Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Herodotus, Berys Gaut and Richard L. Kirkham

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


14 ideas

3. Truth / A. Truth Problems / 5. Truth Bearers
There are at least fourteen candidates for truth-bearers [Kirkham]
     Full Idea: Among the candidates [for truthbearers] are beliefs, propositions, judgments, assertions, statements, theories, remarks, ideas, acts of thought, utterances, sentence tokens, sentence types, sentences (unspecified), and speech acts.
     From: Richard L. Kirkham (Theories of Truth: a Critical Introduction [1992], 2.3)
     A reaction: I vote for propositions, but only in the sense of the thoughts underlying language, not the Russellian things which are supposed to exist independently from thinkers.
3. Truth / F. Semantic Truth / 1. Tarski's Truth / b. Satisfaction and truth
A 'sequence' of objects is an order set of them [Kirkham]
     Full Idea: A 'sequence' of objects is like a set of objects, except that, unlike a set, the order of the objects is important when dealing with sequences. ...An infinite sequence satisfies 'x2 is purple' if and only if the second member of the sequence is purple.
     From: Richard L. Kirkham (Theories of Truth: a Critical Introduction [1992], 5.4)
     A reaction: This explains why Tarski needed set theory in his metalanguage.
If one sequence satisfies a sentence, they all do [Kirkham]
     Full Idea: If one sequence satisfies a sentence, they all do. ...Thus it matters not whether we define truth as satisfaction by some sequence or as satisfaction by all sequences.
     From: Richard L. Kirkham (Theories of Truth: a Critical Introduction [1992], 5.4)
     A reaction: So if the striker scores a goal, the team has scored a goal.
3. Truth / F. Semantic Truth / 2. Semantic Truth
If we define truth by listing the satisfactions, the supply of predicates must be finite [Kirkham]
     Full Idea: Because the definition of satisfaction must have a separate clause for each predicate, Tarski's method only works for languages with a finite number of predicates, ...but natural languages have an infinite number of predicates.
     From: Richard L. Kirkham (Theories of Truth: a Critical Introduction [1992], 5.5)
     A reaction: He suggest predicates containing natural numbers, as examples of infinite predicates. Davidson tried to extend the theory to natural languages, by (I think) applying it to adverbs, which could generate the infinite predicates. Maths has finite predicates.
5. Theory of Logic / A. Overview of Logic / 5. First-Order Logic
In quantified language the components of complex sentences may not be sentences [Kirkham]
     Full Idea: In a quantified language it is possible to build new sentences by combining two expressions neither of which is itself a sentence.
     From: Richard L. Kirkham (Theories of Truth: a Critical Introduction [1992], 5.4)
     A reaction: In propositional logic the components are other sentences, so the truth value can be given by their separate truth-values, through truth tables. Kirkham is explaining the task which Tarski faced. Truth-values are not just compositional.
5. Theory of Logic / I. Semantics of Logic / 4. Satisfaction
An open sentence is satisfied if the object possess that property [Kirkham]
     Full Idea: An object satisfies an open sentence if and only if it possesses the property expressed by the predicate of the open sentence.
     From: Richard L. Kirkham (Theories of Truth: a Critical Introduction [1992], 5.4)
     A reaction: This applies to atomic sentence, of the form Fx or Fa (that is, some variable is F, or some object is F). So strictly, only the world can decide whether some open sentence is satisfied. And it all depends on things called 'properties'.
7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 8. Facts / b. Types of fact
Why can there not be disjunctive, conditional and negative facts? [Kirkham]
     Full Idea: It has been said that there are no disjunctive facts, conditional facts, or negative facts. ...but it is not at all clear why there cannot be facts of this sort.
     From: Richard L. Kirkham (Theories of Truth: a Critical Introduction [1992], 5.6)
     A reaction: I love these sorts of facts, and offer them as a naturalistic basis for logic. You probably need the world to have modal features, but I have those in the form of powers and dispositions.
21. Aesthetics / A. Aesthetic Experience / 2. Aesthetic Attitude
Maybe literary assessment is evaluating the artist as a suitable friend [Gaut]
     Full Idea: An approach in Hume (elaborated by Wayne Booth) holds that literary assessment is akin to an act of befriending, for one assesses the author of a work as a suitable friend.
     From: Berys Gaut (The Ethical Criticism of Art [1998], 'Some')
     A reaction: I like the idea that art exploits our normal range of social emotions and attitudes, so I think this has some truth, but some of the best artists are so out of my league as to not even be candidates for friendship. Dostoevsky? Webster? Caravaggio?
21. Aesthetics / B. Nature of Art / 2. Art as Form
Formalists say aesthetics concerns types of beauty, or unity, complexity and intensity [Gaut]
     Full Idea: The formal objects which individuate the aesthetic attitude may be narrowly aesthetic, as beauty, and its subspecies, such as grace and elegance, or more broadly by other formalist criteria, such as Beardley's unity, complexity and intensity.
     From: Berys Gaut (The Ethical Criticism of Art [1998], 'Objections 1')
     A reaction: I'm not sure about unity or complexity, but intensity was endorsed by Henry James. Intensity doesn't sound very 'formal'. 'Beauty' doesn't seem the right word for the wonderful 'King Lear', or even for Jane Austen novels.
21. Aesthetics / C. Artistic Issues / 7. Art and Morality
'Moralism' says all aesthetic merits are moral merits [Gaut]
     Full Idea: The view that the only aesthetic merit of works are ethical ones is known as 'moralism'.
     From: Berys Gaut (The Ethical Criticism of Art [1998], n 1)
     A reaction: [He says this view was demolished by R.W.Beardsmore in 1971] Gaut contrasts this with his own carefully modulated 'ethicism'. Moralism predominated in the eighteenth century, but now looks clearly wrong (or naïve).
Good ethics counts towards aesthetic merit, and bad ethics counts against it [Gaut]
     Full Idea: I defend 'ethicism', which says that ethically admirable attitudes count toward the the aesthetic merit of a work, and ethically reprehensible attitudes count against its aesthetic merit.
     From: Berys Gaut (The Ethical Criticism of Art [1998], 'Ethicism')
     A reaction: He recognises that morally admirable works can explore unethical behaviour, and also that identifying the 'attitude' of a work is not simple. The ethics are not necessary. 'Triumph of the Will' is a classic test case. I disagree with Gaut.
If we don't respond ethically in the way a work prescribes, that is an aesthetic failure [Gaut]
     Full Idea: Our having reason not to respond in the way prescribed (because it is unethical) is a failure of the work …so that is an aesthetic failure, which is an aesthetic defect.
     From: Berys Gaut (The Ethical Criticism of Art [1998], 'Merited')
     A reaction: A key argument for Gaut's theory of 'ethicism' about literature. If 'Triumph of the Will' gets the right response from Nazi sympathisers, that is probably all aesthetic success. Jane Austen hasn't failed if she is rejected as bourgeois.
Good art does not necessarily improve people (any more than good advice does) [Gaut]
     Full Idea: Ethicism does not entail the causal thesis that good art ethically improves people, …any more than it follows that earnest ethical advice improves people.
     From: Berys Gaut (The Ethical Criticism of Art [1998], 'Ethicism')
     A reaction: How successful were sermons, in the great days of Christianity? It seems hard to disagree with Gaut's point.
29. Religion / D. Religious Issues / 2. Immortality / a. Immortality
The Egyptians were the first to say the soul is immortal and reincarnated [Herodotus]
     Full Idea: The Egyptians were the first to claim that the soul of a human being is immortal, and that each time the body dies the soul enters another creature just as it is being born.
     From: Herodotus (The Histories [c.435 BCE], 2.123.2)