|
8249
|
Class membership is not transitive, unlike being part of a part of the whole [Lesniewski, by George/Van Evra]
|
|
Full Idea:
Lesniewski distinguished the part-whole relationship from class membership. Membership is not transitive: if s is an element of t, and t of u, then s is not an element of u, whereas a part of a part is a part of the whole.
|
|
From:
report of Stanislaw Lesniewski (works [1916]) by George / Van Evra - The Rise of Modern Logic 7
|
|
A reaction:
If I am a member of a sports club, and my club is a member of the league, I am not thereby a member of the league (so clubs are classes, not wholes). This distinction is clearly fairly crucial in ontology.
|
|
20327
|
Modern attention has moved from the intrinsic properties of art to its relational properties [Lamarque/Olson]
|
|
Full Idea:
In modern discussions, rather than look for intrinsic properties of objects, including aesthetic or formal properties, attention has turned to extrinsic or relational properties, notably of a social, historical, or 'institutional' nature.
|
|
From:
Lamargue,P/Olson,SH (Introductions to 'Aesthetics and the Phil of Art' [2004], Pt 1)
|
|
A reaction:
Lots of modern branches of philosophy have made this move, which seems to me like a defeat. We want to know why things have the relations they do. Just mapping the relations is superficial Humeanism.
|
|
20326
|
Early 20th cent attempts at defining art focused on significant form, intuition, expression, unity [Lamarque/Olson]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the early twentieth century there were numerous attempts at defining the essence art. Significant form, intuition, the expression of emotion, organic unity, and other notions, were offered to this end.
|
|
From:
Lamargue,P/Olson,SH (Introductions to 'Aesthetics and the Phil of Art' [2004], Pt 1)
|
|
A reaction:
As far as I can see the whole of aesthetics was demolished in one blow by Marcel Duchamp's urinal. Artists announce: we will tell you what art is; you should just sit and listen. Compare the invention of an anarchic sport.
|
|
20330
|
The dualistic view says works of art are either abstract objects (types), or physical objects [Lamarque/Olson]
|
|
Full Idea:
The dualistic view of the arts holds that works of art come in two fundamentally different kinds: those that are abstract entities, i.e. types, and those that are physical objects (tokens).
|
|
From:
Lamargue,P/Olson,SH (Introductions to 'Aesthetics and the Phil of Art' [2004], Pt 2)
|
|
A reaction:
Paintings are the main reason for retaining physical objects. Strawson 1974 argues that paintings are only physical because we cannot yet perfectly reproduce them. I agree. Works of art are types, not tokens.
|
|
8373
|
When a brick and a canary-song hit a window, we ignore the canary if we are interested in the breakage [Ducasse]
|
|
Full Idea:
If a brick and the song of a canary strike a window, which breaks....we can truly say that the song of the canary had nothing to do with it, that is, in so far as what occurred is viewed merely as a case of breakage of window.
|
|
From:
Curt Ducasse (Nature and Observability of Causal Relations [1926], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the germ of Davidson's view, that causation is entirely dependent on the mode of description, rather than being an actual feature of reality. If one was interested in the sound of the breakage, the canary would become relevant.
|
|
8374
|
We are interested in generalising about causes and effects purely for practical purposes [Ducasse]
|
|
Full Idea:
We are interested in causes and effects primarily for practical purposes, which needs generalizations; so the interest of concrete individual facts of causation is chiefly an indirect one, as raw material for generalizations.
|
|
From:
Curt Ducasse (Nature and Observability of Causal Relations [1926], §6)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice explanation of why, if causation is fundamentally about single instances, people seem so interested in generalisations and laws. We want to predict, and we want to explain, and we want to intervene.
|