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?
eat, fuck, sleep - ?
Posted by: abc | December 08, 2007 at 12:00 PM
The components of a choiceworthy life.
Posted by: ben wolfson | December 08, 2007 at 12:07 PM
or reflexes dictated by choice
Posted by: def | December 08, 2007 at 12:15 PM
and choice is arbitrary
Posted by: g | December 08, 2007 at 12:16 PM
I'm cutting you off after this.
Posted by: ben wolfson | December 08, 2007 at 12:19 PM
That is pretty ridiculous.
Posted by: Alex Lampros | December 08, 2007 at 07:36 PM
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...
Posted by: germanidealist | December 09, 2007 at 11:58 AM
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.
Posted by: ben wolfson | December 09, 2007 at 04:44 PM
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...
Posted by: germanidealist | December 09, 2007 at 08:18 PM
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.)
Posted by: ben wolfson | December 09, 2007 at 08:31 PM
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!
Posted by: germanidealist | December 09, 2007 at 08:56 PM