More dead philosophers

Two lovely parties this weekend: one, yesterday, for the seventieth wedding anniversary of Dorothy & Gene, from church; and another, today, for the first birthday of my niece, Penelope.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Two more philosophers have died: Daniel Dennett and Charles Parsons.

There have been several remarks along these lines: Dennett was one of the greatest recent philosophers. I don’t agree, but he was a wonderfully lively writer. He was … opinionated. This is from the first page I looked at, in the preface of the new (2015) edition of Elbow Room:

The varieties of free will worth wanting, the varieties that underwrite moral and artistic responsibility, are not only not threatened by advances in (neuro-)science; they are distinguished, explained, and justified in detail [in the book]. There are other readily definable varieties of free will that are incompatible with what we now know about how human beings control their behavior, such as “libertarian freedom” or “agent causation.” They don’t, and can’t, exist, but although some philosophers still take them seriously, they are of only historical interest, like mermaids and leprechauns.

Now that’s confidence. (Is there much historical interest in leprechauns?)

I don’t know if Parsons was unconfident, but he was no Dennett; lecturing, he’d pause mid-sentence for minutes … then carry on. (Brilliantly, it’s said.)

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Robert Adams advised the dissertation of one of my dissertation examiners (Derk). My recent browsing of Adams’s work inspired me to find out more about my other examiners’ advisers. Nick’s was the formidable Gilbert Harman; I don’t plan to write about him tonight. Dick’s adviser was Rogers Albritton. Now here was a unicorn – a philosopher so great, he barely published; whose few publications read like spillage from a sloshing cauldron of rich, still-brewing philosophy soup ( fanesca, perhaps); whose notebooks have been mined for posthumous publication. (Cf. two interesting obituaries, here and here.)

By the way, there will be a memorial conference for Dick this Saturday. I wish I could attend: to honor and learn more about Dick, and to see my Salvationist friend, Yvonne, Frank’s widow, whose health is failing.

Penelope

Happy news: my niece, Penelope, was born on Wednesday to Mary & Martin.

Today she was discharged from the hospital. Alas, I am ill – still – as are Samuel and Daniel (who are much perkier). Who knows when we’ll be well enough to meet the wee lass.

Even so, we’re very pleased that she is out and about. Samuel ran up and down, shouting: “A girl baby cousin! A girl baby cousin!”

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Daniel, who hates to wear his own shoes, has “shoe envy.” He spent much of the week howling and trying to put his feet into Samuel’s shoes. So, we’d help him into those shoes. It would please him for about thirty seconds. Then he’d realize that he didn’t want to take any steps with his feet so constricted, so he’d howl and try to yank the shoes off of himself.

Tonight he put empty Cool Whip containers on his feet. Then he realized he didn’t want to walk in them, either. So, he howled and shook them off.

Children are strange.

An election and two fairy tales

Yesterday, Ecuador held the second round of its presidential election. Different exit polls showed different winners. At 9:00 p.m. (U.S. Eastern Time) came the official percentages: slightly more than 51% for the ruling party’s candidate, Lenín Moreno; slightly less than 49% for his opponent, Guillermo Lasso.

I looked at social media. Fraude, fraude, some people were fuming at 9:02 (in my opinion, prematurely).

Lasso is asking for a recount. He’s citing how long it took to tally the votes after the first round. Of course, in that round, with more candidates, the ballots must have been harder for the vote-counters to read; and there was a narrower gap between one realistic outcome (Moreno’s outright victory) and the other (the need for a runoff vote). So it isn’t surprising that the first round’s tally was issued more slowly.

But let Lasso have his recount. I’d like the result to be clear.

One antagonist of Lasso’s is Julian Assange, of WikiLeaks, who for some years has been sheltered from criminal prosecution in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Lasso had pledged that if he were to become president, he’d evict Assange after thirty days. Encouraged by the election results, Assange tweeted: “I cordially invite Lasso to leave Ecuador within 30 days (with or without his tax haven millions).” All in good fun. Assange later clarified: “It was a joke to which Mr. Lasso lent himself. All is forgotten and I wish him the best in bringing Ecuador forward” (my translation). He also highlighted this strongly positive U.S. diplomatic cable about Moreno.

In the global press, the dominant story is that this election is ideological: socialism (Moreno) vs. capitalism (Lasso). Moreno’s victory means that the recession of Latin America’s “pink tide” has been interrupted. But a different trend is apparent from the Ecuadorian map: Moreno won all of the coastal provinces; Lasso won all of the “jungle” provinces and nearly all of the mountainous ones (as well as Galápagos). Ecuador’s starkest division is still regional, not ideological. Years ago, the ruling party was much stronger in the “Lasso” provinces; since then, it has alienated them. Whether Moreno will reach out to them remains to be seen. But I doubt whether Lasso, the guayaquileño banker, would have made them happy.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

On Saturday, Karin & I watched two movies. By coincidence, both were about the breaking of an ugliness curse (à la “Frog Prince”).

The first movie was Penelope. It featured Christina Ricci, cursed with a pig’s snout for a nose.

A houseguest brought this movie to us. I’d already seen it. No matter: I’d forgotten how many of its “bit” roles are played by actors I’m fond of. Nigel Havers of Chariots of Fire and Downton Abbey! Richard E. Grant of L.A. Story … and Downton Abbey! From 2005’s Pride and Prejudice: Mr. Bingley! (Our houseguest and Karin were swooning over Mr. Bingley.) Toward the end: Reese Witherspoon! She’s also the movie’s producer! (We watched with one eye on the TV screen and the other on Wikipedia.)

The second movie was the new CGI/live-action Beauty and the Beast. We watched it with Karin’s sister, Lily, at the cinema in Niles, which is distinguished for its cheap tickets and cheap food. I garnished my cheap hot dog with some free and rather painful jalapeñoes.

Again, it was amusing to learn who the actors were. After the spell upon the Beast’s castle had been broken, we realized we’d been watching … Emma Thompson! Sir Ian McKellen! Ewan McGregor!

As for the Beast –

– he was none other than Cousin Matthew! Of Downton Abbey!

This new Beauty and the Beast has one huge flaw. Unlike its predecessor, it doesn’t visually convey the humanity of the Beast’s servants: the Teapot, the Clock, the Candlestick, etc.

Consider Lumière, the Candlestick. Though he’s rendered in exquisite (sculptural) detail, the viewer must strain to catch glimpses of personality in his eyes. (Let me stress: I’m not complaining about how Lumière moves or speaks.)

To compare: When we watch 2001: A Space Odyssey, it’s much easier to read the “eye” of the HAL computer.

And in the cartoon Beauty and the Beast, Lumière is no sculptural masterpiece; yet his personality is written all over his face.