Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Hermarchus, Claude Lvi-Strauss and Hugh MacColl

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


3 ideas

1. Philosophy / H. Continental Philosophy / 4. Linguistic Structuralism
Basic to human culture are binary oppositions, such as eating raw or cooked [Levi-Strauss, by Green,TH]
     Full Idea: Lévi-Strauss made canonic to French structuralism the idea that human culture could be understood through a series of binary oppositionsn - the difference between what could be eaten raw and what cooked being one of the most fundamental.
     From: report of Claude Lévi-Strauss (works [1950]) by T.H. Green - Prolegomena to Ethics 1
     A reaction: My guess is that such oppositions can often be illuminating, but will always be eventually judged as too simplistic.
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 3. Types of Set / b. Empty (Null) Set
The null class is the class with all the non-existents as its members [MacColl, by Lackey]
     Full Idea: In 1905 the Scottish logician Hugh MacColl published a paper in which he argued that the null class in logic should be taken as the class with all the non-existents as its members.
     From: report of Hugh MacColl (Symbolic Reasoning [1905]) by Douglas Lackey - Intros to Russell's 'Essays in Analysis' p.95
     A reaction: For the null object (zero) Frege just chose one sample concept with an empty extension. MacColl's set seems to have a lot of members, given that it is 'null'. How many, I wonder? Russell responded to this paper.
25. Social Practice / F. Life Issues / 6. Animal Rights
Animals are dangerous and nourishing, and can't form contracts of justice [Hermarchus, by Sedley]
     Full Idea: Hermarchus said that animal killing is justified by considerations of human safety and nourishment and by animals' inability to form contractual relations of justice with us.
     From: report of Hermarchus (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by David A. Sedley - Hermarchus
     A reaction: Could the last argument be used to justify torturing animals? Or could we eat a human who was too brain-damaged to form contracts?