11 ideas
13437 | A CAR and its major PART can become identical, yet seem to have different properties [Gallois] |
Full Idea: At t1 there is a whole CAR, and a PART of it, which is everything except the right front wheel. At t2 the wheel is removed, leaving just PART, so that CAR is now PART. But PART was a proper part of CAR, and CAR had the front wheel. Different properties! | |
From: André Gallois (Occasions of Identity [1998], 1.II) | |
A reaction: [compressed summary] The problem is generated by appealing to Leibniz's Law. My immediate reaction is that this is the sort of trouble you get into if you include such temporal truths about things as 'properties'. |
16233 | Gallois hoped to clarify identity through time, but seems to make talk of it impossible [Hawley on Gallois] |
Full Idea: A problem for Gallois is that he leaves us no way to talk about questions of genuine identity through time, and thus undercuts one motivation for his own position. | |
From: comment on André Gallois (Occasions of Identity [1998]) by Katherine Hawley - How Things Persist 5.8 | |
A reaction: Gallois seems to need a second theory of identity to support his Occasional Identity theory. Two things need an identity each, before we can say that the two identities coincide. (Time to read Gallois!) |
16025 | If things change they become different - but then no one thing undergoes the change! [Gallois] |
Full Idea: If things really change, there can't literally be one thing before and after the change. However, if there isn't one thing before and after the change, then no thing has really undergone any change. | |
From: André Gallois (Identity over Time [2011], Intro) | |
A reaction: [He cites Copi for this way of expressing the problem of identity through change] There is an obvious simple ambiguity about 'change' in ordinary English. A change of property isn't a change of object. Painting a red ball blue isn't swapping it. |
16026 | 4D: time is space-like; a thing is its history; past and future are real; or things extend in time [Gallois] |
Full Idea: We have four versions of Four-Dimensionalism: the relativistic view that time is space-like; a persisting thing is identical with its history (so objects are events); past and future are equally real; or (Lewis) things extend in time, with temporal parts. | |
From: André Gallois (Identity over Time [2011], §2.5) | |
A reaction: Broad proposed the second one. I prefer 3-D: at any given time a thing is wholly present. At another time it is wholly present despite having changed. It is ridiculous to think that small changes destroy identity. We acquire identity by dying?? |
14755 | Gallois is committed to identity with respect to times, and denial of simple identity [Gallois, by Sider] |
Full Idea: Gallois's core claim is that the identity relation holds with respect to times, ...and he must claim that there is no such thing as the relation of identity simpliciter. | |
From: report of André Gallois (Occasions of Identity [1998]) by Theodore Sider - Four Dimensionalism 5.5 | |
A reaction: Gallois is essentially responding to the statue and clay problem, but it seems a bit drastic to entirely change our concept of two things being identical, such as Hesperus and Phosphorus. 'Identity' seems to have several meanings; let's sort them out. |
16231 | Occasional Identity: two objects can be identical at one time, and different at others [Gallois, by Hawley] |
Full Idea: Gallois' Occasional Identity Thesis is that objects can be identical at one time without being identical at all times. | |
From: report of André Gallois (Occasions of Identity [1998]) by Katherine Hawley - How Things Persist 5.4 | |
A reaction: The analogy is presumably with two crossing roads being identical at one place but not at others. It is a major misunderstanding to infer from Special Relativity that time is just like space. |
16027 | If two things are equal, each side involves a necessity, so the equality is necessary [Gallois] |
Full Idea: The necessity of identity: a=b; □(a=a); so something necessarily = a; so something necessarily must equal b; so □(a=b). [A summary of the argument of Marcus and Kripke] | |
From: André Gallois (Identity over Time [2011], §3) | |
A reaction: [Lowe 1982 offered a response] The conclusion seems reasonable. If two things are mistakenly thought to be different, but turn out to be one thing, that one thing could not possibly be two things. In no world is one thing two things! |
3061 | Anaxarchus said that he was not even sure that he knew nothing [Anaxarchus, by Diog. Laertius] |
Full Idea: Anaxarchus said that he was not even sure that he knew nothing. | |
From: report of Anaxarchus (fragments/reports [c.340 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 09.10.1 |
20443 | The aesthetic attitude is nothing more than paying close attention [Dickie, by Giovannelli] |
Full Idea: Once analysed, Dickie claimed, the so-called aesthetic attitude is not special at all, but is rather just a matter of close attention and focus on the subject. | |
From: report of George Dickie (The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude [1964]) by Alessandro Giovannelli - Some contemporary developments (aesthetics) 1 | |
A reaction: Sounds wrong. If a paint specialist gives close attention to a painting, they do not necessarily have an aesthetic view of it. You need to know the aim of the activity, just as when you watch a game. |
20329 | A work of art is an artifact created for the artworld [Dickie] |
Full Idea: A work of art is an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an artworld public. | |
From: George Dickie (The New Institutional Theory of Art [1983], p.53) | |
A reaction: This is the culminating definition in his paper, deriving originally from Danto, and an improvement of his earlier more complex definition. Since this definition amounts to 'this is art if I say it is art', it doesn't seem to reveal much. |
8114 | The institutional theory says only a competent expert can decree something to be an art work [Dickie, by Gardner] |
Full Idea: Dickie's institutional theory of art says that something is a work of art if and only if it has had that status conferred on it by a competent member of the artworld. | |
From: report of George Dickie (Introduction to Aesthetics [1997], Ch.8) by Sebastian Gardner - Aesthetics 3.1 | |
A reaction: The idea that a single 'competent' person can do this sounds daft, and probably circular. A consensus in the artworld sounds more plausible, but this still leaves the revolutionary genius, who - in retrospect - produced unrecognised 'art'. |