A thought 26 Jun 2010 Things and actions are what they are, and consequences of them will be what they will be: why then should we desire to be deceived? [Bishop Joseph Butler, Fifteen Sermons, Sermon VII, §16.] This is widely misquoted from Isaiah Berlin’s epigram at the head of Karl Marx: His life and environment (1939) as (misquotations bolded): Things and actions are what they are, and their consequences will be what they will be: why then should we seek to be deceived? I have found it in an earlier essay, from 1937. Possibly this is where Berlin got it. Even recent historians misquote it. Ethics and Moral Philosophy Philosophy Quotes PhilosophyQuotes
Epistemology What, however, is the EAAN? 4 Mar 20124 Mar 2012 [Previous posts: One and Two] I may have been too hasty in my acceptance that Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism was not what I had originally given. As commenter Nick Matzke pointed out, Plantinga seems to be doing a bit of historical revision here. In the version he gives now,… Read More
Biology Repost: The Song of the Scientist 30 Oct 200918 Sep 2017 I found this on my old blog and liked it so much, I thought I’d replay it: A recent report on the songs of the eponymous “great tit”, a common forest bird famous for learning to peck the foil tops of milk bottles in the 1950s, shows that they independently… Read More
History Wittgenstein, transformation, and evolution 31 Jul 201131 Jul 2011 Reposted from my first blog, and edited. When Wittgenstein collaborated for a period with Friederich Waismann, the outcome was an unpublished book, Logik, Sprache, Philosophie. He was working his way from the logical atomism of the Tractatus to the holism of the Philosophical Investigations. They wrote: Our thought here marches with certain views… Read More
Earlier in the section, he writes: “Even without determining what that is which we call guilt or innocence, there is no man but would choose, after having had the pleasure or advantage of a vicious action, to be free of the guilt of it, to be in the state of an innocent man. This shows at least the disturbance and implicit dissatisfaction in vice.” At most, it shows (instead) the disturbance and implicit dissatisfaction in what one acknowledges to be (one’s own) vice – a different thing entirely. Unacknowledged, there is no need for the “hurry of business or of pleasure” to assist in any desired deception, there being an absence of the latter.
Possibly, but I couldn’t locate another edition at the time. Google Books has the original 1726 edition here, and it has the same wording. Later note: As does the 1792 edition here.
The first variation does not seem to me to signal a difference. The second (“seek” v. “desire”) makes a common implication of “desire” explicit. And I wouldn’t even be surprised to find that one of the recorded meanings of “seek” IS “desire” (esp. in contexts such as “seek to be deceived”). Must look it up when I achieve immortality. Is there much in it?