Recent Responses
Is there a difference between blind faith and faith? Doesn't faith in a certain sense have to be blind to rational.
Charles Taliaferro
March 22, 2013
(changed March 22, 2013)
Permalink
Tough question! In a very fine book, The Concept of Faith, Lad Sessions argues that there are at least four different kinds of faith. But setting aside Sessions more ambitious, technical proposals and work, I believe the term "faith" in English can be used either to describe the object o... Read more
Was wittgenstein an atheist?
Charles Taliaferro
March 22, 2013
(changed March 22, 2013)
Permalink
Good question! There is reason to think that at various points in his life Wittgenstein was very much gripped by religious forms of life. According to McGuinness, during the first world war Wittgenstein was so taken by Tolstoy's The Gospel in Brief that "he read and reread it, and had it... Read more
If I do something, is it fair to say that I am also _choosing_ not to do one of an infinite number of other things that I am not considering at the time of the choice? For example, if I ask somebody "What's your name?", is it accurate to say I am choosing not to ask them "Where are my walnuts?", even if the second question never even occurred to me?
Jonathan Westphal
March 21, 2013
(changed March 21, 2013)
Permalink
No, it's a mistake to say that you are choosing not to do all those other things. When you decide to ask someone "What's your name?" it is not "accurate" or right to say that you have chosen not to ask that person "Where are my walnuts?" What is true is that you are not choosing to do the i... Read more
Are 3 and √9 the same mathematical object (in light of the fact that they have the same numerical value), or are they distinct mathematical objects? In other words, are the expressions '3' and '√9' co-referential names (both referring to the number 3), or do they refer to different objects?
William Rapaport
March 21, 2013
(changed March 21, 2013)
Permalink
Using Gottlob Frege's theory of sense and reference, you might say that '3' is the name of the natural number that is the third successor of 0, and that 'the (positive) square root of 9' is a (definite) description of that very same number. The name and the description have different senses... Read more
During a discussion with a friend about God, a thought I found puzzling but provocative came to mind. I have discussed it with friends, and most seem to think it is contradictory. The thought was more of an argument, and it goes soemthing like this: if it is true that God in some sense is the greatest being that can be conceived, it seems to follow that God is somehow the maximum of all things (e.g. if goodness exists, God is maximum goodness). If this is true then God possesses all qualities; and if God possesses all qualities, it also seems to follow that all beliefs about God, even if they are contradictory, are true (e.g. God is a aupernatural being, God is a natural being). Put perhaps in simpler terms: if God is in some sense all things, then all beliefs about God, even those that contradict each other, are true. Is this even remotely anything that theologians/philosophers have ever discussed?
Allen Stairs
March 21, 2013
(changed March 21, 2013)
Permalink
I can't speak for the theologians, but it does seem to me that we don't need to go down this path.Suppose that God, if there is one, is the greatest conceivable being. That might mean that God possesses the maximum of all kinds of goodness (though even that is tricker than it seems), but it does... Read more
When I look at the room I'm sitting in, I am consciously aware of it as existing outside my body and head. So, for example, I can walk towards the opposite wall and I appear to get closer to it until I reach out and touch it. Now I understand that light is being reflected off a wall, travelling across a room, entering my eyes and this process creates nervous impulses. (In fact a physics would correctly point out that the photons that hit my retina are not even the same as the photons 'reflected' by any object). I understand that these impulses are processed in various parts of my brain, some unconsciously but eventually a mental "schema" representing the room is created. I also understand that there are other processes going on in my brain that create my awareness of different types of "self"s, that continually shift my awareness and that attempt to always produce a self-consistent view of myself and the world. However, my question is not about these (well not directly!). My question is simply how does the representation of the room that my brain is creating, not appear within me but instead outside? I look forward to some interesting answers.
Gabriel Segal
March 23, 2013
(changed March 23, 2013)
Permalink
Your answer may be in the question: "how does the representation of the room that my brain is creating, not appear within me but instead outside?" The representation itself is in your brain. But what it represents is the room outside your head, and that representational content is how the repr... Read more
Can a thing being distinct from something else be considered a property of that thing? (If my mind is distinct from my body can "being distinct from my body" be considered a property of my mind. It seems to me that if something is distinct from something else it is separate from it and therefore cannot somehow be considered a property of it. But I have a feeling I am missing something. Thank you Samantha R.
Gabriel Segal
April 3, 2013
(changed April 3, 2013)
Permalink
It depends what you mean by ‘property’. If a property of a thing cannot be separate from it, and ‘being distinct from a thing’ is not itself separate from the thing, then ‘being distinct from my body’ would not count as a property of my mind. But why use the term ‘property’ so restrictively? One... Read more
Are 3 and √9 the same mathematical object (in light of the fact that they have the same numerical value), or are they distinct mathematical objects? In other words, are the expressions '3' and '√9' co-referential names (both referring to the number 3), or do they refer to different objects?
William Rapaport
March 21, 2013
(changed March 21, 2013)
Permalink
Using Gottlob Frege's theory of sense and reference, you might say that '3' is the name of the natural number that is the third successor of 0, and that 'the (positive) square root of 9' is a (definite) description of that very same number. The name and the description have different senses... Read more
Is it disrespectful to try and tell somebody that you know their thoughts and motivations better than they do? For example, to tell an engineer that the real reason they are passionate about engineerng is because they are unable to connect with human beings?
Charles Taliaferro
March 16, 2013
(changed March 16, 2013)
Permalink
Good question! I suggest this very much depends on the relationship, the circumstances, and motives. I don't think there would be any disrespect if the engineer had told you in the past that he knows your thoughts and motivations better than you, and when he told you that (for example) d... Read more
My question concerns whether or not questions should be taken into consideration in understanding the answers to those questions. Let's take the following question and answer as an example: Q: What time are you leaving for your lecture today? A: I'm leaving at 2:00. The answer could be interpreted to mean that the the answerer is leaving for the lecture at 2:00 today. Yet the answer could also be interpreted to mean that the answerer is leaving at 2:00 on some day (not necessarily today) to go somewhere (not necessarily the lecture). Another example follows and it is this one upon which I ask your opinion. Given the following question and answer, which of the two possible interpretations of the answer would you choose if you were required to select only one without being able to provide an explanation of any kind. This is not a hypothetical question as I, along with other people, faced the exact same situation recently. Q: Is anybody in all of Athens wiser than Socrates? A: No. No one is wiser than Socrates. Intepretation #1: No one in all of Athens is wiser than Socrates. Interpretaton #2: No one in all of Athens or anywhere else is wiser than Socrates. Whether or not the question or answer is similar to or different than actual questions or answers appearing in history or literature is irrelevant and should not be taken into consideration in reaching your decision.
Charles Taliaferro
March 16, 2013
(changed March 16, 2013)
Permalink
Very interesting! A philosopher who worked hard on this very matter was Paul Grice. He studied what he called conversational implicature, a fancy term for the ways in which the meaning of what we say can be shaped by a variety of conditions. For example, if you asked me to pass you some... Read more