[lit-ideas] The Grammar of Goodness
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:54:34 -0500 (EST)
Cfr.
the syntax of good
the syntax of goodness
the grammar of good.
L. Helm:
>What is good art?
L. Helm is right in quoting from Wilson. Wilson is arguing the thesis that
Marxism will tell us what good literature is. Wilson sees that as a
non-sequitur.
I would abstract 'good' here. As per wiki,
Goodness (in wiki).
"It is possible to treat the essential theories of value by the use of a
philosophical and academic approach."
"In properly analyzing theories of value, everyday beliefs are not only
carefully catalogued and described, but also rigorously analyzed and judged."
"There are at least two basic ways of presenting a theory of value, based
on two different kinds of questions."
----- What do people find good, and what do they despise?
----- What really is good, and what really is bad?
"The two questions are subtly different."
"One may answer the first question by researching the world by use of
social science, and examining the preferences that people assert."
"However, one may answer the second question by use of reasoning,
introspection, prescription, and generalization."
"The former kind of method of analysis is called "descriptive", because it
attempts to describe what people actually view as good or evil; while the
latter is called "normative", because it tries to actively prohibit evils
and cherish goods."
"These descriptive and normative approaches can be complementary."
"For example, tracking the decline of the popularity of slavery across
cultures is the work of descriptive ethics, while advising that slavery be
avoided is normative."
"Meta-ethics is the study of the fundamental questions concerning the
nature and origins of the good ..., including inquiry into the nature of good
..., as well as the meaning of evaluative language."
"In this respect, meta-ethics is not necessarily tied to investigations
into how others see the good, or of asserting what is good."
The next section in the wiki is entitled:
"Theories of the intrinsically good."
---- keyword: "intrinsically good"
"A satisfying formulation of goodness is valuable because it might allow
one to construct a good life or society by reliable processes of deduction,
elaboration, or prioritization. One could answer the ancient question, "How
should we then live?" among many other important related questions. It has
long been thought that this question can best be answered by examining what
it is that necessarily makes a thing valuable, or in what the source of
value consists."
And so on.
"The grammar of goodness" was the title, in manuscript, of Philippa Foot's
work on the topic. Grice arrived at a similar framework in his "Conception
of Value". "Value-orientation" was basic for Grice.
"It is a good poem."
Grice wants to argue that 'poem' is perhaps 'value-oriented'. If x is a
poem, it should be sufficiently _good_ to be called 'poem'.
Grice's other examples:
'sentence'
'reasoning'.
"The and and the however if the dog."
is not a bad sentence. It is not a sentence.
"He reasoned that 2 = 2 = 5" (?). Misreasoning does not count.
Grice quotes from Lewis Carroll,
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
and notes that most substantives there disqualify in Philippa Foot's
analysis:
Take 'cabbage'.
"That is a bad cabbage" -- nonsensical for Grice.
"That is a bad king." -- nonsensical for Grice.
"Shoe", "Ship", "sealing-wax", similarly, are all 'value-oriented'. There
is no such a thing, in principle, as a _bad_ shoe.
Grice's view is controversial. It can be minimised. If we disregard the
all-pervasiveness of 'good' (as per Grice's integrational axiomatics) we need
a narrower syntax of 'good', alla Foot, or not.
Hare noted that one can use some nonsensical term,
e.g.
A good pirot.
Or a good pirotmetre.
To understand "good pirotmetre" we don't need, Hare thinks -- and I agree
-- KNOW what a pirotmetre is. A good pirotmetre is a pirotmetre that
sucessfully achives what a pirotmetre, simpliciter, is supposed to do.
Similarly,
"a good person", Grice claims.
To define the empty 'good', Grice turns to verbalising.
Consider
"a good specimen of a tiger" --> simpliciter, "a tiger".
What _is_ a good tiger?
For Grice, a good tiger (i.e. a tiger simpliciter) tigerises (or
tigerizes, if you must use American spelling). And so on.
A good person, similarly.
And so on. When it comes to art, the issue is usually Joseph Kosuth's
paradox. He once said,
"I am a real artist".
Cfr. "a good artist", a "good work of art" (e.g. "a good painting", a
"good" poem, a good piece of music, such as some by J. Cage, and so on).
Some may regard this as relativistic, but that is a relatively minor
problem, no?
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] The Grammar of Goodness - Jlsperanza
