A question was asked earlier, "if something cannot be defined, can it exist?". I would like a better answer to that question, if you would please. The question refers to the existence of a 'thing' that cannot be defined, the answer was given for an object that has not defined yet. These are not the same thing. If there is no possible way to define an object, ever, can that object exist? Can a 'thing' exist with no identity?
We laud veterans for having "fought for their country" regardless of what the fight may have actually accomplished. For example, many people who regard the Vietnam War as a failure--or worse, a moral atrocity--still hold Vietnam vets in high regard. It strikes me that reverence for veterans rarely considers whether their actions actually made any of their countrymen better off (never mind people in other countries). We have a notion of honorable military service that is tenable only insofar as it abstracts away the actual practical outcomes of warfare. When we praise a veteran, what exactly are we praising them for?
Some biblical scholars claim that events recorded in the bible justify them to believe that a miracle like the resurrection most likely happened. What's puzzling to me about their claim is that it seems to me the job of historians in general is to determine whether a particular event most likely happened given historical documents they have. However, even if we grant that the resurrection is possible, isn't it also true that it is an extremely unlikely event to begin with? Are these biblical scholars consistent in holding that the resurrection (a highly unlikely event) happened when the methods they employ can only be used to determine whether a particular event most likely happened?
I recently wondered what the airport does with all the stuff they steal at the security checkpoint.
The person that I asked was annoyed because he claimed it was not stealing because I had an option to not go through the line and board my plane.
After thinking about this awhile, I still think it is theft.
It is not theft because I have an option to pick A and keep my stuff.
Give me your car or I kill your family member.
According to Rule 1, Scenario 2 is neither theft, nor murder, because you have a choice.
I think the airline is stealing property. What do you think?
Since Socrates himself never wrote anything down, the only way we know about him now is from the writings of his student Plato. But if that's the case, then how do we know that Socrates was an actual person, and not just a figment of Plato's imagination. Is there any evidence of Socrates independent of Plato's writings.
Why is it important to study logic in philosophy? One answer might be that logic teaches you correct reasoning, but that is not something that is unique to philosophy, as it's important in other fields as well (e.g. history, economics, physics, etc.), and those usually do not include any explicit study of logic.
Hey Philosopher folk:
Do you know of any viable or at least well-examined arguments ever proposed that conclude that one murder (or some equivalent malfeasance) is no better nor worse than 8 million murders? Or generally, that multiple instances of a wrongdoing have no greater or lesser value of any kind, apart from numerical? If not, could anyone conceive of a possible argument for this?
Please note, I am not a serial killer or mass murderer, this question just arose in a debate about an unrelated topic.
Many people complain that sciences like psychology have not been as successful as sciences like physics. At the same time, many also believe that all other sciences are reducible to physics. If we have a successful theory of physics, does that imply that there must be a successful theory of psychology, and indeed any other area of empirical inquiry?