Most seasoned mainstream philosophers rarely bother to use English properly and, in the bargain, persist in violating the norms of their mother tongue. One unfortunate example of this, very widespread by now, is the use of statue in contexts where it should not be used, but where only some other familiar word, say, sculpture is properly used. This particular little abomination may have been started by the usually brilliant Alan Gibbard, my dormate at Swarthmore, when he wrote about whether a certain statue, he called it Goliath was, or was not, identical with a certain lump of clay (I think it was clay), which he called Lumpl, where Goliath and Lumpl, throughout all their history, shared exactly the same space and exactly the same matter. This is, of course, a non-stater. Nothing shaped anything much like a big man can possibly be in the shape of lump - and so - nothing of THAT sort could possibly be a lump, whether called Lumpl or whether called Bruno Mars - for about 9 independent reasons. If one is to stick with something like an ordinary statue, then a better question - NOT gibberish - is whether it is identical with a certain PIECE of clay, for example, one with which it always shares the same space and the same matter. The answer there is also NO, but this time for only about 4 independent reasons. As far as I know, so far there havent been any statues shaped precisely like, or even just very like, any lumps. That can be changed, of course, if you are reasonably adept at sculpting, and you focus intently on, say, a certainvery ordinary baking POTATO, you can make a statue of that potato, one that, conveninently, we may call Potty. Without making a mess of, or with English, it might then be asked whether or not the statue Potty is identical with the lump (of clay) - perhaps one Lucille, for example - with which, throughout its history, and throughout the history of Lucille, all the relevant matter and space is always shared. As indicated just above, the answer to this question is NO, and for about 4 independent reasons - but at least now we have a proper question, and not just some gibberish, nothing much like ome decent English. Another way to go here, is to forgo talk of a STATUE and, instead, to speak of, say, a SCULPTURE. Most happily, we may then turn to consider some non-representational sculpted works - perhaps some abstract contemporary artworks - and, with those in mind, we can do the wanted business THAT way. Looking at a certain lumpy shaped nonrepresentational bronze SCULPTURE - which is certainly NOT any statue, of course - we may ask whether that sculpture, call it Untitled #42 is the very same thing as -the LUMP of bronze, call it Luther, which which, throughout its history, and that of Luther, all the relevant matter, here bronze, is perfectly shared. Again the answer is, of course, NO - but, again,thats for only about 4 independent reasons., not nine or ten. So this is another way to properly get at some empty ideas that often are passed off as deep metaphysical thoughts, without violating English and, so, without having the discussion amount to only just so much gibberish. With almost all the philosophers Ive ever met, their intellectual investments have made it nearly impossible for them to both grasp these points and also to remember them well enough that they dont soon fall back into the ways of gibberish. At least as far as engaging in decent writing and speaking goes, it would have been better for them to have remained innocent of philosophy. But, overwhelmed by misplaced enthusiasm, perhaps they never had any choice in the matter. With undergraduates - especially those not intent on getting advanced degrees in philosophy - these litle lessons are far more effective, Im happy to say.
Posted on: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:54:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015