25 ideas
| 21793 | Genuine truth is the resolution of the highest contradiction [Hegel] |
| Full Idea: The highest truth, truth as such, is the resolution of the highest opposition and contradiction. | |
| From: Georg W.F.Hegel (Lectures on Aesthetics [1826], I: 99), quoted by Stephen Houlgate - An Introduction to Hegel 09 'Art' | |
| A reaction: Uneasy about the word 'highest', and the general Hegelian dream of 'resolving' contradictions, rather than just eliminating at least one component of them. No one else uses the word 'truth' like this. I suppose this Truth has a capital 'T'. |
| 21795 | What I hold true must also be part of my feelings and character [Hegel] |
| Full Idea: Whatever I hold as true, whatever ought to be valid for me, must also be in my feeling, must belong to my being and character. | |
| From: Georg W.F.Hegel (Lectures on Aesthetics [1826], I: 97), quoted by Stephen Houlgate - An Introduction to Hegel 09 'Philosophy' | |
| A reaction: I can see that truths do tend to become part of our character, but not that they ought to do so. I suppose I try to live my life enmeshed in the many truths which I have personally selected from the maelstrom of possibilities that engulf us. |
| 9921 | 'True' is only occasionally useful, as in 'everything Fermat believed was true' [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: In the disquotational view of truth, what saves truth from being wholly redundant and so wholly useless, is mainly that it provides an ability to state generalisations like 'Everything Fermat believed was true'. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], I.A.2.c) | |
| A reaction: Sounds like the thin end of the wedge. Presumably we can infer that the first thing Fermat believed on his last Christmas Day was true. |
| 9924 | Modal logic gives an account of metalogical possibility, not metaphysical possibility [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: If you want a logic of metaphysical possibility, the existing literature was originally developed to supply a logic of metalogical possibility, and still reflects its origins. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.B.3.b) | |
| A reaction: This is a warning shot (which I don't fully understand) to people like me, who were beginning to think they could fill their ontology with possibilia, which could then be incorporated into the wider account of logical thinking. Ah well... |
| 9933 | The paradoxes are only a problem for Frege; Cantor didn't assume every condition determines a set [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The paradoxes only seem to arise in connection with Frege's logical notion of extension or class, not Cantor's mathematical notion of set. Cantor never assumed that every condition determines a set. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.C.1.b) | |
| A reaction: This makes the whole issue a parochial episode in the history of philosophy, not a central question. Cantor favoured some sort of abstractionism (see Kit Fine on the subject). |
| 9928 | Mereology implies that acceptance of entities entails acceptance of conglomerates [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: Mereology has ontological implications. The acceptance of some initial entities involves the acceptance of many further entities, arbitrary wholes having the entities as parts. It must accept conglomerates. Geometric points imply geometric regions. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.1.b) | |
| A reaction: Presumably without the wholes being entailed by the parts, there is no subject called 'mereology'. But if the conglomeration is unrestricted, there is not much left to be said. 'Restricted' composition (by nature?) sounds a nice line. |
| 9926 | A relation is either a set of sets of sets, or a set of sets [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: While in general a relation is taken to be a set of ordered pairs <u, v> = {{u}, {u, v}}, and hence a set of sets of sets, in special cases a relation can be represented by a set of sets. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.1.a) | |
| A reaction: [See book for their examples, which are <, symmetric, and arbitrary] The fact that a relation (or anything else) can be represented in a certain way should never ever be taken to mean that you now know what the thing IS. |
| 9932 | The paradoxes no longer seem crucial in critiques of set theory [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: Recent commentators have de-emphasised the set paradoxes because they play no prominent part in motivating the most articulate and active opponents of set theory, such as Kronecker (constructivism) or Brouwer (intuitionism), or Weyl (predicativism). | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.C.1.b) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be a sad illustration of the way most analytical philosophers have to limp along behind the logicians and mathematicians, arguing furiously about problems that have largely been abandoned. |
| 9923 | We should talk about possible existence, rather than actual existence, of numbers [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The modal strategy for numbers is to replace assumptions about the actual existence of numbers by assumptions about the possible existence of numbers | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.B.3.a) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be quite a good way of dealing with very large numbers and infinities. It is not clear whether 5 is so regularly actualised that we must consider it as permanent, or whether it is just a prominent permanent possibility. |
| 9925 | Structuralism and nominalism are normally rivals, but might work together [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: Usually structuralism and nominalism are considered rivals. But structuralism can also be the first step in a strategy of nominalist reconstrual or paraphrase. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.0) | |
| A reaction: Hellman and later Chihara seem to be the main proponents of nominalist structuralism. My sympathies lie with this strategy. Are there objects at the nodes of the structure, or is the structure itself platonic? Mill offers a route. |
| 9934 | Number words became nouns around the time of Plato [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The transition from using number words purely as adjectives to using them extensively as nouns has been traced to 'around the time of Plato'. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.C.2.a) | |
| A reaction: [The cite Kneale and Kneale VI,§2 for this] It is just too tempting to think that in fact Plato (and early Platonists) were totally responsible for this shift, since the whole reification of numbers seems to be inherently platonist. |
| 9918 | Abstract/concrete is a distinction of kind, not degree [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The distinction of abstract and concrete is one of kind and not degree. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], I.A.1.a) | |
| A reaction: I think I must agree with this. If there is a borderline, it would be in particulars that seem to have an abstract aspect to them. A horse involves the abstraction of being a horse, and it involves be one horse. |
| 9929 | Much of what science says about concrete entities is 'abstraction-laden' [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: Much of what science says about concrete entities is 'abstraction-laden'. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.A.1.d) | |
| A reaction: Not just science. In ordinary conversation we continually refer to particulars using so-called 'universal' predicates and object-terms, which are presumably abstractions. 'I've just seen an elephant'. |
| 9927 | Mathematics has ascended to higher and higher levels of abstraction [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: In mathematics, since the beginning of the nineteenth century, there has been an ascent to higher and higher levels of abstraction. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.1.b) | |
| A reaction: I am interested in clarifying what this means, which might involve the common sense and psychological view of the matter, as well as some sort of formal definition in terms of equivalence (or whatever). |
| 9930 | Abstraction is on a scale, of sets, to attributes, to type-formulas, to token-formulas [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: There is a scale of abstractness that leads downwards from sets through attributes to formulas as abstract types and on to formulas as abstract tokens. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.B.2.c) | |
| A reaction: Presumably the 'abstract tokens' at the bottom must have some interpretation, to support the system. Presumably one can keep going upwards, through sets of sets of sets. |
| 9919 | The old debate classified representations as abstract, not entities [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The original debate was over abstract ideas; thus it was mental (or linguistic) representations that were classified as abstract or otherwise, and not the entities represented. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], I.A.1.b) | |
| A reaction: This seems to beg the question of whether there are any such entities. It is equally plausible to talk of the entities that are 'constructed', rather than 'represented'. |
| 18549 | Nineteenth century aesthetics focused on art rather than nature (thanks to Hegel) [Hegel, by Scruton] |
| Full Idea: Only In the course of the nineteenth century, and in the wake of Hegel's posthumously published lectures on aesthetics, did the topic of art come to replace that of natural beauty as the core subject-matter of aesthetics. | |
| From: report of Georg W.F.Hegel (Lectures on Aesthetics [1826], 5) by Roger Scruton - Beauty: a very short introduction |
| 22043 | Hegel largely ignores aesthetic pleasure, taste and beauty, and focuses on the meaning of artworks [Hegel, by Pinkard] |
| Full Idea: Unlike his predecessors (including Kant), Hegel does not focus on aesthetic pleasure, nor on good taste, nor even on the nature and criteria for beauty. Instead he focuses on the meaning of artworks and their role in forming mankind's self-consciousness. | |
| From: report of Georg W.F.Hegel (Lectures on Aesthetics [1826]) by Terry Pinkard - German Philosophy 1760-1860 11 | |
| A reaction: Personally I dislike over-intellectualising art. The aim of a work of art is to give a certain experience, not to generate an ensuing sequence of theorising. I doubt whether Vermeer had any 'meaning' in mind in his obsessive work. |
| 22042 | Natural beauty is unimportant, because it doesn't show human freedom [Hegel, by Pinkard] |
| Full Idea: Hegel thinks that natural beauty is of no real significance since it cannot display our freedom to us; nature per se is meaningless. | |
| From: report of Georg W.F.Hegel (Lectures on Aesthetics [1826]) by Terry Pinkard - German Philosophy 1760-1860 11 | |
| A reaction: Presumably freedom is in the creation, and so creativity is what matters in aesthetics. But what are the criteria of good creativity? |
| 20413 | For Hegel the importance of art concerns the culture, not the individual [Hegel, by Eldridge] |
| Full Idea: Hegel locates the significance of art in its role in cultural life in general, not in relation to the psychological needs of individuals. | |
| From: report of Georg W.F.Hegel (Lectures on Aesthetics [1826]) by Richard Eldridge - G.W.F. Hegel (aesthetics) 1 | |
| A reaction: I'm beginning to see that art is a wonderful focus and test case for political attitudes. Roughly, liberalism focuses on individual responses, but more societal views (from right and left) see it in terms of role in the community. Which are you? |
| 20394 | The purpose of art is to reveal to Spirit its own nature [Hegel, by Davies,S] |
| Full Idea: According to Hegel, the goal of art was to serve as a phase in a process by which Spirit would come to understand its own nature. | |
| From: report of Georg W.F.Hegel (Lectures on Aesthetics [1826]) by Stephen Davies - The Philosophy of Art (2nd ed) 2.7 | |
| A reaction: I try very hard to understand ideas like this. Really really hard. However, since I see little sign of 'Spirit' really understanding its own nature, I'm guessing that the project is not going well. |
| 21794 | The main purpose of art is to express the unity of human life [Hegel] |
| Full Idea: Art's primary function, for Hegel, is to give expression to the unity and wholeness of life - especially human life - that the contingencies of everyday existence frequently conceal. | |
| From: Georg W.F.Hegel (Lectures on Aesthetics [1826]), quoted by Stephen Houlgate - An Introduction to Hegel 09 'Beauty' | |
| A reaction: I don't find the view that human life is 'unified' and 'whole' vary illuminating, and I have no objection to art which reflects the fragmentary and unstable aspects of life. I suspect Hegel would just prefer it if life were a unity. |
| 20415 | Art forms a bridge between the sensuous world and the world of pure thought [Hegel] |
| Full Idea: Spirit generates out of itself works of fine art as the first reconciling middle term between pure thought and what is merely external, sensuous and transient - between finite natural reality and the infinite freedom of conceptual thinking. | |
| From: Georg W.F.Hegel (Lectures on Aesthetics [1826], p.8), quoted by Richard Eldridge - G.W.F. Hegel (aesthetics) | |
| A reaction: This apparently says that there is necessarily an intellectual and conceptual component in art. This means little to me. Does he include portraits? Dutch domestic scenes? Would photography qualify? |
| 7903 | The six perfections are giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom [Nagarjuna] |
| Full Idea: The six perfections are of giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom. | |
| From: Nagarjuna (Mahaprajnaparamitashastra [c.120], 88) | |
| A reaction: What is 'morality', if giving is not part of it? I like patience and vigour being two of the virtues, which immediately implies an Aristotelian mean (which is always what is 'appropriate'). |
| 9922 | If space is really just a force-field, then it is a physical entity [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: According to many philosophical commentators, a force-field must be considered to be a physical entity, and as the distinction between space and the force-field may be considered to be merely verbal, space itself may be considered to be a physical entity. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.A.1) | |
| A reaction: The ontology becomes a bit odd if we cheerfully accept that space is physical, but then we can't give the same account of time. I'm not sure how time could be physical. What's it made of? |