Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Anaxarchus, Eileen John and Beth Lord

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these philosophers


7 ideas

1. Philosophy / B. History of Ideas / 5. Later European Thought
Only in the 1780s did it become acceptable to read Spinoza [Lord]
     Full Idea: It was not until the 1780s that it became acceptable to read the works of Spinoza, and even then it was not without a frisson of danger.
     From: Beth Lord (Spinoza's Ethics [2010], Intro 'Who?')
     A reaction: Hence we hear of Wordsworth and Coleridge reading him with excitement. So did Kant read him?
13. Knowledge Criteria / D. Scepticism / 1. Scepticism
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
15. Nature of Minds / C. Capacities of Minds / 10. Conatus/Striving
Hobbes and Spinoza use 'conatus' to denote all endeavour for advantage in nature [Lord]
     Full Idea: 'Conatus' [translated as 'striving' by Curley] is used by early modern philosophers, including Thomas Hobbes (a major influence of Spinoza), to express the notion of a thing's endeavour for what is advantageous to it. It drives all things in nature.
     From: Beth Lord (Spinoza's Ethics [2010], p.88)
     A reaction: I think it is important to connect conatus to Nietzsche's talk of a plurality of 'drives', which are an expression of the universal will to power (which is seen even in the interactions of chemistry). Conatus is also in Leibniz.
21. Aesthetics / C. Artistic Issues / 7. Art and Morality
The works we value most are in sympathy with our own moral views [John,E]
     Full Idea: The works we tend to value most highly are ones that are in sympathy with the moral views we actually accept.
     From: Eileen John (Artistic Value and Opportunistic Moralism [2006], Intro)
     A reaction: I would have to endorse this. She admits that we may rate other works very highly, but they won't appear on our list of favourites. This fact may well distort philosophical discussions of morality and art.
We should understand what is morally important in a story, without having to endorse it [John,E]
     Full Idea: Our responses to literature should show that we grasp whatever counts as morally important within the narrative, but not necessarily that we judge and feel in the way deemed appropriate by the work.
     From: Eileen John (Artistic Value and Opportunistic Moralism [2006], 'Accommodating')
     A reaction: She gives as an example a story by Hemingway which places a high value on the courageous hunting of big game. A second example is the total amorality of a Highsmith novel. This idea seems exactly right to me.
We value morality in art because that is what we care about - but it is a contingent fact [John,E]
     Full Idea: Moral value is valuable in art because people care about moral value. This runs deep, but it is a contingent matter, and the value of morality in art hinges on art's need to provide something precious to us.
     From: Eileen John (Artistic Value and Opportunistic Moralism [2006], 'Contingency')
     A reaction: I think this is exactly right. Thrillers are written with very little moral concern, for a readership which cares about brave and exciting deeds. Even there, violence has its ethics.
A work can be morally and artistically excellent, despite rejecting moral truth [John,E]
     Full Idea: A work that rejects moral truth can be artistically excellent, in part because of its moral content.
     From: Eileen John (Artistic Value and Opportunistic Moralism [2006], Intr)
     A reaction: She cites the film 'Trainspotting', about desperate drug addicts, because it gives an amoral insight into their world.