9 ideas
4037 | Ockham's Razor is the principle that we need reasons to believe in entities [Mellor/Oliver] |
Full Idea: Ockham's Razor is the principle that we need reasons to believe in entities. | |
From: DH Mellor / A Oliver (Introduction to 'Properties' [1997], §9) | |
A reaction: This presumably follows from an assumption that all beliefs need reasons, but is that the case? The Principle of Sufficient Reason precedes Ockham's Razor. |
4027 | Properties are respects in which particular objects may be alike or differ [Mellor/Oliver] |
Full Idea: Properties are respects in which particular objects may be alike or differ. | |
From: DH Mellor / A Oliver (Introduction to 'Properties' [1997], §1) | |
A reaction: Note that this definition does not mention a causal role for properties. |
4029 | Nominalists ask why we should postulate properties at all [Mellor/Oliver] |
Full Idea: Nominalists ask why we should postulate properties at all. | |
From: DH Mellor / A Oliver (Introduction to 'Properties' [1997], §3) | |
A reaction: Objects might be grasped without language, but events cannot be understood, and explanations of events seem inconceivable without properties (implying that they are essentially causal). |
4039 | Abstractions lack causes, effects and spatio-temporal locations [Mellor/Oliver] |
Full Idea: Abstract entities (such as sets) are usually understood as lacking causes, effects, and spatio-temporal location. | |
From: DH Mellor / A Oliver (Introduction to 'Properties' [1997], §10) | |
A reaction: This seems to beg some questions. Has the ideal of 'honour' never caused anything? Young men dream of pure velocity. |
22693 | 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. |
22694 | 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. |
22695 | 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. |
22692 | 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. |
8659 | The gods alone live forever with Shamash. The days of humans are numbered. [Anon (Gilg)] |
Full Idea: The gods alone are the ones who live forever with Shamash. / As for humans, their days are numbered. | |
From: Anon (Gilg) (The Epic of Gilgamesh [c.2300 BCE], 3.2.34), quoted by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics 1.2 | |
A reaction: Friend quotes this to show the antiquity of the concept of infinity. It also, of course, shows that Sumerians at that time did not believe in human immortality. |