Philosophy is notable for its jargon, so it is a good exercise to try to summarize its classic works in short texts of just one syllable. The past few days philosophers have provided such summaries, as a game in pandemic times, maybe inspired by this classic paper. It also makes for interesting pedagogy—trying to strip down the philosophy to its bare ideas, away from the jargon. Here follows a selection of summaries, reproduced with the author’s permission.
This list was compiled by Sophie Grace Chappell, Simon Kirchin, and Helen De Cruz. We may have missed some gems. Feel free to put them in comments.
Zeno, by Nicholas Denyer
If you mean to go to a place, you must first get half of the way to that place. But if you are to go half of the way to that place, you must first get half of the way to half of the way to that place. And so on, and so on, and so on. In fact, you can't so much as start to go a place, since to start to go to a place means to do the first thing of all the things you need to do if you are to go to the place, and, as we have seen, there is no first thing.
Parmenides, by Sophie Grace Chappell
[Some warm up re "The steeds that bore me to the she God", but I'll skip all that]
IS is.
IS NOT is not.
You can think just what is there to think.
What is, is there for you to think it.
What is not, is not there for you to think it.
So don't; that is a path of thought not at all to be thought down.
Just one path is left, to which I point you: that it is, and that "is not" is not to be thought.
If there were change then IS NOT would oft be true. But IS NOT can't be true at all (see up there ^). So there is no change.
If there were two things X and Y then we would have to say "X IS NOT Y" and "Y IS NOT X". But we can’t say “is not” (see up there ^). So for all X and all Y, X IS Y. So there is just one thing. And it is It Is.
From here I get to the thought that What Is is round and the same depth and length on all sides. A globe, could be? Don't ask me how I got there.
And to what I call the way of tricks and shades, on which I have some stray thoughts on wombs, moons, and roots. Here too, don't ask me how I got there.
The end.
Plato’s Republic, by Ruth Groff
Be good and love the Good. You will like it. Nay, you will love it.
If there were no form of the Good, we could not speak of norms - of this one or of that one. In fact, we could not say what it is to *be* a norm that picks out good or bad at all, if there were no Good.
Those who have a say, &/or or sway, should be good for real, and wise. And they should try to help us all to be good for real, and wise. Which we all can be. What with how all of our souls can know and love the Good.
Aristotle's Physics, by Sophie Grace Chappell
In all change, some X is first not F and then F. (Though not: Some X is such that, in all change, *it* is first not F and then F.) So if there is change there is not change too. And of course there is change. So of course there is not change.
Here "X" stands for "Real Thing"; "F" and "Not F" stand for "ways Real Things can be".
Real Things are the real things, and the first things, that we talk of. We SAY Real Things; we SAY ways things can be OF Real Things.
The world (at least sub the moon) is made of Real Things and the ways that they can be.
Old You Know Who who taught me thought that the ways things can be are real in their own right--he called them Forms--and that the world, or at least this world, was made of a mix of these ways things can be. But the world is, at base, Real Things and their ways to be. It is not, at base, a mix of Forms.
For how could it be? A Form is just a way things CAN be. But to say that some way is a way things CAN be is not yet to say that it is a way things ARE. How does Old You Know Who get from CAN to ARE? And what does he mean by “mix”? He does not tell us straight!
The first thing in the world (at least sub the moon) is Real Things and the ways Real Things (not CAN be but) ARE.
Since that is the first thing in the world, it must be the first thing in our thought too.
Old You Know Who was our friend. But the truth is more our friend. Old You Know Who was wrong.
Dao* de jing, by Helen De Cruz
[Dao = one syllable if pronounced correctly]
The world seems like it's lots of things, but it all goes back to the Dao. We can't say what the Dao is. But we need to be in line with the Dao to be well. Now folks think the Zhou kings were wise. But I say it all went south with the Zhou. They thought you need to do rites and try to be good. But you should not try. If you try to be good you will just be fake. So stop, just be in line with the Dao. How can you be in line with Dao? Go and live in the woods. Look at the lakes, trees, plants. Hear the sound of the brook. That's the way to have joy.
Mengzi, Xunzi and Han Feizi, by Mary Beth Willard
Mengzi: All men have hearts that are good, or at least have the small seed of it. Here is how you can tell. If we were to see a small kid poised to fall in a well, we would rush to help, or at least feel shock. If we grow the seed, it will be a sprout. (All good is like this.) We can do that with the rites. Then we can be good and help the king rule.
Xunzi: Meng is nuts. Meng is wrong. All men tend bad. They are mean and screw up. The rites fix them. This is clear when you think on bowls, cups, and wood. We make these tools with hard work, and so we make our hearts, too, with the rites. Work hard and do not stop!
Han Feizi: All you all are wrong. The king has strength from the fact that he is king and we know that he is king. He also has tools: harm the bad, praise the good. Make clear rules and use your harsh tools if you want to rule. And do not trust those who would help you rule. They are sneaks and will do you ill.
Mozi, by Tyler John
The Ru are bad. They wear nice clothes and chant old rhymes but they do not heal the world. The kings are bad. They go to war and make us slaves but they do not heal the world.
Stop all the harm. Stop all the songs which just waste gold and do not heal the world. Stop all the wars for they just hurt the world. Stop all the days you mourn for the dead, for this wastes time and does not heal the world. Stop all the kings who put their friends in charge for this just harms the world.
Start to heal all the folks in the world. Start to care for all the folks in the world. Start to put the best folks in charge. Start to teach folks to care for all folks the same as their Ma and kin. Teach folks to not think fate is real so they don't just lie in bed. Teach folks to think strong ghosts are real so they don't do bad when no one can see.
When all of us care for all the folks like this then we will heal the whole world.
Anselm's Proslogion, by Nicholas Denyer
The fool says in his heart there is no god. But God is the thing so great that no thing can be thought to be more great than it. And the fool knows that this is what God is. So this thing, the thing so great that no thing can be thought to be more great than it, is there at least in the mind of the fool. But if this thing is there just in the mind of the fool, and not there in fact as well, then some thing can be thought to be more great than it. For we can think of a thing that must be there in fact, and not just in the fool's mind, since there is no way at all for it not to be there; and such a thing would be more great than the thing so great that no thing can be thought to be more great than it. But that is daft. So the thing so great that no thing can be more great must be there is fact as well, and not just in the mind of the fool.
Aquinas' Summa, by F.G. Pawl
God is the ground of all. All things that are are at least a bit good. Folks are good when they are what they are made to be: things that choose good and stay far from the bad. We can show that God is, and we can say things of God so long as we see that the words Do not work the same way as they do when we say things of our selves. What we can learn on our own with no help can fit with the stuff we learn from God’s word.
Marguerite Porete's Mirror of Simple Souls, by Amber Leigh Griffioen
Yeah, yeah, it's a good thing to be good, have good traits, and act like the church tells you. At least at first. And you dudes think this is more true for those who don't have man parts since we can't think as good as you. But guess what? We can! Still, high thought is not the end all be all of the good life since it means you hold on to all this stuff as though it were your own. No, the heart is key, not the head, and through love you can take leave of all things. For not till your will is "sans" ALL things, e'en those traits you and the church say make us good, will you find God. The soul should have "a heart most free and gay", one that goes past all high thought and good traits - one that then can be filled by God. When the soul is full of God, there is not a thing that can pull the soul from God or God from the soul. They melt in each other. Oh, you think my book is not in line with the Church? That a girl should not write such things? You think I should burn my book? Hell, no. I will burn at the stake for my work.
Machiavelli's Prince, by Simon Kirchin
My Lord. When one rules one must rule for the good of all. But the good of all does not mean one has to be good. One can be seen to be good, in some things. But most of all one should rule so as to strike fear, or oft strike fear, into the hearts of men. One must show strength, one must be sly, one must be brave. One can cause crime. In all, one must hold on. For the show of such strength is rule for the good of all, as well as good for you. (Now, can you give me a job. I did not like the gaol. The slops were not to my taste and the walls were damp with mould.)
John Locke, Top Brit Why Hound, Don of Christ Church, Ox., F R S, in words of 1 syll, by Sophie Grace Chappell
Sense comes first. All that is known, is sensed, AND THEN known.
What is sensed is, in each case, one thing, a this or a that, not a kind or type of class of things.
So too, what is known first is, in each case, one thing, a this or a that, not a kind or type of class of things.
How do we get from "I sense a thing" to "I know a thing"? Well, we sense lots of times, and the mind draws up, draws out, joins up from "I sense the thing" to "I know the thing".
[Thinks to self: "draws up, draws out, joins up"? Whuh?]
And how do we get from "I know one thing" to "I know a whole kind of things like that one thing"? Well, we know lots of times, and the mind draws up, draws out, joins up from "I know this one thing" to "I know this whole kind of things". For the rest of the things in the kind are like the thing of the kind that we first knew, when we first met our first case of a thing of that kind...
[Thinks to self: But HOW are the rest of the things LIKE the first thing? Like in what way? There are lots and lots of ways for things to be LIKE! In fact all two things are like in SOME way. So how do we form kinds? WTF? Oh well. Must press on.]
...So. We sense this or that one thing, then we know this or that one thing, then the mind does its strange stuff (draws up, draws out, joins up, and so on) and we get to know kinds of things as well as things.
Now things are what's most real, like the Greeks said. When we know things, we know what the Greeks (esp. Ar.) called Real Things.
But (see up there ^) we sense first then we know. So when we know Real Things, what we know of them first is what we sense of them. What do we sense of them?
We sense feels. Two kinds of feels. Rank One feels are things like shape, size, weight, length, and push back. Rank Two feels are things like hue, sound, taste, smell, and, well, feel.
Rank One feels go with Rank One ways to be, which are all the kinds of ways to be that Sir Zak of Trin Coll Tab talks of in his book First Rules Of Maths.
Rank Two feels go with Rank Two ways to be. These are NOT in Sir Zak's book. So they are in doubt, a bit.
Rank One feels ARE LIKE Rank One ways to be. Rank Two feels are NOT LIKE Rank Two ways to be. So now Rank Two feels are in doubt big time.
[Thinks to self: (a) feels are LIKE or NOT LIKE ways to be? WTF does that so much as mean? (b) I'm not sure I can so much as tell my feels from my ways to be. Aargh. Help, some one. No, not you, Hume.]
...Be that as it may: we know for sure that there are Real Things, like the Greeks said. For we know there are Rank Two feels that stand for Rank Two ways to be. And we know there are Rank One feels that stand for Rank One ways to be. And the Real Thing is in there, in some way, in some place, in back of all these feels and ways to be.
So (pounds desk) we can be QUITE SURE of the Real Thing. It's no big deal that we know no Rank One Feels that don't come with Rank Two feels. It's no big deal that we know, straight on, not one of the Rank One or Rank Two ways to be that are meant to come with the Rank One and Rank Two feels.
So (pounds desk till desk cracks) nor is it a big deal that we know no Real Things at all, straight on. Or that all we know, straight on, is these Rank Two feels that mask the Rank One feels that mask the Ranks One and Two ways to be that mask the Real Thing.
It's all fine. Just fine. (Wipes sweat from brow, sips port, looks at clock in hope of lunch time)
[Thinks to self: Well, that was a full on train wreck. A hot mess. I am SO in the doo doo. That Rev George of Cloyne will make SUCH hay with all this. And he will be dead right.]
Hume's Enquiry, by Simon Kirchin
There are things and then there are things that come next. But do they? Do the first things ‘cause’ the ‘next’ things? I am not so sure. You may be sure, but you should not be. You can’t prove it and nor can I. The sun rose this morn. But will it rise the next morn? I do not know. There is the past. But will the things to come look like those pasts? I do not know. But, hey! Do not sweat it. It may seem as if this is all bad. But it is not. Life is good. Wine and port are in stock. Let us eat some meat and shoot some pool. Let us see if the one ball moves the next one, eh!
René Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy, by Taylor Carman
All the things I learned in school were crap. Some of it might have been true some of it false but who could tell? You just have to start from scratch. From the ground up. Take a thought. Try to doubt it. If you can doubt it throw it out. If you can’t well then you might be on the right track.
So what can I doubt? That church spire there looks round but it’s square or square but it’s round (take your pick). Yeah but I can walk right up to it & get a good look in the light of day. But what if this is just a dream? Then there’s no church spire. In fact there’s no chair or fire here in my room. And I don’t have arms or legs or a head. Well but then at least I still know that 2 plus 2 is 4 right? But what if some bad ghost just makes me think so when it's not true?
Ah but I think. And if I think then I am. Can’t doubt that. In fact it’s not just that I think but I am a thing that thinks. Same thing. Then what? Then — hm. Good point. Um. Well I have this thought I call God. God is all good & he knows all & he can do what he wants. The All Good part is key. It means that if the bad ghost is the one glitch & it's not my fault then I can be sure that what seems clear is true. So if God is then we’re good to go.
So how do I know that God is? Well where did this thought of God come from? Not from me. I can’t make up stuff like that. Not from the world. The world is small. God is big. In short not from what is less good than God. So God must be what the thought of God came from. So God is. (By the way you might think yeah but you had to prove that God is when you still did not know if what’s clear is true. What do I say to that you ask? I say no. Once I know it I just know it. Let’s move on.) So God is. Which means that what seems clear is true. Whew! But at times I do get it wrong. What then? Then it’s my fault & if I try hard I can fix it.
All of which means that what’s clear is in here in my mind not stuff out there in the world like rocks or trees or my arms & legs & head & in fact my brain which is just part of my head. I can doubt that I have them but I can’t doubt that I think. So mind is not stuff in space. Oh yeah & beasts can’t think or feel pain. Yeah weird I know but true.
A different take on René Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy, by Sophie Grace Chappell
All say they have good sense. But good sense, in truth, is kind of rare. If "what we know" (or think we know) is a town, it has lots of bent streets and odd old slums. We should raze it and build from scratch in pure Bau Haus style.
[Yes, 'Bau Haus' was a cheat, but c'mon, you enjoyed it]
What do I know? Not as much as I think. Not old stuff, for it could be wrong. Not stuff in books, for it could be wrong. Not stuff I see or hear or taste, for that could be wrong too. All this could be dreamt!
I must start from scratch. What am I sure of? I am sure of clear and sharp thoughts that I find in my mind. I have clear and sharp thoughts of God, and of Real Things, in my mind. But if these thoughts were false I would not have them. So they are true: they could not just be dreamt. So there is a God. And there are Real Things. Sense may trick me, but God plays no tricks on us.
Am I sure of ME? Could I be wrong on ALL things--and ME too? Well if I WAS wrong on all things and me too, there would still be a ME who was wrong. So that, I can't be wrong on.
I think. And so, I am.
Rousseau's Second Discourse, by Liz McKinnell
Man is born free, but all are in chains.
At the start, we were free but we did not know things and did not meet much.
As we met more and learned more, we grew proud and hurt each other. We made cash and said we owned things and it all went to crap.
It’s all a big fraud and the rich screw the poor.
We need a world where each votes for the will of all. One who does not do that must be forced to be free.
We need to change stuff, but to do that we need to change us.
Boys need to be taught out in the wild and play in the woods. That way they can grow strong, learn, and stay free.
Girls? No, they are not the same. Shut up.
Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals, by Quill R Kukla
How and why you act is what makes what you did good or bad. You should be free when you act, and in fact, free acts are the same as smart acts, and those are the same as good acts. There are three ways to think about which kinds of acts are good. They do not sound the same, but if you think about them hard and well, they all in fact come to the same thing. 1. Good acts treat folks as ends, not as means, that is to say, as folks, not as tools for other things. 2. Bad acts are acts such that if all folks did that kind of thing, it would make no sense. 3. Good acts are the acts we would do in a made up place where no one is made of meat, since meat is a big mess; they are just made of pure, smart, free will.
Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure reason, by Sylwia Wilczewska
It's the mind that makes space and time, which are the form of things seen. If not for time, there would be no math. If not for space, there would be no things seen. What we see is not true - what is true is what can be called "the-thing-as-such"; the-thing-as-such is what in fact is and not just gets seen, though, since we can't see it, we don't know what it is. (But it looks like it may be God.) There are twelve forms which shape what we see and twelve ways in which we judge it. All of them are just in the mind. The "I" is not the same as soul: the soul is a thing, and the "I" is not - we can't see the "I" or know what it is. The proofs for the claim that there's God don't work. Pure thought does not say much. What can I know? Not more than I could see. What should I do? What can make me be such that I should have bliss. What may I hope? That I will have bliss in so far as I am such that I should have it.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit by Quill Kukla
When folks try to make things work, they don’t fit well. But when there is no fit, we grow and change. So it’s good that they don’t fit well - it helps us learn! To know things and change in good ways, we have to take risks. We might be wrong! But that’s fine. If you won’t take that risk, you can’t grow or learn to get things right. You will think you are the shit, but you are not. You are just scared and stuck. Minds are made of things in the world, and things in the world are made of minds. So when things change, minds change, and when minds change, things change. Over time, this all makes minds and worlds both be more as they should be.
Early Wittgenstein, by Victor Caston
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is all of the facts, not just all of the things.
1.11 The world is set by the facts and by the fact that they are all of the facts.
1.2 …
7 Of what one can’t speak, one should shush.
Late Wittgenstein, by Bea Groves-McDaniel
There are words. And these words mean what they mean by cause of the games we play. These games come from our form of life. Words are tools. I say 'slab' or 'block' and things are done. I don't know what that Lion means. Cos he's a Lion. So there.
Friedrich Nietzsche's Genealogy of morality, by Helen De Cruz
In the past, rich and smart folks crushed the poor and weak slaves. Those slaves got filled with rage, then said "that's it" and they got some priests to tell the rich "You think you're good, but you're not, you're bad, the weak are good. God tells us so." The rich and smart now felt bad for who they were and what they did. No one had fun. But they still cared for truth. They then saw that God is dead. But if God is dead, what is the good? Well, we all have the will to spread and grow, as all things that live try to do this. So what is good should be based in that. Be smart! Be you! Be strong!
Karl Marx's Capital, by Axel Mueller and Carlos Pereira Di Salvo
Why are the rich rich? You work more than you need to. It seems just, but it's not. You work more than you need to and have no land. The land is all theirs, and the tools as well. They buy your land so you can get no food from land that's yours. So you sell your force to work to them. They buy, and then you work with their tools on their land and they get all but what you need to live on and work for them. What they earn from you piles up, and what you keep is just hand in mouth and you can't save a bit. They can't eat all they get more nor can you sell your work for food, so gold gets to be the shit all want and need. As time goes on all like you don't have a thing, and all like them have more and more. All like you can only work, and more and more for less and less, and all like them can buy more land and tools and more of peeps like you to work for them. The name for what they have and what you lack is too long to be said in a sole bit, but has a part that's cap, a part that's it and a part that's all but no two "l". When this goes on, and what you lack and they have gets more and more, no one is free but those who hold all that which all like you need just to work. No one is free, and since work needs to be cheap, no one who works does any whole thing but does work in parts that others make whole, and no one knows just what they do or why. So no one's free, and no one's who they could be through work. All like you are tools for work, to make rich those who own the land and tools one needs to work and make things, sell things, get wins from sales. So no one's free and all no more than tools, slaves with false minds on who they are or what they should want. But things run like this for long does make them mad and more mad all the time. So then they break and scream and take up fights so they can be more than tools and get close to be free at last. There's no gold or being rich of the ones who have it all and who are free that could make this not so, no being safe for them from the slaves' ire and last fight, and they can't win since they are few and less with every step when they seem to win more gold. It won't save them from the slaves' being bound to win at last. Red flag and all that, it'll be cool, and free, and who we are at last. But now to work.
Simone de Beauvoir's Second Sex, by Sandrine Berges
The Sex that is not First but Next
By the Star of French Thought
- The one who loved Sartre -
In words of one sound.
Vol. I
It’s a man’s world.
But not by fate. Oh no.
Not the fate of life,
Or that of the past,
Or the fate of how groups move
Through time.
It was man’s world in the past.
All of the time,
Men took the things
Chose what to do,
While we stayed home
Weighed down by their seed
To make their food
Ans mend their clothes.
With all the kids
We couldn’t run
Too fat, and old
Before our time.
Then men made myths
To keep us that way.
Myths of beasts who ate their mates;
Myths of breasts that took their breath
And made the men sad and poor;
Myths of saints who bled and wept
For men’s souls to be saved.
And they wrote books of all these myths
All save one man
- The one who wrote The Red and the Black.
He thought we could love
If we don’t put one first and one next
If we don’t keep one high and one low.
He was a good guy.
Vol. II
Girls are made, not born.
They are made to be ‘you’ or ‘she’
Never ‘me’ or an ‘I’.
They are made as a child
Told not to play out
Told to stay home.
They are made as a wife:
Told not to like sex
But to do it
For the man’s sake
- Some like it best
Not with a man
For then they too
Can be an I -
Told to clean the house
Again and again
Push that old stone
Up a hill very high
Till it comes down
And then push it back.
They are made by their kids
Who grow in their guts from seeds
And won’t come out till they’re big
And need work and care
That no one else will give.
Then they grow old.
Then they die.
End
But we can change
In truth we can
If we stop all talk
Of one sex high
And one sex low
If we look each other
In the eyes and say
You are me and I am you.
Giles Deleuze’s Anti-Oedipus, by John Protevi
Part One: what is real is a flow and a break and a flow and a break and so on. You can cut off some flow to keep for you and that is fun. But watch out; it can all break down and you will just have a flow and no break; that is bad and not what we want.
Part Two: you do not want mom and dad; you want a flow and a break and a flow and a break and so on. Why did Sig Freud think you want mom and dad? Hard to say, but he was wrong. You are not a play; you are a site for a flow and a break and a flow and a break and so on. Do not try to find out what it means; try it and see if it will work.
Part Three: a tribe will scar your skin to mark a code on you so you know what is your part of a flow and a break and a flow and a break and so on. The king will want to make the code for a flow and a break and a flow and a break and so on be his code. Us, now? We let the old code break down and now we let a flow and a break and a flow and a break and so on run free! But we too have a code: do what you want as long as you can make a cut in a flow and keep some. It is a hell of a way to run a code; you have to go to the moon and start a war and so on just to keep that code at work.
Part Four: what do we do next? That is not our job. We have told you what is real. What you do is up to you and your squad to see if you can make a new way to have a flow and a break and a flow and a break and so on that will not end up in a war but in what would be good for all if you can make it work that way.
John Rawls' theory of Justice, by Simon Kirchin
Just think. There is a veil. You can’t see the way of the world. You do not know if, in this world, you are rich or poor, posh or scum, black or white, WASP or Scotch or Scouse, of fair hair or red. How do you think the world should be run? What of land? What of wealth? How should the rule of law be? What should it do? What is fair and what is just? What would YOU choose if you do not know who you are in the world? What should WE ALL choose? Should you - should we - ‘max’ the ‘min’? Yes. (But, wait....when I said all that I was of a mind to say what the West does. What to say of folks who are not of and in the West? Erm... I will get back to you.)
Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, & Utopia, by Sophie Grace Chappell
Men are free, full stop, and there are things no one can do to free men, no way you cut it. That's the thing. Rawls wants a veil and then a nice way to share out those folks' stuff for you and me. But those folks' stuff is their stuff. It's not your stuff to share out, not if they don't want to give it to you. To make them give you their stuff, or get the state to make them do it, to make them work all those hours to pay their tax--all that is in truth to make them slaves.
So don't whine if you're dirt poor and that guy Wilt is mad rich. Wilt shoots hoops and folks pay to see. That's why he's rich. It was a fair deal right down the line. So don't whine. And as for you--what have you done? Hey? What? That's right. Zilch. Nix. So like I said, quit your whines.
I want free men. Start on your own, build your ranch, make your stuff, oil your gun, shoot the red skins if they're a threat. Join up in deals to feel safe if you like, or not, it's up to you, not to the state. Pay a doc if you like, or get sick and die if you like that more. It's up to you. It's all up to you.
No state more than we want. So there might be no docs, no meds, no Web, no roads, no schools, no town hall, no Pres, no day care, no old care, no sick pay, no hols, no help for the broke, no guys in white coats who keep our food safe, no way to keep the air clean and the earth green. Tough. That "take it from him and share it all out for us" stuff's all for the Reds.
In 6 words: Do you feel in luck, punk?
Friedrich Hayek’s The Use of Knowledge in Society, by Jason Brennan
The folks who make stuff need to know what all the folks want and need. They need to know all the ways to make all the stuff. They need to know how to pick which way to make stuff. They need some way to learn all that.
But that can't be known by just one dude or just a few dudes. The stuff we need to know is spread out and will stay that way. Worse, that stuff is in flux all the time. Crap!
Good news, though! Since the price of this and that comes from what all the folks want and know, it turns out that when we act on the price of milk, the price of gold, and the price of all the things out there, we act *as if* we know what all the folks know, though in fact we do not know it. Cool! Stuff gets made and folks get most of what they want and need.
A Saint Proves in Two Ways that God Is Real and Must Be Real
Proof Type One:
I can think of God as best-that-can-be-thought. So God is in my mind as that. But if God is one who is not real, then I can still think of God as best-that-can-be-thought and who is real too, and that is a God as best-that-can-be-thought that beats out, as the right thought of God (by rules of truth), my thought of God as best-that-can-be-thought and who is not real. So if I think in truth that God is best-that-can-be-thought, then God as best-that-can-be-thought must be one who is real, or my thought of God is not the right thought of God as best-that-can-be-thought. So just to think of God (by the rules of truth) as best-that-can-be-thought means God must be one who is real.
Proof Type Two:
I can think of stuff that is real, but may not have been real--like me. If Mom and Dad had had a fight the night in some world much like where I was made to be born, but they did not make me to be born, then I would not have been born and would not be real. So some stuff like me does not have to be real, but just turned out to be real and did not in a strong way have to be real. And most all real stuff I can think of may not have been here as real in the same kind of way that I might not have been here. God is in my mind as best-that-can-be-thought. But if I think that God as best-that-can-be-thought is just real, but may have not been real just like me and most all stuff I can think of, then I can think of a God that is more than that (by rules of truth)--a God that as best-that-can-be-thought that must be real and could not have been not real. So if I think that God is best-that-can-be-thought and may not have been real, then that is not God as best-that-can-be-thought, for I can think of God as best-that-can-be-thought and could not have been not real. So just to think of God in the right way means God must be real in a strong way that I and most all stuff I can think of are not real in the same way. So God must be real, and may not be not real.
Posted by: Alan White | 05/25/2020 at 05:23 PM
On the one hand, these are sort of cool. On the other hand, if students turned in the ones above that relate to my teaching specialties for their exam, they'd maybe get a B.
There is great value in explaining ideas/concepts/etc. in as simple a language as possible. But I remain skeptical that we can get much beyond a caricature of philosophical views if we have limitations of this sort.
Posted by: Tom | 05/26/2020 at 04:18 AM
If you get your monosyllables right, people do not notice, and simply respond to the content. I found this when I posted the following on Facebook:
We draw shapes to help us prove things true of shapes. But the things that we prove true of shapes are not quite true of the shapes that we draw. Thus, when we do proofs, we say that a square has four straight lines, all just the same in length, to be its sides; but the things that we draw, and call straight lines, are all in fact a bit blurred and bent, and so are not, to be strict, true straight lines, but just smears and stripes. So we must ask: since our proofs do not match the shapes that we draw, what use can it be to draw those shapes?
Posted by: Nicholas Denyer | 05/27/2020 at 08:02 AM
https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Math/Milnikel/boolos-godel.pdf
Posted by: Ken A | 05/27/2020 at 10:09 AM
I made up one of these for Epicurus, but it's a bit long for a comment--about 2 pages--so I'll just leave a link here in case anybody is curious:
https://www.academia.edu/43191672/Epicurus_and_a_bit_of_Lucretius_in_words_of_one_syllable
Posted by: Tim O'Keefe | 05/28/2020 at 09:34 PM
The Nozick summary smuggles in critiques that don't apply or apply arguably at best. It should stress more that people have the right to keep what they earn and to gift anything that is theirs to anyone else. If someone is in need and wants someone else's stuff, they must persuade others to freely give it to them. They may not take it, except for stealing in dire circumstances of starvation, for instance, which Nozick explicitly allows in ASU. Of course, Nozick also knew that market societies tend to benefit very many people and very widely over the generations.
Posted by: Anonymous | 05/30/2020 at 02:50 PM
Catherine Wilson
May 20 at 2:17 PM ·
Most of Kant in words of one syllable:
A cause can make you do a thing but it can’t make you bad. If you are bad, that is on you. There’s a test you can do just to check if it's fine. Don’t do that to him or her there if you don’t want him or her to do that to you some fine day. See how that works for all the big don'ts? Life may make you sore, but you can be brave and pure. You are free, ‘cos your self is not a thing in the world. You made up the world. You made up space and time and cause. Are you a ghost? A ghost plus a bod? You could be a ghost in a bod or just a bod or just a ghost, but you can’t know that. Is there a God? If it makes you be good, fine, you can think that. In fact, you should think that, so you don’t get too down when what’s going on makes you sore or sad. Chicks have no skills for most things and don’t think straight, but they can cook and are a help when you are sick. You can make a deal with them so life will go on and there will be more folks to be good down the line. Here’s what else. Folks are on the move; they go far and bring their smarts to all and some day world peace.
Posted by: Catherine Wilson | 06/08/2020 at 11:34 AM
Of Liberty and Necessity.
Free will could mean one of two things. It could mean that a free act of will has no cause in the world of mass, length, and time. Or, it could mean that the act of will is not tied down, not hemmed in. But if it is not caused, then it must come to pass by pure chance. And at least at the time when I, Hume, write this, we do not know one thing that takes place by pure chance. And, if in some way my act of will could be based on just a roll of the dice, in what sense would it in fact be "my" act of will at all? Thus we must take free will to mean a will that is not tied down or hemmed in too much. So free will must come down to this: if I can will as I want to will, and if I could have willed not in that way if I had wished to, then my will is as free as it could be, and as free as I could want it to be.
Posted by: Steve George | 01/07/2023 at 05:37 AM