Recent Responses
How reliable are philosophical works written in Germany during the Nazi period in terms of genuine thought and feeling? Heidegger never admitted to hating the Jews as part of his Dasein, but is his later refusal to repudiate his Nazi membership indicative of the former?
Oliver Leaman
February 27, 2014
(changed February 27, 2014)
Permalink
We should not confuse a good philosopher with a good person. If we study someone's thought we have the right to expect them to have something interesting to say, but not to be nice. Plumbing is part of Dasein but we should not look to Heidegger for advice on how to unblock a toilet. Simil... Read more
After much introspection I have decided to pursue a major in philosophy. Philosophy has become a passion of mine, and while other interests faded away, it has kept me intently interested. Currently, my long-term goal is to go to graduate school and complete a PhD. in philosophy. Afterwards I would like to devote my life to teaching the subject. Lately though, I worry whether a degree in philosophy would be enough in my intellectual development. I have considered possibly doing a double major in cognitive science in addition to my philosophy undergraduate degree, in hopes that it would expose me to another discipline for me to utilize in my philosophical research. My main concern is that when it comes to doing my dissertation I won't have a more empirical background to possibly ground some of my arguments accurately. I was recently talking to my logic professor and he was telling me that philosophy is becoming increasing more inter-disciplinary. I suppose my biggest question is, do I myself need to become interdisciplinary in my undergraduate work to contribute anything substantial to philosophy? I do enjoy the topics offered under cognitive science, and how they may illuminate some questions in philosophy of the mind, but doing a double major would also take away time from me in other ways. For example, I could be participating in the school's philosophy honors program or taking classes of other interests to me.
If your main interest is in
Gabriel Segal
March 4, 2014
(changed May 14, 2015)
Permalink
If your main interest is in philosophy of mind, then a really good grounding in cognitive science is very important. Interdisciplinary research is where it is at now.
Log in to post comments
Prof. Richard Heck has invited me to clarify my question #5466: A fallacious invocation of the law of the excluded middle is precisely what I have been accused of in proposing my claim about subjective experience. In isolation it might not be obvious why my dichotomous claim is consistently dismissed. I think the dismissal is understandable the context in which I usually present the claim: I begin by stating that if some but not all bodies experience their existence (majority perspective), and those that do develop physically from those that do not, then there must exist a moment before which such a body lacks subjective experience and after which it does not. This implies a spontaneous transformation requiring either a supernatural explanation or one in terms of physical theory. Engaged respondents to my argument are consistent: they are uninterested in explaining this transformation; they reject my dichotomous claim; and they propose a gradual development from bodies that do not experience their existence to those that do. To the best of my reasoning, such a gradual development either has a beginning point in time, or there is no moment before which the body entirely lacks subjective experience. If I am mistaken in my reasoning I would like to understand. If I am not, I would like to know which philosophers have addressed the matter. If nobody has discussed it, I am confused as to why it is considered an unimportant matter, as it seems central to the above stated majority perspective.
Stephen Maitzen
February 25, 2014
(changed February 25, 2014)
Permalink
Having read this question and Question 5466, I think I may see what you're saying. If your opponents deny that there's a dichotomy between whatever has no consciousness at all and whatever has at least some consciousness, then they're mistaken. Maybe nothing occupies the first of those... Read more
Imagine that a Greek philosopher promised to his queen that he would determine the greatest prime number. He failed. Do you think that the mathematical fact that primes are infinite was a cause of his failure? I'm asking this because I guess most philosophers think that mathematical facts have no causal effects.
Stephen Maitzen
February 23, 2014
(changed February 23, 2014)
Permalink
You've asked an interesting question, one related to what's often called the "Benacerraf problem" in the philosophy of mathematics (see section 3.4 of this SEP entry). I'm not sure that the problem is peculiar to mathematics. Imagine that the philosopher tried to impress his queen by cr... Read more
I'm completely new to philosophy so please excuse my simplistic question - is it really possible to 'know' anything (aside from apriori knowledge if this exists)? I'm not convinced that it is. PR
Stephen Maitzen
February 23, 2014
(changed February 23, 2014)
Permalink
You've asked a venerable question in epistemology, the area of philosophy that investigates knowledge and related concepts. My short answer would be "Why not?" In ordinary life, we confidently take ourselves to know things. I'm confident that I know I have hands. I'm confident that I kn... Read more
The universe appears to behave in logical ways. All of the individual physical components of the universe, as far as we can tell, are likely governed by logically consistent laws of physics. According to physicalism, human beings are nothing more than complex physical systems. That means that the physical components and functions of a human being, including those that give rise to human thought, are governed by the same logically consistent laws that govern the behavior of electrons, etc. If the physical processes that give rise to thought are rational how can a human being have an irrational thought? Where in the system does irrationality arise? It seems that human beings are in fact capable of irrational thought. If two people hold mutually exclusive ideas then at least one of them must be wrong. But if irrational thought is possible where does it come from? Is this an argument against physicalism? Does it mean we are more than just bits of matter? Or does it mean that the universe itself doesn't follow the rules of logic in all cases? Or is my reasoning faulty? If so, how is that possible according to the physicalist? p.s. I've just been listening to some philosophy lectures online and have nobody else to ask about this.
Stephen Maitzen
February 23, 2014
(changed February 23, 2014)
Permalink
You asked, "If the physical processes that give rise to thought are rational, how can a human being have an irrational thought?" You might be misinterpreting the claim that "the physical processes...are rational." Presumably what's meant by the claim is that the physical processes can b... Read more
After much introspection I have decided to pursue a major in philosophy. Philosophy has become a passion of mine, and while other interests faded away, it has kept me intently interested. Currently, my long-term goal is to go to graduate school and complete a PhD. in philosophy. Afterwards I would like to devote my life to teaching the subject. Lately though, I worry whether a degree in philosophy would be enough in my intellectual development. I have considered possibly doing a double major in cognitive science in addition to my philosophy undergraduate degree, in hopes that it would expose me to another discipline for me to utilize in my philosophical research. My main concern is that when it comes to doing my dissertation I won't have a more empirical background to possibly ground some of my arguments accurately. I was recently talking to my logic professor and he was telling me that philosophy is becoming increasing more inter-disciplinary. I suppose my biggest question is, do I myself need to become interdisciplinary in my undergraduate work to contribute anything substantial to philosophy? I do enjoy the topics offered under cognitive science, and how they may illuminate some questions in philosophy of the mind, but doing a double major would also take away time from me in other ways. For example, I could be participating in the school's philosophy honors program or taking classes of other interests to me.
If your main interest is in
Gabriel Segal
March 4, 2014
(changed May 14, 2015)
Permalink
If your main interest is in philosophy of mind, then a really good grounding in cognitive science is very important. Interdisciplinary research is where it is at now.
Log in to post comments
The big bang theory says that time began with the big bang. Is that correct? Then does that mean that those who describe the big bang theory as an idea that something comes from nothing are incorrect? If time began with the big bang doesn't that mean there never was a time when there was nothing?
Stephen Maitzen
February 21, 2014
(changed February 21, 2014)
Permalink
I can't resist responding to one thing that Prof. Stairs says in his excellent reply: "If there's no such [necessary] being, then it might be that there's no explanation for why contingent things exist." I used to think that myself. But as I thought more about the question "Why do any c... Read more
The big bang theory says that time began with the big bang. Is that correct? Then does that mean that those who describe the big bang theory as an idea that something comes from nothing are incorrect? If time began with the big bang doesn't that mean there never was a time when there was nothing?
Stephen Maitzen
February 21, 2014
(changed February 21, 2014)
Permalink
I can't resist responding to one thing that Prof. Stairs says in his excellent reply: "If there's no such [necessary] being, then it might be that there's no explanation for why contingent things exist." I used to think that myself. But as I thought more about the question "Why do any c... Read more
What have political philosophers said concerning the idea that money equals speech? It seems to me that money is a means of exchange and carries no inherent ideas or appeals, perhaps other than the metamessage that larger the sum the greater the purchaser's potential means and influence. A purchase is not persuasion. It seems to me that money allows (in the case of a televised political ad, for example) for a message to be developed, produced, distributed, etc. Money, then, facilitates speech, but is not itself speech. What arguments have I missed?
Daniel Koltonski
February 21, 2014
(changed February 21, 2014)
Permalink
I doesn't seem to me that you've missed anything. The claim 'money equals speech' is best understood, I think, as a shorthand way of making the point you make here about money, that it "allows (in the case of a televised political ad, for example) for a message to be developed, produce... Read more