Recent Responses

If knowledge is defined as justified true belief, why is it necessary to include "justified" in that definition. If I have a belief that corresponds with an objective state of affairs, why doesn't that count as knowledge regardless of justification? In the Theaetetus, Socrates seems to consider it self-evident that if one forms a belief based on unreliable testimony, that belief is not knowledge even if it true. I don't see why this is the case. If a delusional person tells me it is going to rain tomorrow, and I form the belief (which happens to be true) that it is going to rain tomorrow, why would that not be considered knowledge? Especially if I can use that belief to successfully guide my activity in the world? One more clarification: I can understand why justification matters with respect to the psychological process of forming a belief. I am talking about the definition of knowledge, which is already presupposed to be true.

Richard Heck February 1, 2014 (changed February 1, 2014) Permalink Different philosophers would answer this sort of question different ways, depending upon how they approach epistemology. On one sort of view, we might think that this is a question about the meaning of the ordinary English verb "to know". And in that case, there seems to be good evidence tha... Read more

Ethics

I used to always give money to the homeless who asked for it on the side of the road. One day a relative pointed out to me that nearly every time I give to one of the homeless, I or my family gets something beneficial in return at a later time. It's definitely possible it's all coincidence or confirmation bias, but my question is should I keep giving to them with this knowledge? Or should I not due to the fact that I involuntarily expect something in return now, defeating the purpose of the generosity? Thanks.

Allen Stairs February 1, 2014 (changed February 1, 2014) Permalink Before your relative piped up, you were giving money to the homeless because you thought it was a good thing to do. Now you're worried that your motives aren't so pure. and you've asked whether you should stop giving because expecting a reward is "defeating the purpose of the generosity."I t... Read more

Animals

Is it immoral to keep an animal as a pet, or is this question not within the domain of ethical philosophy? My reasoning is this, there are other much more self-involved things to do than spend time taking care of a pet, such as reading philosophy or even asking questions on this site. Pets can cause all kinds of problems, especially for its owner, and perhaps do not reciprocate affection.

Allen Stairs January 31, 2014 (changed January 31, 2014) Permalink I'm puzzled. Why would doing something more "self-involved" be morally better than keeping a pet? Perhaps by "self-involved," you mean self-improving, but morality doesn't call for spending all our time improving ourselves. And even insofar as it does, caring for a pet might help some people... Read more

Knowledge

On 'Cogito Ergo Sum' If this statement means that the only thing I can know to be true is that I exist, then that means I don't know if the reasoning used to deduce this statement is logically sound. What evidence do we have that our reasoning is to be believed? The only reason that we trust our reasoning is because have reasoned that it is trustworthy. We trust our reasoning because we trust our reasoning. I know that I came to this conclusion with the same human logic as cogito ergo sum, so this conclusion must be equally invalid. Humans are imperfect->humans 'invented' logic-> logic is not necessarily perfect. "I do not know if I know anything." Please fix any broken logic I have, or point me in the direction of relevant articles on how my thinking was outdone hundreds of years ago. Thanks

Stephen Maitzen February 1, 2014 (changed February 1, 2014) Permalink I don't mean to criticize Prof. Reid's excellent scholarly response on behalf of Descartes. But it's worth pointing out that the reasoning from the Second Replies that he attributes to Descartes is more complex and dubitable than the inference from 'I think' to 'I exist' is to begin with.... Read more

Philosophy

Are answers to political questions less concrete than answers to questions of epistemology? Does this mean that even if 100% of philosophers think that Israel has no right to exist, it is no more valid than if 30% of philosophers agreed to the problem of other minds?

Allen Stairs January 23, 2014 (changed January 23, 2014) Permalink Not sure I follow, but by "concrete" I'm guessing you mean either "objective" or "easy to settle." If you do, then on either alternative I can't see why there would be any difference between the two. In any case, the way you've put things suggests that nose-counting may be relevant. That's s... Read more

Existence

I think for many people the experience of consciousness leads to an unshakable sense that there is something that exists which can be called consciousness and which is different from matter. Many philosophers deny this. For me the experience of existence leads to an unshakable sense that at least something exists but I can't say exactly what exists. I could say that my experiences must be caused by something but its conceivable that someone would deny that intuition. It wouldn't surprise me if some philosophers completely denied that anything at all exists. What is the name of that way of thinking? What philosophers have advocated that belief?

Eric Silverman January 17, 2014 (changed January 17, 2014) Permalink I am not aware of any philosophers that claim that absolutely nothing exists. The most skeptical position I am aware of is called solipsism, which is the view that only the self exists or that one is only justified in believing the self exists. However, it is a rather rare position.Descart... Read more

Philosophy

Hi, Is there a discipline within philosophy which deals with how to acquire and hold strong opinions and yet be emotionally detached from those options. This would make it easier to represent an opinion that is being attacked while keeping a calm open mind. Please forgive my philosophical ignorance. Thank you, Michael

Oliver Leaman January 17, 2014 (changed January 17, 2014) Permalink Not really, although people in any discipline are used to the idea that the academic ideas one has are likely to be attacked by others who disagree with them. In philosophy as elsewhere many find it difficult to distinguish between attacks on their ideas and attacks on the producers of the... Read more

Philosophy

How are branches ("or fashions") of philosophy created or are they created without consensus? For example, I see on Wikipedia, a philosophy a mind, a philosophy of science, a philosophy of pain, and so on. But why not a philosophy of the fashion industry, why not a philsophy of simple living and so on?

William Rapaport January 17, 2014 (changed January 17, 2014) Permalink I agree with Andrew Pessin. If you agree with Plato that The one who feels no distaste in sampling every study, and who attacks the task of learning gladly and cannot get enough of it, we shall justly pronounce the lover of wisdom, the philosopher.then, for any x, there can be a phil... Read more

Philosophy

How are branches ("or fashions") of philosophy created or are they created without consensus? For example, I see on Wikipedia, a philosophy a mind, a philosophy of science, a philosophy of pain, and so on. But why not a philosophy of the fashion industry, why not a philsophy of simple living and so on?

Philosophy

How are branches ("or fashions") of philosophy created or are they created without consensus? For example, I see on Wikipedia, a philosophy a mind, a philosophy of science, a philosophy of pain, and so on. But why not a philosophy of the fashion industry, why not a philsophy of simple living and so on?

Recent Responses

Pages