Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for H.Putnam/P.Oppenheim, Cratylus and Eileen John

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


7 ideas

9. Objects / E. Objects over Time / 8. Continuity of Rivers
Cratylus said you couldn't even step into the same river once [Cratylus, by Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Cratylus was appalled that Heraclitus said you could not step twice into the same river, because it was already going too far to admit stepping into the same river once.
     From: report of Cratylus (fragments/reports [c.425 BCE]) by Aristotle - Metaphysics 1010a
     A reaction: Compare Idea 427.
13. Knowledge Criteria / D. Scepticism / 1. Scepticism
Cratylus decided speech was hopeless, and his only expression was the movement of a finger [Cratylus, by Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Cratylus thought speech of any kind was radically inappropriate and that expression should be restricted exclusively to the movement of the finger.
     From: report of Cratylus (fragments/reports [c.425 BCE]) by Aristotle - Metaphysics 1010a
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / j. Explanations by reduction
Six reduction levels: groups, lives, cells, molecules, atoms, particles [Putnam/Oppenheim, by Watson]
     Full Idea: There are six 'reductive levels' in science: social groups, (multicellular) living things, cells, molecules, atoms, and elementary particles.
     From: report of H.Putnam/P.Oppenheim (Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis [1958]) by Peter Watson - Convergence 10 'Intro'
     A reaction: I have the impression that fields are seen as more fundamental that elementary particles. What is the status of the 'laws' that are supposed to govern these things? What is the status of space and time within this picture?
21. Aesthetics / C. Artistic Issues / 7. Art and Morality
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.
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.
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.
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.