65 ideas
| 23183 | Different abilities are needed for living in an incomplete and undogmatic system [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: There is an entirely different strength and mobility to maintaining oneself in an incomplete system, with free, open vistas, than in a dogmatic world. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[025]) | |
| A reaction: This is like Keats's 'negative capability' - the ability to live in a state of uncertainty. I'm a fan of attempts to create a philosophical system, but dogmatism would seem to be the death of such a project. How would you live with your system? Nice. |
| 23188 | Bad writers use shapeless floating splotches of concepts [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Bad writers have only shapeless floating splotches of concepts in their heads. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[083]) | |
| A reaction: Under 'conceptual analyis' not because he analyses concepts, but because he recognises their foundation importance in philosophy. I get more irritated by unchallenged concepts than by drifting concepts. Writer must know and challenge their key concepts. |
| 23212 | A text has many interpretations, but no 'correct' one [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The same text allows innumerable interpretations: there is no 'correct' interpretation. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 1[120]) | |
| A reaction: It is hard to defend a 'correct' interpretation, but I think it is obvious to students of literature that some interpretations are very silly, such as reading things allegorically when there was no such intention. |
| 17774 | Definitions make our intuitions mathematically useful [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: Definition provides us with the means for converting our intuitions into mathematically usable concepts. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-1) |
| 17773 | Proof shows that it is true, but also why it must be true [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: When you have proved something you know not only that it is true, but why it must be true. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-2) | |
| A reaction: Note the word 'must'. Presumably both the grounding and the necessitation of the truth are revealed. |
| 23199 | What is the search for truth if it isn't moral? [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: What is searching for truth, truthfulness, honesty if not something moral? | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 35[05]) | |
| A reaction: Feels right to me. It might be an effect of the virtue of respect. If you respect a person you tell them the truth (assuming they want the truth). Lying to someone is a sort of contempt. |
| 23202 | Like all philosophers, I love truth [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: I, too, love truth, like all philosophers. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 37[02]) | |
| A reaction: Please pay attention to this remark! His perspectivalism is not a denial of truth. It is an epistemological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. The perspectives are the nearest we can get to truth. Humanity therefore needs teamwork. |
| 17795 | Set theory can't be axiomatic, because it is needed to express the very notion of axiomatisation [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: Set theory cannot be an axiomatic theory, because the very notion of an axiomatic theory makes no sense without it. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.413-2) | |
| A reaction: This will come as a surprise to Penelope Maddy, who battles with ways to accept the set theory axioms as the foundation of mathematics. Mayberry says that the basic set theory required is much more simple and intuitive. |
| 17796 | There is a semi-categorical axiomatisation of set-theory [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: We can give a semi-categorical axiomatisation of set-theory (all that remains undetermined is the size of the set of urelements and the length of the sequence of ordinals). The system is second-order in formalisation. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.413-2) | |
| A reaction: I gather this means the models may not be isomorphic to one another (because they differ in size), but can be shown to isomorphic to some third ingredient. I think. Mayberry says this shows there is no such thing as non-Cantorian set theory. |
| 17800 | The misnamed Axiom of Infinity says the natural numbers are finite in size [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The (misnamed!) Axiom of Infinity expresses Cantor's fundamental assumption that the species of natural numbers is finite in size. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.414-2) |
| 17801 | The set hierarchy doesn't rely on the dubious notion of 'generating' them [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The idea of 'generating' sets is only a metaphor - the existence of the hierarchy is established without appealing to such dubious notions. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.414-2) | |
| A reaction: Presumably there can be a 'dependence' or 'determination' relation which does not involve actual generation. |
| 17803 | Limitation of size is part of the very conception of a set [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: Our very notion of a set is that of an extensional plurality limited in size. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.415-2) |
| 17786 | The mainstream of modern logic sees it as a branch of mathematics [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: In the mainstream tradition of modern logic, beginning with Boole, Peirce and Schröder, descending through Löwenheim and Skolem to reach maturity with Tarski and his school ...saw logic as a branch of mathematics. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.410-1) | |
| A reaction: [The lesser tradition, of Frege and Russell, says mathematics is a branch of logic]. Mayberry says the Fregean tradition 'has almost died out'. |
| 17788 | First-order logic only has its main theorems because it is so weak [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: First-order logic is very weak, but therein lies its strength. Its principle tools (Compactness, Completeness, Löwenheim-Skolem Theorems) can be established only because it is too weak to axiomatize either arithmetic or analysis. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.411-2) | |
| A reaction: He adds the proviso that this is 'unless we are dealing with structures on whose size we have placed an explicit, finite bound' (p.412-1). |
| 17791 | Only second-order logic can capture mathematical structure up to isomorphism [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: Second-order logic is a powerful tool of definition: by means of it alone we can capture mathematical structure up to isomorphism using simple axiom systems. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-1) |
| 23196 | Logic is a fiction, which invents the view that one thought causes another [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The model of a complete fiction is logic. Here a thinking is made up where a thought is posited as the cause of another thought. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[249]) | |
| A reaction: He could almost be referring to Frege's Third Realm. Most hard core analytic philosophers seem to think that propositions have tight logical relationships which are nothing to do with the people who think them. |
| 17787 | Big logic has one fixed domain, but standard logic has a domain for each interpretation [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The 'logica magna' [of the Fregean tradition] has quantifiers ranging over a fixed domain, namely everything there is. In the Boolean tradition the domains differ from interpretation to interpretation. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.410-2) | |
| A reaction: Modal logic displays both approaches, with different systems for global and local domains. |
| 17790 | No Löwenheim-Skolem logic can axiomatise real analysis [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: No logic which can axiomatize real analysis can have the Löwenheim-Skolem property. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-1) |
| 17779 | 'Classificatory' axioms aim at revealing similarity in morphology of structures [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The purpose of a 'classificatory' axiomatic theory is to single out an otherwise disparate species of structures by fixing certain features of morphology. ...The aim is to single out common features. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.406-2) |
| 17778 | Axiomatiation relies on isomorphic structures being essentially the same [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The central dogma of the axiomatic method is this: isomorphic structures are mathematically indistinguishable in their essential properties. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.406-2) | |
| A reaction: Hence it is not that we have to settle for the success of a system 'up to isomorphism', since that was the original aim. The structures must differ in their non-essential properties, or they would be the same system. |
| 17780 | 'Eliminatory' axioms get rid of traditional ideal and abstract objects [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The purpose of what I am calling 'eliminatory' axiomatic theories is precisely to eliminate from mathematics those peculiar ideal and abstract objects that, on the traditional view, constitute its subject matter. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.407-1) | |
| A reaction: A very interesting idea. I have a natural antipathy to 'abstract objects', because they really mess up what could otherwise be a very tidy ontology. What he describes might be better called 'ignoring' axioms. The objects may 'exist', but who cares? |
| 17789 | No logic which can axiomatise arithmetic can be compact or complete [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: No logic which can axiomatise arithmetic can be compact or complete. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-1) | |
| A reaction: I take this to be because there are new truths in the transfinite level (as well as the problem of incompleteness). |
| 23186 | Numbers enable us to manage the world - to the limits of counting [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Numbers are our major means of making the world manageable. We comprehend as far as we can count, i.e. as far as a constancy can be perceived. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[058]) | |
| A reaction: I don't agree with 'major', but it is a nice thought. The intermediate concept is a 'unit', which means identifying something as a 'thing', which is how we seem to grasp the world. So to what extent do we comprehend the infinite. Enter Cantor… |
| 17784 | Real numbers can be eliminated, by axiom systems for complete ordered fields [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: We eliminate the real numbers by giving an axiomatic definition of the species of complete ordered fields. These axioms are categorical (mutually isomorphic), and thus are mathematically indistinguishable. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.408-2) | |
| A reaction: Hence my clever mathematical friend says that it is a terrible misunderstanding to think that mathematics is about numbers. Mayberry says the reals are one ordered field, but mathematics now studies all ordered fields together. |
| 17782 | Greek quantities were concrete, and ratio and proportion were their science [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: Quantities for Greeks were concrete things - lines, surfaces, solids, times, weights. At the centre of their science of quantity was the beautiful theory of ratio and proportion (...in which the notion of number does not appear!). | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.407-2) | |
| A reaction: [He credits Eudoxus, and cites Book V of Euclid] |
| 17781 | Real numbers were invented, as objects, to simplify and generalise 'quantity' [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The abstract objects of modern mathematics, the real numbers, were invented by the mathematicians of the seventeenth century in order to simplify and to generalize the Greek science of quantity. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.407-2) |
| 17799 | Cantor's infinite is an absolute, of all the sets or all the ordinal numbers [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: In Cantor's new vision, the infinite, the genuine infinite, does not disappear, but presents itself in the guise of the absolute, as manifested in the species of all sets or the species of all ordinal numbers. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.414-2) |
| 17797 | Cantor extended the finite (rather than 'taming the infinite') [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: We may describe Cantor's achievement by saying, not that he tamed the infinite, but that he extended the finite. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.414-2) |
| 17775 | If proof and definition are central, then mathematics needs and possesses foundations [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: If we grant, as surely we must, the central importance of proof and definition, then we must also grant that mathematics not only needs, but in fact has, foundations. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-1) |
| 17776 | The ultimate principles and concepts of mathematics are presumed, or grasped directly [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The ultimate principles upon which mathematics rests are those to which mathematicians appeal without proof; and the primitive concepts of mathematics ...themselves are grasped directly, if grasped at all, without the mediation of definition. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-1) | |
| A reaction: This begs the question of whether the 'grasping' is purely a priori, or whether it derives from experience. I defend the latter, and Jenkins puts the case well. |
| 17777 | Foundations need concepts, definition rules, premises, and proof rules [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: An account of the foundations of mathematics must specify four things: the primitive concepts for use in definitions, the rules governing definitions, the ultimate premises of proofs, and rules allowing advance from premises to conclusions. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-2) |
| 17804 | Axiom theories can't give foundations for mathematics - that's using axioms to explain axioms [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: No axiomatic theory, formal or informal, of first or of higher order can logically play a foundational role in mathematics. ...It is obvious that you cannot use the axiomatic method to explain what the axiomatic method is. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.415-2) |
| 17792 | 1st-order PA is only interesting because of results which use 2nd-order PA [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The sole theoretical interest of first-order Peano arithmetic derives from the fact that it is a first-order reduct of a categorical second-order theory. Its axioms can be proved incomplete only because the second-order theory is categorical. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-1) |
| 17793 | It is only 2nd-order isomorphism which suggested first-order PA completeness [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: If we did not know that the second-order axioms characterise the natural numbers up to isomorphism, we should have no reason to suppose, a priori, that first-order Peano Arithmetic should be complete. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-1) |
| 17794 | Set theory is not just first-order ZF, because that is inadequate for mathematics [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The idea that set theory must simply be identified with first-order Zermelo-Fraenkel is surprisingly widespread. ...The first-order axiomatic theory of sets is clearly inadequate as a foundation of mathematics. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-2) | |
| A reaction: [He is agreeing with a quotation from Skolem]. |
| 17802 | We don't translate mathematics into set theory, because it comes embodied in that way [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: One does not have to translate 'ordinary' mathematics into the Zermelo-Fraenkel system: ordinary mathematics comes embodied in that system. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.415-1) | |
| A reaction: Mayberry seems to be a particular fan of set theory as spelling out the underlying facts of mathematics, though it has to be second-order. |
| 17805 | Set theory is not just another axiomatised part of mathematics [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The fons et origo of all confusion is the view that set theory is just another axiomatic theory and the universe of sets just another mathematical structure. ...The universe of sets ...is the world that all mathematical structures inhabit. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.416-1) |
| 23211 | Events are just interpretations of groups of appearances [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: There is no event in itself. What happens is a group of appearances selected and summarised by an interpreting being. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 1[115]) | |
| A reaction: Since innumerable events are nested within one another, such as the events at a carnival, this is obviously true. A primitive 'Kim event' (an object changes a property) might have objective existence. Carnivals happen, though. |
| 17785 | Real numbers as abstracted objects are now treated as complete ordered fields [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The abstractness of the old fashioned real numbers has been replaced by generality in the modern theory of complete ordered fields. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.408-2) | |
| A reaction: In philosophy, I'm increasingly thinking that we should talk much more of 'generality', and a great deal less about 'universals'. (By which I don't mean that redness is just the set of red things). |
| 23201 | The 'I' does not think; it is a construction of thinking, like other useful abstractions [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: I do not grant to the metaphysicians that the 'I' is what thinks: on the contrary I take the I itself as a construction thinking, of the same rank as 'material',' thing', 'substance', 'purpose', 'number': therefore only as a regulative fiction. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 35[35]) | |
| A reaction: Ah. I have always defended the Self, the thing that is in charge when the mind is directed to something. I suddenly see that this is compatible with the Self not being the thinker! It is just the willer, and the controller of the searchlight. Self = will? |
| 23207 | Appearance is the sole reality of things, to which all predicates refer [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Appearance as I understand it is the actual and single reality of things - that which first merits all existing predicates. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 40[53]) | |
| A reaction: This is the view espoused by John Stuart Mill (a fact which would shock Nietzsche!). Elsewhere he laughs at the concept of the thing-in-itself as a fiction. |
| 23197 | Memory is essential, and is only possible by means of abbreviation signs [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Experience is only possible with the help of memory; memory is only possible by virtue of an abbreviation of an intellectual event as a sign. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[249]) | |
| A reaction: My memory of a town is not formed as a sign, but as a bunch of miscellaneous fragments about it. I think mental files gives a better account of this than do 'signs'. |
| 23206 | Schematic minds think thoughts are truer if they slot into a scheme [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: There are schematic minds, those who hold a thought-complex to be truer if it can be sketched into previously drafted schemata or categorical tables. There are countless self-deceptions in this area: nearly all the great 'systems' belong here. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 40[09]) | |
| A reaction: Why 'nearly all'? Aristotle might be a candidate for such a person. Leibniz, perhaps. Nietzsche identified with Becoming and Heraclitus, as opposed to Being and Parmenides. |
| 23209 | Each of our personal drives has its own perspective [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: From the standpoint of each of our fundamental drives there is a different perspectival assessment of all events and experiences. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 1[058]) | |
| A reaction: Revealing. Perspectives are not just each individual person's viewpoint, but something more fine-grained than that. Our understanding and response are ambiguous, because we ourselves are intrinsically ambiguous. Super-relativism! |
| 23184 | The mind is a simplifying apparatus [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The intellect and the senses are above all a simplifying apparatus. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[046]) | |
| A reaction: Very plausible, and not an idea I have met elsewhere. There's a PhD here for someone. It fits with my view as universals in language (which is most of language), which capture diverse things by ironing out their differences. |
| 23190 | Consciousness is our awareness of our own mental life [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: We have a double brain: our capacity to will, to feel and to think of our willing, feeling, thinking ourselves is what we summarise with the word 'consciousness'. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[087]) | |
| A reaction: Pretty much the modern HOT (higher order thought) theory of consciousness. Higher order thought distinguishes us from the other animals, but I think they too are probably conscious, so I don't agree. Why is level 2 conscious of level 1? |
| 23191 | Minds have an excluding drive to scare things off, and a selecting one to filter facts [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: In our conscious intellect there must be an excluding drive that scares things away, a selecting one, which only permits certain facts to present themselves. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[131]) | |
| A reaction: I like this because he is endorsing the idea that philosophy needs faculties, which may not match the views of psychologists and neuroscientists. Quite nice to think of faculties as drives. |
| 23213 | The greatest drive of life is to discharge strength, rather than preservation [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Something that lives wants above all to discharge its strength: 'preservation' is only one of the consequences of this. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 2[063]) | |
| A reaction: This seems to fit a dynamic man like Nietzsche, rather than someone who opts for a quiet and comfortable life. |
| 23210 | That all events are necessary does not mean they are compelled [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The absolute necessity of all events contains nothing of a compulsion. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 1[114]) | |
| A reaction: I like to look for necessity-makers behind necessities. So if the event is not necessary because of its cause, where does it come from? Is it that the whole sequence is a unified necessity? |
| 23189 | Concepts are rough groups of simultaneous sensations [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Concepts are more or less definite groups of sensations that arrive together. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[086]) | |
| A reaction: I like this because I favour accounts of concepts which root them in experience, and largely growing unthinking out of communcal experience. Nietzsche is very empirical here. Hume would probably agree. |
| 23192 | Concepts don’t match one thing, but many things a little bit [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: A concept is an invention that doesn't correspond entirely to anything; but to many things a little bit. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[131]) | |
| A reaction: This seems to cover some concepts quite well, but others not at all. What else does 'square' correspond to? |
| 23187 | Whatever their origin, concepts survive by being useful [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The most useful concepts have survived: however falsely they may have originated. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[063]) | |
| A reaction: The germ of both pragmatism, and of meaning-as-use, here. The alternative views must be that the concepts are accurate or true, or that they are simply a matter of whim, maintained by authority. |
| 23205 | Thought starts as ambiguity, in need of interpretation and narrowing [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: A thought in the shape in which it comes is an ambiguous sign that needs interpretation, more precisely, needs an arbitrary narrowing-down and limitation, until it finally becomes unambiguous. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 38[01]) | |
| A reaction: This is exactly my view of propositions, as mental events. Introspect your thinking process. Track the progress from the first glimmer of a thought to its formulation in a finished sentence. Language, unlike propositions, can be ambiguous. |
| 23198 | Aesthetics can be more basic than morality, in our pleasure in certain patterns of experience [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Some of the aesthetic valuations are more fundamental than the moral ones e.g. the pleasure in what is ordered, surveyable, limited, in repetition. The logical, arithmetical and geometrical good feelings form the ground floor of aesthetic valuations. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 35[02]) | |
| A reaction: Nietzsche's originality is so striking because his novel suggestions are always plausible. Lots of modern philosophers (especially, I fear, in the continental tradition) throw out startling ideas which then fail on closer inspection. |
| 23208 | Caesar and Napoleon point to the future, when they pursue their task regardless of human sacrifice [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: In nature's such as Caesar and Napoleon we intuit something of a 'disinterested' laboring on one's marble, regardless of any sacrifice of human beings. The future of the highest human beings lies on here: to bear responsibility and not collapse under it. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 1[056]) | |
| A reaction: Hideous. Nietzsche at his absolute worst. You would think there was some wonderful higher good to which they were leading the human race, when they just strike me as people who liked fighting, and adored winning. |
| 23193 | Napoleon was very focused, and rightly ignored compassion [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: With Napoleon only the essential instincts of humanity came into consideration during his calculations, and he had a right not to take notice of the exceptional ones e.g. of compassion. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[131]) | |
| A reaction: Napoleon was notoriously indifferent to casualties, and I find it depressing that Nietzsche supports him. Napoleon brought misery to Europe for nearly twenties, mainly because he loved winning battles. Nothing über about that. |
| 23214 | For the strongest people, nihilism gives you wings! [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: In the hands of the strongest every kind of pessimism and nihilism becomes only one more hammer and tool with which one mounts a new pair of wings on oneself. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 2[101]) | |
| A reaction: Not sure how this works. Why is great strength needed? Strength implies forceful overcoming. The wings come from rejecting nihilism, but why does that need strength? Aren't there people with wings who never even thought of nihilism? |
| 23203 | The great question is approaching, of how to govern the earth as a whole [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: It is approaching, irrefutably, hesitatingly, terrible as fate, the great task and fate: how should the earth as a whole be governed? | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 37[08]) | |
| A reaction: Two issues have accelerated the question, though we have yet to properly face it. One is the incredible increase in military destructiveness, and other is the damage to the planet caused by the relentless pursuit of wealth. |
| 23200 | The controlling morality of aristocracy is the desire to resemble their ancestors [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The foundation of all aristocracies …is to resemble the ancestors as much as possible, which serves as the controlling morality: mourning at the thought of change and variation. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 35[22]) | |
| A reaction: This makes sense of the permanent residence of the family, full of portraits and family trees. Aristocrats preserve records of their predecessors, in a way that most of us don't, going back before grandparents. |
| 23194 | People feel united as a nation by one language, but then want a common ancestry and history [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: People who speak one language and read the same newspapers today call themselves 'nations', and also want much too eagerly to be of common ancestry and history. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[203]) | |
| A reaction: This sort of nationalism is still with us, as white supremacy, and as history as mythology. But we can't just shake off a sense of which gene pools we come from, and which lines of history are our personal inheritance. |
| 23204 | To be someone you need property, and wanting more is healthy [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: Property owners are to a man of one belief: 'you have to own something to be something'. But this is the oldest and healthiest of all instincts: I would add 'you have to want more than you have in order to become more'. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 37[11]) | |
| A reaction: An odd idea from someone who spent his later years living in one room in a guest house. The context of this is a rejection of socialism. The love of and need for property and possessions must be taken into account in any politics. |
| 1748 | Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless [Archelaus, by Diog. Laertius] |
| Full Idea: Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless. | |
| From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 02.Ar.3 |
| 23195 | Laws of nature are actually formulas of power relations [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: The alleged 'laws of nature' are formulas for power relationships… | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[247]) | |
| A reaction: Love it. This is precisely the powers ontology of modern philosophy of science. His Will to Power is not often recognised as closely related to this view. |
| 23185 | In chemistry every substance pushes, and thus creates new substances [Nietzsche] |
| Full Idea: In chemistry is revealed that every substance pushes its force as far as it can, then a third something emerges. | |
| From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[51]) | |
| A reaction: This is the ontology of powers as the basis of science, of which I am a fan. It is Nietzsche's Will to Power in action, which is often mistakenly taken to only refer to human affairs. |
| 5989 | Archelaus said life began in a primeval slime [Archelaus, by Schofield] |
| Full Idea: Archelaus wrote that life on Earth began in a primeval slime. | |
| From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Malcolm Schofield - Archelaus | |
| A reaction: This sounds like a fairly clearcut assertion of the production of life by evolution. Darwin's contribution was to propose the mechanism for achieving it. We should honour the name of Archelaus for this idea. |