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 09 'Voltaire's')
     A reaction: Lipton rests on 'contrastive' explanation, so that the one that explains more is more likely to be true. If true, it explains. That seems to me correct, even though it could occasionally go horribly wrong. Approach explanation cautiously.
17. Mind and Body / A. Mind-Body Dualism / 1. Dualism
If everything can be measured, try measuring the size of a man's soul [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Nothing's outside your scope when it comes to measurement. Well, if you're such an expert, measure a man's soul; tell me how large or how small that is.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 088)
     A reaction: This is Descartes's non-spatial argument, which I take to be one of the four main props to his mind-body dualism. As always, it is expressed with beautiful concision by Seneca.
19. Language / B. Reference / 1. Reference theories
Referring to a person, and speaking about him, are very different [Seneca]
     Full Idea: It makes a very great difference whether you refer to the person directly, or speak about him.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 117.13), quoted by A.A. Long - Hellenistic Philosophy 4.3.2
     A reaction: We seem to think that the distinctiveness of reference was first spotted by Frege. Not so.
22. Metaethics / A. Ethics Foundations / 2. Source of Ethics / a. Idealistic ethics
The supreme good is harmony of spirit [Seneca]
     Full Idea: The highest good is harmony of spirit.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On the Happy Life [c.60], §08)
     A reaction: This idea is straight from Plato's Republic.
22. Metaethics / A. Ethics Foundations / 2. Source of Ethics / j. Ethics by convention
Trouble in life comes from copying other people, which is following convention instead of reason [Seneca]
     Full Idea: One of the causes of the troubles that beset us is the way our lives are guided by the example of others; instead of being set to rights by reason we're seduced by convention.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 123)
     A reaction: An interesting practical spin and critique of the standard metaethical idea that morality is just convention. If you think morality is convention, presumably your moral duty is to imitate your neighbours. Nice deconstruction.
22. Metaethics / B. Value / 2. Values / d. Health
Humans acquired the concept of virtue from an analogy with bodily health and strength [Seneca, by Allen]
     Full Idea: Seneca held that human beings owe the original acquisition of the concept of virtue to an analogy with bodily health and strength
     From: report of Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 120.5) by James Allen - Soul's Virtue and the Health of the Body p.76
     A reaction: This is an unusual view, even for a stoic, but shows how close the concepts of health and virtue were. Notice that it is strength as well as health. Plato just emphasises mental and physical harmony.
22. Metaethics / B. Value / 2. Values / e. Death
We know death, which is like before birth; ceasing to be and never beginning are the same [Seneca]
     Full Idea: I already know what death is like - it will be the same after me as it was before me. ..Only an utter idiot would think a lamp was worse off when it was put out than before it was lit. ..What does it matter whether you cease to be or never begin?
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 054)
     A reaction: These sentiments are, interestingly, derived from the epicureans, rather than from the stoic tradition, but to us they probably look close together, where they looked like opponents at the time.
Living is nothing wonderful; what matters is to die well [Seneca]
     Full Idea: There's nothing so very great about living - all your slaves and all the animals do it. What is, however, a great thing is to die in a manner which is honourable, enlightened and courageous.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 077)
     A reaction: You get the feeling that Seneca actually thought suicide was better than a natural death. Did he actually seek his own death? It is an odd interpretation of his own stoic injunction to 'live according to nature'.
It is as silly to lament ceasing to be as to lament not having lived in the remote past [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Wouldn't you think a man a prize fool if he burst into tears because he didn't live a thousand years ago? A man is such a fool for shedding tears because he isn't going to be alive a thousand years from now.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 077)
     A reaction: These thoughts are traditional, dating back to Epicurus, but Seneca is exceptionally going at finding new variations and examples to reinforce the basic thought.
22. Metaethics / B. Value / 2. Values / g. Love
Is anything sweeter than valuing yourself more when you find you are loved? [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Can anything be sweeter than to find that you are so dear to your wife that this makes you dearer to yourself?
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 104)
     A reaction: Another lovely penetrating remark from Seneca. I suppose a symptom of low self-esteem might be 'why does she love someone as worthless as me?', but that would be unusual.
22. Metaethics / B. Value / 2. Values / i. Self-interest
Selfishness does not produce happiness; to live for yourself, live for others [Seneca]
     Full Idea: No one can lead a happy life if he thinks only of himself and turns everything to his own purposes. You should live for the other person if you wish to live for yourself.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 048)
     A reaction: It is important to see this as a key aspect of the ancient aspiration to virtue. The end result is not far from Christianity. It is simplistic to see the quest for virtue as a crass self-obsessed quest for self-improvement. We are social.
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 2. Happiness / a. Nature of happiness
To be always happy is to lack knowledge of one half of nature [Seneca]
     Full Idea: To be always happy and to pass through life without any mental distress is to lack knowledge of one half of nature.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On Providence [c.60], §4)
     A reaction: These kind of paradoxes plague virtue theory, and any theory which aims at an ideal. Heaven, for example, seems to have no problems to solve, which spells boredom. The fascination of corrupt people is their superior knowledge of the world.
A man is as unhappy as he has convinced himself he is [Seneca]
     Full Idea: A man is as unhappy as he has convinced himself he is.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 078)
     A reaction: Seneca is a very penetrating thinker about ordinary life - an aspect of philosophy which is nowadays totally neglected by the most eminent philosophers.
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 2. Happiness / b. Eudaimonia
Life is like a play - it is the quality that matters, not the length [Seneca]
     Full Idea: As it is with a play, so it is with life - what matters is not how long the acting lasts, but how good it is.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 077)
     A reaction: A very nice epigram, culminating the wonderful Letter 77 on the subject of death. A play needs to be a decent length if it is to exhibit its qualities. It would be heartbreaking if all of Shakespeare's plays were just 20-minute sketches.
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 3. Pleasure / e. Role of pleasure
We are scared of death - except when we are immersed in pleasure! [Seneca]
     Full Idea: You are scared of death - but how heedless of it you are while you are dealing with a dish of choice mushrooms!
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 077)
     A reaction: A beautifully simple observation, from the greatest philosopher of death. Maybe hospices should concentrate on sex, drugs and rock and roll.
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 3. Pleasure / f. Dangers of pleasure
The whole point of pleasure-seeking is novelty, and abandoning established ways [Seneca]
     Full Idea: The whole object of luxurious living is the delight it takes in irregular ways and in not merely departing from the correct course but going to the farthest point away from it, and in eventually even taking a stand diametrically opposed to it.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 122)
     A reaction: A rather conservative and puritanical remark, but worthy of contemplation even for committed hedonists. It is just a sad facts that most pleasures diminish with familiarity. Small children make delightful remarks. Imagine if they repeated them.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 2. Elements of Virtue Theory / b. Living naturally
Nature doesn't give us virtue; we must unremittingly pursue it, as a training and an art [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Nature does not give a man virtue; the process of becoming a good man is an art. ...Virtue only comes to a character which has been thoroughly schooled and trained and brought to a pitch of perfection by unremitting practice.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 090)
     A reaction: This is an important gloss from a leading stoic on the slogan of 'live according to nature'. One might say that the natural life must be 'tracked' (as Philip Larkin says we track happiness). The natural life is, above all, the rational life, for stoics.
Living contrary to nature is like rowing against the stream [Seneca]
     Full Idea: For those who follow nature everything is easy and straightforward, whereas for those who fight against her life is just like rowing against the stream.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 102)
     A reaction: A classic statement of the well-known stoic slogan, but expressed with Seneca's characteristic elegance. There is always a slight hidden of dubious fatalism in the slogan. 'Rage, rage, against the dying of the light!' - Dylan Thomas.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 2. Elements of Virtue Theory / c. Motivation for virtue
I seek virtue, because it is its own reward [Seneca]
     Full Idea: You ask what I seek from virtue? Virtue herself. For she has nothing better, she is herself her own reward.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On the Happy Life [c.60], §09)
     A reaction: Presumably this is the source of the popular saying that 'virtue is its own reward'. The trouble is that this doesn't seem a very persuasive thing to say to a sceptic who doubts whether being virtuous is worth the trouble.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 2. Elements of Virtue Theory / e. Character
True greatness is never allowing events to disturb you [Seneca]
     Full Idea: There is no more reliable proof of greatness than to be in a state where nothing can happen to make you disturbed.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On Anger (Book 3) [c.60], §06)
     A reaction: He specifically opposes Aristotle's view that there are times when anger is appropriate, and failure to be very angry indeed is a failure of character.
Character is ruined by not looking back over our pasts, since the future rests on the past [Seneca]
     Full Idea: What really ruins our characters is the fact that none of us looks back over his life. We think a little about what we are going to do, and fail to think about what we have done, yet plans for the future depend on the past.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 083)
     A reaction: One always assumes that writings about the wisdom of daily life will be one mass of clichés, but Seneca proves otherwise. With a pang I realise that I may be too guilty of not thinking about the past. I've even been proud of it.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 2. Elements of Virtue Theory / j. Unity of virtue
Virtue is always moderate, so excess need not be feared [Seneca]
     Full Idea: In the case of virtue excess should not be feared, since in virtue resides moderation.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On the Happy Life [c.60], §13)
     A reaction: This seems to imply that all of the virtues are unified in the one achievement of the virtuous state. It leaves the notion of 'virtue' a bit thin in content, though.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / a. Virtues
It is shameful to not even recognise your own slaves [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Why, to your shame, are you so careless that you do not know your handful of slaves by sight?
     From: Seneca the Younger (On the Happy Life [c.60], §17)
Every night I critically review how I have behaved during the day [Seneca]
     Full Idea: When the lamp has been removed from my sight, and my wife, no stranger now to my habit, has fallen silent, I examine the whole of my day and retrace my actions and words; I hide nothing from myself.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On Anger (Book 3) [c.60], §36)
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / b. Temperance
It's no good winning lots of fights, if you are then conquered by your own temper [Seneca]
     Full Idea: What's the use of overcoming opponent after opponent in the wrestling or boxing rings if you can be overcome by your temper?
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 088)
     A reaction: He has such a nice way of presenting what might be traditional and commonplace ideas. If you see life as a battle, then you should think very carefully about who the opponents are - because they may be hiding within.
Anger is a vice which afflicts good men as well as bad [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Other vile passions affect only the worst sort of men, but anger creeps up even on enlightened me who are otherwise sane.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On Anger (Book 3) [c.60], §04)
     A reaction: A very interesting observation for anyone who is trying to analyse the key issues in virtue theory.
Excessive curiosity is a form of intemperance [Seneca]
     Full Idea: To want to know more than is sufficient is a form of intemperance.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 088)
     A reaction: This comes as a bit of a surprise, given the high value that philosophers place on knowledge. I'm reminded of Auberon Waugh's criticism of the Scots as a 'wildly over-educated people'. I think the problem is what you could have been doing instead.
Anger is an extreme vice, threatening sanity, and gripping whole states [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Other vices drive the mind on, anger hurls it headlong; ..other vices revolt from good sense, this one from sanity; ...other vices seize individuals, this is the one passion that sometimes takes hold of an entire state.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On Anger (Book 3) [c.60], §01)
     A reaction: He particularly dislikes anger because it is the vice that leads to violence.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 4. External Goods / a. External goods
Nothing bad can happen to a good man [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Nothing bad can happen to a good man.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On Providence [c.60], §2)
     A reaction: This is a pithy summary of a well know ancient attitude - one that is rejected by Aristotle, but defended by Socrates. It depends what you mean by 'bad' - but that is a rather modern response.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 4. External Goods / c. Wealth
There is far more scope for virtue if you are wealthy; poverty only allows endurance [Seneca]
     Full Idea: What doubt can there be that the wise man has greater scope for displaying his powers if he is rich than if he is poor, since in the case of poverty only one kind of virtue exists - refusal to be bowed down and crushed.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On the Happy Life [c.60], §22)
     A reaction: It is against this view that I see Jesus proposing poverty as central to virtue. But then he has the surprising view (to Seneca) that humility is a virtue. What Nietzsche calls the slaves' inversion of values.
Why does your wife wear in her ears the income of a wealthy house? [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Why does your wife wear in her ears the income of a wealthy house?
     From: Seneca the Younger (On the Happy Life [c.60], §17)
If wealth was a good, it would make men good [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Wealth is not a good; for it it was, it would make men good.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On the Happy Life [c.60], §24)
     A reaction: An immediately attractive argument, but should we assume that anything which is good will enhance our personal goodness? If goodness is a habit, then continual pursuit of wealth is the test case to examine. Seneca is right!
24. Political Theory / B. Nature of a State / 2. State Legitimacy / d. General will
To govern used to mean to serve, not to rule; rulers did not test their powers over those who bestowed it [Seneca]
     Full Idea: In the Golden Age, to govern was to serve, not to rule. No one used to try out the extent of his power over those to whom he owed that power in the first place.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 090)
     A reaction: I spent my professional career trying to persuade people that management should be a subjection to the managed. Wake up! The second half of this idea is the interesting bit - the temptation to just 'try out' your powers gets to them all.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 5. Democracy / f. Against democracy
Unfortunately the majority do not tend to favour what is best [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Human concerns are not so happily arranged that the majority favours the better things.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On the Happy Life [c.60], §02)
     A reaction: On the whole Seneca is unimpressed by democracy, as people are rushed into decisions by the crowd, and live to regret them.
25. Social Practice / E. Policies / 5. Education / c. Teaching
One joy of learning is making teaching possible [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Part of my joy in learning is that it puts me in a position to teach.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 006)
     A reaction: This doesn't quite distinguish between bad learning and good learning, but I take a commitment to wanting to teach what you know as an essential part of wanting to know.
Both teachers and pupils should aim at one thing - the improvement of the pupil [Seneca]
     Full Idea: A person teaching and a person learning should have the same end in view: the improvement of the latter.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 108)
     A reaction: [He cites a philospher called Attalus for this remark] This is worthy to be up in the hall of every educational institution in the world, and especially in the staff rooms.
25. Social Practice / F. Life Issues / 4. Suicide
Suicide may be appropriate even when it is not urgent, if there are few reasons against it [Seneca]
     Full Idea: There are many occasions on which a man should leave life not only bravely but for reasons which are not as pressing as they might be - the reasons which restrain us being not so pressing either.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 077)
     A reaction: This is an interesting and startling claim from the great champion of suicide, who nobly and memorably committed suicide himself. But we all dread a loved one miscalculating Seneca's dialectic, and dying when living would have been better.
If we control our own death, no one has power over us [Seneca]
     Full Idea: No one has power over us when death is in our own power.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 091)
     A reaction: A classic slogan for the stoic view of suicide, an idea that crops up in Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar'. He doesn't seem to have understood that they can take away your shoelaces.
Sometimes we have a duty not to commit suicide, for those we love [Seneca]
     Full Idea: There are times when, however pressing one's reasons to the contrary, one's dying breath must be held back as it is passing one's lips, even if this is torture, simply out of consideration for one's dear ones.
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 104)
     A reaction: This is, of course, a highly significant counterbalance to his normal acceptance of suicide. I wish anyone who is planning suicide would heed it. They have no idea how much suffering will usually result from their action.
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 9. General Causation / c. Counterfactual causation
Counterfactual causation makes causes necessary but not sufficient [Lipton]
     Full Idea: The counterfactual conception of causation makes causes necessary but not sufficient conditions for their effects.
     From: Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 08 'From cause')
     A reaction: Interesting. Then causes would be necessary, but would not necessitate. So what makes a cause sufficient?
27. Natural Reality / A. Classical Physics / 1. Mechanics / c. Forces
The ocean changes in volume in proportion to the attraction of the moon [Seneca]
     Full Idea: The waves increase by degrees, approaching to the hour and day proportionately larger or smaller in volume as they are attracted by the star we call the moon, whose power controls the ocean's surge.
     From: Seneca the Younger (On Providence [c.60], §1)
     A reaction: ....just in case anyone thought that Isaac Newton had invented gravity.
27. Natural Reality / D. Time / 1. Nature of Time / a. Absolute time
Does time exist on its own? Did anything precede it? Did it pre-exist the cosmos? [Seneca]
     Full Idea: Look how many questions there are on time. Does it have an existence of its own? Does anything exist prior to time, independently of it? Did it begin with the universe, or did it exist even before then?
     From: Seneca the Younger (Letters from a Stoic [c.60], 088)
     A reaction: I'm not sure that the questions have shifted or become any clearer after two thousand years, despite Einstein and co. Note that discussions of time were not initiated by Augustine.