tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7485386297621238234.post5747311793778311800..comments2012-12-19T20:23:01.420-06:00Comments on Philosophy 4660 Fall 2012 -- Ontology of Art: Modal Properties, Grounding, 2-ismCarl Mathesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00918939570859149397noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7485386297621238234.post-44656959620289888082012-10-01T11:50:06.615-05:002012-10-01T11:50:06.615-05:00Damian, I'm not sure if I find it much more ap...Damian, I'm not sure if I find it much more appealing to admit bruteness at the level of sortals than I do at the level of (ungrounded) modal properties, but I think there's something I'd want to say about both that goes beyond bruteness, but which may nevertheless be equally displeasing.<br /><br />I think that when we talk about sortal properties and ungrounded modal properties we are talking about rough and ready ways of describing how we conceptualize of(kinds of/types of) objects. (I have a feeling some will cringe at my use of "conceptualize" because it is a slightly messy term to use in philosophy. I employ it here for lack of a better term.) Suppose my rough and ready way of describing the concept statue is to describe physical objects with the right kind of causal history, a limited amount of changeability, potential objects of aesthetic judgments, and so on. Well, this is one way of describing the identity conditions for objects of a certain sort, another is to predicate of them the sortal, modal and historical properties that we have been talking about in class. We use these classes of predicates to identify such objects because identifying such objects depends on what we think is required for them to be the sort of objects they are, and perhaps it is trickier to do this with things like artworks than it is with more basic entities like electrons.<br /><br />I doubt there is a deeper metaphysical story to such properties than the one given above (though it could be worked out much more rigorously). Maybe the question for the 2-ist at this point is not how to identify these crucial properties in anything intrinsic to the object, but rather to (re)consider the requirements for being realists about such objects. Does endorsing this sort of picture about sortal and modal properties lead to an endorsement in eliminativism of non-fundamental objects? I take this to be a crucial question. Maybe others don't take this to be a crucial question because they think there is a plausible(non-brute) alternative metaphysical story about such properties. I haven't argued against any alternatives here, but my feeling is that they will have a hard time getting off the ground. I hope people feel my rambling was relevant and not overly derailing. \m/Shawn Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06627182199758135624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7485386297621238234.post-22694408190352794152012-09-28T22:29:16.760-05:002012-09-28T22:29:16.760-05:00Thanks Justin, that was a better clarification tha...Thanks Justin, that was a better clarification than I could have given! I eagerly await your response.Damian Melamedoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17696747676972679428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7485386297621238234.post-56413163243551186262012-09-28T15:14:19.633-05:002012-09-28T15:14:19.633-05:00I intend to both respond to Damian's original ...I intend to both respond to Damian's original post, and offer my best attempt to clarify for AK. I feel it's prudent to start with the latter with this post.<br /><br />Paragraph 1<br />Sometimes the statue and the clay puzzle is done with a statue of Goliath from the bible, and the statue is called Goliath when that is done. The lump of clay is also called Lumpl sometimes. So you were right, these should just be thought of as different names for the statue and the clay respectively. Damian seems to have used these because when the puzzle is run using Lumpl and Goliath, it is often stipulated that they are created at the same time, and Damian doesn't want historical properties to shade our debate of physical properties.<br /><br />Grounding Problems<br />Grounding is difficult to give a precise account of I find, but here I think it works to think of it as the "in virtue of" relation. <br />So, here are some ways to rephrase Damian's concern:<br />Things have their modal properties in virtue of their physical properties. <br />Things have their modal properties because of their physical properties.<br />Things get their modal properties from their physical properties.<br />Given these things, Damian is worried that since the statue and the clay have the same physical properties, they therefore must have the same modal properties. But 2ism was suggested in part to explain how the statue and the clay could differ in modal properties. So, 2ism fails to do the work it was supposed to. <br /><br />QDP<br />I presume that Damian didn't start with 4 because it was clear the 2ist would reject it right off the bat, citing the statue and the clay as a counterexample. Thus, I think he felt the argument would be stronger if he argued for 4 independently, including the contentious premise 1, which would certainly be where the debate focused.<br />I don't know what ibd stands for :(. My attempts to google it gave me pages dedicated to inflammatory bowel disease. <br />Again, the idea of 8 is to illustrate the general point of the argument, which I take to be that the 2ist cannot say that the statue and the clay differ in modal properties, but that 2ism was introduced to explain the difference in modal properties, and so 2ism isn't doing the job it was supposed to.<br /><br />JM<br />The idea behind 11 is just that though we can explain why a pane of glass will shatter when being hit in terms of its microphysical properties, we can't point to the microphysical properties to determine whether or not the pane of glass survived the shattering, which we would expect if 1 were true.<br /><br />AGP<br />Sortal properties are just properties concerning what kind of thing it is (is a statue, is a lump, etc)<br />A brute property is a property for which one cannot give a non-trivial explanation for why the thing has that property.<br /><br />I hope I have clarified the issues you brought up. If there is anything I haven't adequately addressed, or if you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask!<br /><br />I intend to next address Damian's main points. He's right to think I will deny premise 1. But he's wrong to think that I will be attempting to fill in what X is, and also wrong in thinking I will be defending anything like 17. Indeed, I think 17 ought to be rejected! But hopefully what I have to say will make such a move seem palatable.<br /><br />I intend to respond to Damian today, but things might come up. As it is, I already regret waiting so long to respond to AK's requests for clarification!<br /><br />Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11241027738840929433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7485386297621238234.post-13301231758715846562012-09-26T01:29:54.375-05:002012-09-26T01:29:54.375-05:00MP, G, 2 thoughts.
Paragraph 1
- Was Lumpl and Go...MP, G, 2 thoughts.<br /><br />Paragraph 1<br />- Was Lumpl and Goliath introduced in class? If so, I missed it. I was space cadet-ish. Or is this just a different terminology for Clay/Angel? <br />- What former case are we discussing here?<br /><br />Grounding Problems<br />- Can you explain more what 'grounding' is? (1)<br />- Why does the 2-ist explanation fail?<br />- I'm a little bit left wondering about the steps in this argument. I'm wondering if it could be simplified? Or are all the steps necessary? (anticipating implicit/explicit objections if left in simplified form?)<br /><br />QDP<br />- Could you just start with (4) instead of the lead-up?<br />- (6) ibd.<br />- Here is an explanation for not using lump/angel. I thought this worry was avoided earlier?<br />- Again, can (8) be spelled (spelt?) out a little more clearly?<br /><br />JM<br />- (11) is murky to me.<br /><br />I don't have good answers for any of this. Maybe Justin truly does? Perhaps at least Justin (et al?) has some of the same questions I do?<br /><br />AGP<br />- Can we briefly explain 'sortal' properties again?<br />- Can we briefly explain what a 'brute' property, modal or other, is?<br /><br />Again, I admit to not having a clear understanding of what is unfolding and my hope is that my questions illuminate the dialogue for myself and others.akhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15631431790018438943noreply@blogger.com