Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Anaxarchus, Johanna Oksala and Scott Shalkowski

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


13 ideas

1. Philosophy / H. Continental Philosophy / 6. Deconstruction
Post-structuralism focused on exterior determinants of thought, rather than the thinker [Oksala]
     Full Idea: Post-structuralism was characterised by the denial of the human being as the privileged object of philosophical analysis, focusing instead on the social, linguistic and unconscious determinants of thought.
     From: Johanna Oksala (How to Read Foucault [2007], Intro)
     A reaction: I'm new to this, and so far this sounds the same as structralism, so I'll have to keep going. I presume it is the same as the rejection of the author when interpreting literature (as in Barthes?). Structuralism was 'non-historical'.
9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 1. Essences of Objects
Serious essentialism says everything has essences, they're not things, and they ground necessities [Shalkowski]
     Full Idea: Serious essentialism is the position that a) everything has an essence, b) essences are not themselves things, and c) essences are the ground for metaphysical necessity and possibility.
     From: Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Intro')
     A reaction: If a house is being built, it might acquire an identity first, and only get an essence later. Essences can be physical, but if you extract them you destroy thing thing of which they were the essence. Does all of this apply to abstract 'things'.
9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 6. Essence as Unifier
Essences are what it is to be that (kind of) thing - in fact, they are the thing's identity [Shalkowski]
     Full Idea: The route into essentialism is, first, a recognition that the essence of a thing is "what it is to be" that (kind of) thing; the essence of a thing is just its identity.
     From: Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Essent')
     A reaction: The first half sounds right, and very Aristotelian. The second half is dramatically different, controversial, and far less plausible. Slipping in 'kind of' is also highly dubious. This remark shows, I think, some confusion about essences.
9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 13. Nominal Essence
We distinguish objects by their attributes, not by their essences [Shalkowski]
     Full Idea: In ordinary contexts, we distinguish objects not by their essences but by their attributes.
     From: Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Ess and Know')
     A reaction: Hence we have a gap between what bestows identity intrinsically, and how we bestow identity conventionally. If you could grasp the essence of something, you might predict a new attribute, as yet unobserved.
9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 15. Against Essentialism
Critics say that essences are too mysterious to be known [Shalkowski]
     Full Idea: According to critics, the thorniest problem for essentialism is the question of our knowledge of essence. It is usually at this point that terms of abuse such as 'dark', 'mysterious', and 'occult' are wheeled out.
     From: Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Ess and Know')
     A reaction: I'm inclined to think that the existence of essences can be fairly conclusively inferred, but that attributing a precise identity to them is the biggest challenge.
10. Modality / A. Necessity / 4. De re / De dicto modality
De dicto necessity has linguistic entities as their source, so it is a type of de re necessity [Shalkowski]
     Full Idea: De dicto necessity is a species of de re necessity. Anyone prone to countenance de dicto necessity must recognise mental and/or linguistic entities, thus counting each of them as a res to which necessity attaches.
     From: Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Essent')
     A reaction: This seems to rest on the Kit Fine thought that analytic necessities seem to derive from the essences of words such as 'bachelor'. I like this idea: all necessity is de re, but some of the 'things' are words.
10. Modality / E. Possible worlds / 1. Possible Worlds / e. Against possible worlds
Lewis must specify that all possibilities are in his worlds, making the whole thing circular [Shalkowski, by Sider]
     Full Idea: If purple cows are simply absent from Lewis's multiverse, then certain correct propositions turn out to be impossible. Lewis must require a world for every possibility. But then it is circular, as the multiverse needs modal notions to characterize it.
     From: report of Scott Shalkowski (Ontological Ground of Alethic Modality [1994], 3.9) by Theodore Sider - Reductive Theories of Modality 3.9
     A reaction: [Inversely, a world containing a round square would make that possible] This sounds very nice, though Sider rejects it (p.197). I've never seen how you could define possibility using the concept of 'possible' worlds.
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
19. Language / C. Assigning Meanings / 7. Extensional Semantics
Equilateral and equiangular aren't the same, as we have to prove their connection [Shalkowski]
     Full Idea: That 'all and only equilateral triangles are equiangular' required proof, and not for mere curiosity, is grounds for thinking that being an equilateral triangle is not the same property as being an equiangular triangle.
     From: Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Serious')
     A reaction: If you start with equiangularity, does equilateralness then require proof? This famous example is of two concepts which seem to be coextensional, but seem to have a different intension. Does a dependence relation drive a wedge between them?
24. Political Theory / A. Basis of a State / 1. A People / c. A unified people
World government needs a shared global identity [Oksala]
     Full Idea: Critics have argued that a global 'demos' would require a shared global identity.
     From: Johanna Oksala (Political Philosophy: all that matters [2013], Ch.9 'Epi')
     A reaction: The great divisions are religion and language. The great unifiers are sport, arts and entertainment, plus basic human needs like food, health and housing. The reply is that there cannot be identity without differences, so global democracy is out.
24. Political Theory / A. Basis of a State / 4. Original Position / b. Veil of ignorance
The principles Rawls arrives at do not just conform to benevolence, but also result from choices [Oksala]
     Full Idea: The advantage of Rawls's method is that the principles the individual chooses are not only fair according to some abstract principle of benevolence, but also the result of rational choice.
     From: Johanna Oksala (Political Philosophy: all that matters [2013], Ch.5)
     A reaction: That is a very nice way of putting the beauty of Rawls's idea. In modern political philosophy you hear far more criticisms of Rawls than praise. If a philosopher is criticised a lot, it is probably because they have stated their views clearly.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 2. Anarchism
Anarchists prefer local and communal government [Oksala]
     Full Idea: Anarchists advocate forms of governance such as communes and associations that are as local and close to the direct control of the people as possible.
     From: Johanna Oksala (Political Philosophy: all that matters [2013], Ch.8)
     A reaction: Which might explain why recent conservative governments have steadily eliminated local government in Britain.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 4. Social Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism neglects responsibility, duties and rights [Oksala]
     Full Idea: A focus solely on utility excludes considerations of personal responsibility and duty, as well as considerations of the basic rights of individuals.
     From: Johanna Oksala (Political Philosophy: all that matters [2013], Ch.7)
     A reaction: [He cites these as the common modern criticisms] The defence is to explain the value of each of these in utilitarian terms. There is a general problem (conceded by Mill) of motivation in utilitarianism. There's not much in it for me!