Staggering
There are many cases in which we need a hard and fast concept for the purposes of philosohical understanding … even where there is not a hard and fast line in nature.
—so aren't we left with a philosophical misunderstanding?
(It's from Korsgaard's Locke Lectures, number three, page seventeen, in section three point four point six.)
One is also moved to wonder at this: Self-conscious action—that [is] to say human action
—there's no human action which is not self-conscious?
Comments
on 2007-12-08 0:00:34.0, abc commented:
eat, fuck, sleep - ?
and, further, on 2007-12-08 0:07:17.0, ben wolfson commented:
The components of a choiceworthy life.
and, further, on 2007-12-08 0:15:13.0, def commented:
or reflexes dictated by choice
and, further, on 2007-12-08 0:16:30.0, g commented:
and choice is arbitrary
and, further, on 2007-12-08 0:19:38.0, ben wolfson commented:
I'm cutting you off after this.
and, further, on 2007-12-08 19:36:34.0, Alex Lampros commented:
That is pretty ridiculous.
and, further, on 2007-12-09 11:58:43.0, germanidealist commented:
well, if there is no line in nature at all (how could it be a line if it were not hard and fast?), then it is not a misunderstanding. It would be a misunderstanding if there was a line in nature, but we failed to draw it where nature draws it...
and, further, on 2007-12-09 16:44:42.0, ben wolfson commented:
I am assuming that we are trying to understand nature, and that by putting the hard and fast lines in at all, a mistake is being perpetrated.
Yes, perpetrated. Not made.
and, further, on 2007-12-09 20:18:25.0, germanidealist commented:
you sound so Quinean today! All this naturalist talk about wanting to understand nature, but then you get all whiny about drawing distinctions. True, distinctions are man-made, but hey: no distinctions, no understanding at all. It's just this terrible discursive intellect of ours, I suppose...
and, further, on 2007-12-09 20:31:38.0, ben wolfson commented:
you sound so Quinean today!
Quinean/Nietzschean/Lichtenbergian, oh my.
This is why Funes the Memorious had so many problems, I suppose.
(I still believe that my reaction is not so ridiculous (perhaps if it's revealed that she's talking about action here? I think I do have a reasonably acceptable if nonsystematic understanding of what an action is—though it admits of hard cases—which would not really be aided by the introduction of hard and fast rules) but have been beaten down by grading.)
and, further, on 2007-12-09 20:56:18.0, germanidealist commented:
No, your reaction is not so ridiculous, rest assured. I just thought it would be fun to attempt to defend Korsgaard. Especially against a Romantic like you!