Recent Responses
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. Rule 1: It is not theft because I have an option to pick A and keep my stuff. Scenario 2: 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?
You clearly know that there
Allen Stairs
August 3, 2017
(changed August 3, 2017)
Permalink
You clearly know that there are things you're not allowed to take on a commercial airliner. Presumably you also know that there are reasons why you're not allowed to take those things on the plane, even if the reasons aren't all equally good. Also: you don't have an un... Read more
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.
Plato is not the only ancient
Allen Stairs
August 3, 2017
(changed August 3, 2017)
Permalink
Plato is not the only ancient author who refers to Socrates. For a quick summary, see this Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
Note the section Socrates as a Figure, which comments on the question you ask.
Log in to post com... Read more
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.
In my experience, philosophy
Stephen Maitzen
August 3, 2017
(changed August 3, 2017)
Permalink
In my experience, philosophy courses take the explicit, self-conscious formulation and evaluation of arguments (i.e., reasoning) more seriously than any other courses of study, with the possible exception of those math courses that emphasize proofs. Moreover, the b... Read more
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.
Well, I'm glad to hear you
Eddy Nahmias
July 20, 2017
(changed July 20, 2017)
Permalink
Well, I'm glad to hear you are not a murderer. If you were, I would argue that it is worse to kill greater numbers of people like this:
1. If act or outcome A is morally wrong, then A x n (n number of As) is more morally wrong than A. [stronger version might say A x... Read more
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?
Please see Allen Stairs'
Douglas Burnham
July 13, 2017
(changed July 13, 2017)
Permalink
Please see Allen Stairs' excellent response to a similar question here: http://askphilosophers.org/question/25732
Log in to post comments
Read more
If there is a category "Empty Set" it has to have the property "emptiness". It must have this property that separates it from every other set. Thus it is not propertyless - contradiction?
I don't see a contradiction
Stephen Maitzen
July 6, 2017
(changed July 6, 2017)
Permalink
I don't see a contradiction here any more than I did back at Question 26649, which is nearly identical. Yes, the empty set has the property of being empty and is the only set having that property. But the emptiness of the empty set doesn't imply that the empty set... Read more
Doesn't trying to demonstrate how we know anything beg the question?
It needn't. Like Descartes,
Stephen Maitzen
July 6, 2017
(changed July 6, 2017)
Permalink
It needn't. Like Descartes, you might try to demonstrate a priori that you possess perceptual (i.e., external-world) knowledge. Your demonstration needn't presume perceptual knowledge in the course of demonstrating that you possess perceptual knowledge. Therefore... Read more
Consider the mathematical number Pi. It is a number that extends numerically into infinity, it has no end and has no repeating pattern to its digits. Currently we have computers that can calculate Pi out to many thousands of digits but at a certain point we reach a limit. Beyond that limit those numbers are unknown and essentially do not exist until they are observed. With that in mind, my question is this, if we could create a more powerful computer that could continue to calculate Pi beyond the current limit, and we started at exactly the same time to compute Pi out beyond the current limit on two identical computers, would we observe the computers generating the same numbers in sequence. If this is the case would that not infer that reality is deterministic in that unobserved and unknown numbers only become “real” upon being observed and that if identical numbers are generated those numbers have been, somehow, predetermined. Alternatively, if our reality was non-deterministic would that not mean that the two computers would generate potentially different numbers at each iteration as it moved forward into unobserved infinity inferring that unobserved reality is not set and therefore we live in a reality defined by free will?
You're right that any
Allen Stairs
July 6, 2017
(changed July 6, 2017)
Permalink
You're no doubt right that any computers we happen to have available will only compute π to a finite number of digits, though as far as I know, there's nothing to stop a properly-designed computer from keeping up the calculation indefinitely (or until it wears out.) But you... Read more
Hi...I'd like to begin reading Hume. Should I begin with the Treatise or the Enquiry?
Well, there are two Enquiries
André Carus
June 18, 2017
(changed June 18, 2017)
Permalink
Well, there are two Enquiries, corresponding to the first and the third books of the Treatise. And I'm sure everyone will have her own strategy for reading Hume. My own opinion is that you can't really appreciate the Enquiries until you see how much is behind them; th... Read more
Are there any true contradictions?
None that I can think of,
Stephen Maitzen
June 15, 2017
(changed June 15, 2017)
Permalink
None that I can think of, including none of the candidates that I've seen offered by "dialetheists" (i.e., philosophers who say that some contradictions are true). If you have any promising candidates, please let us know!
Log in to post comments... Read more