Recent Responses
Somethings are said to exist in the mind rather than in the real world but can something really be said to exist "inside" the mind? Doesn't that assume that the mind can contain things?
Charles Taliaferro
March 4, 2011
(changed March 4, 2011)
Permalink
Strange, isn't it? Maybe the key is to appreciate that not all "containment" or things with an inside are physical or spatial. So we might talk about how a theory of justice should contain or include an account of property rights or a theory of what the mind is should contain an account of... Read more
What is reality? Why cant we ever truly experience what is really out there since we are stuck behind our own perceptions created by our mind.
Charles Taliaferro
March 4, 2011
(changed March 4, 2011)
Permalink
Interesting question! There are philosophers who would seek to undermine the whole picture of ourselves that is presupposed by your question. Some of them argue that we do make direct contact with the objects we touch, feel, smell, hear, and taste and that the idea that we only directly de... Read more
What justifies adherence to the "principle of charity"? Are we trying to be nice? Is fecundity our aim? Is there reason to suppose that the strongest arguments tend to be those most authors actually intend?
Sean Greenberg
March 8, 2011
(changed March 8, 2011)
Permalink
I wanted to make some remarks on the principle of charity that go in a different direction from Eddy's answer to the question.The principle of charity admits of different interpretations: it can be understood--as Eddy seems to understand it--as enjoining one to make as much sense as possible of... Read more
My uncle tells me that I will never be able to find what I am looking for by pursuing philosophy because of something called the "paradox of philosophy". I asked him what that was and he told me I would find out soon enough if I became a philosophy major. Its been a long time and I havent figured out what the basic paradox of philosophy is. My guess however is that the paradox of philosophy is the idea that in order to obtain absolute truth you must already possess it. Because if you dont know what the truth is how will you recognize it when you find it? Maybe that is why the theory of recollection is so importent to Plato's philosophy? Am I correct about the paradox of philosophy or is it something different than that?
Douglas Burnham
March 4, 2011
(changed March 4, 2011)
Permalink
I'm not sure exactly what your Unclemay have had in mind (although it's possible that I'm being a bitthick, and one of the other panelists will see it straight away). Ican think of several possible 'paradoxes', though (not all of whichare, technically, paradoxes). One is that philosophy is its... Read more
Hello, I would like some clarification on deduction and induction. I have heard scientists claim to use deductive reasoning. In each case, the scientists use a hypothetical syllogism, such as modus ponens. I am confused about this because I noticed inductive arguments can be made into deductive form if conditionals are used. For example, consider this case: If an argument contains a conditional statement, then it is deductive reasoning. This inductive argument(X)can be re-worded to contain a conditional statement on the spot when asked. Therefore this inductive argument (X) is deductive reasoning. According to the example given, all arguments are deductive! Some help and clarification please? Are all arguments with at least one If . . . then . . . premise deductive by definition alone? Should inductive arguments be inductive no matter what form because the conclusions are not guaranteed from the premises?
Louise Antony
March 3, 2011
(changed March 3, 2011)
Permalink
Ordinary usage of these terms is inconsistent, and so, to some extent, is the technical usage. Sherlock Holmes is said to have solved crimes through "deduction." A philosopher would say, no, his methods were non-deductive. "Inductive" is often, in philosophy, opposed to "deductive", yet the ki... Read more
Some people seem to think that it is fundamentally impossible to understand another culture. For example, they say that no matter how we think about and conceptualize Chinese thought and philosophy, we will always be interpreting it as though it were Western, and that we will therefore never understand it. Can this really be true?
Oliver Leaman
March 3, 2011
(changed March 3, 2011)
Permalink
You do touch on a very important issue here which occurs to those of us who work in the philosophy of cultures that are not directly our own. How much do we miss since we are not the original audience, as it were, of the philosophers from that culture? On the other hand, it also seems to me that... Read more
What distinguishes the "social" sciences from the "hard" sciences? Or is there no such distinction?
Oliver Leaman
March 3, 2011
(changed March 3, 2011)
Permalink
There is at least one difference. The hard sciences are capable of predicting what is going to happen before it does. The social sciences have great difficulty explaining why something happened in the way it did even after it happened, and very little success in predicting the future.... Read more
"Yesterday was a Monday." Can the above statement ever really be verified by empirical observation?
Oliver Leaman
March 3, 2011
(changed March 3, 2011)
Permalink
Certainly, one can consult a variety of methods of determining if today is Tuesday, and once one knows that, bingo, the problem is solved.
Log in to post comments
Recently in my Philosophy class during a lecture on abortion the argument came up that in one view stance abortion is not immoral if it is to save the life of the mother. This is was to be considered toward the end of the pregnancy as well. Why is it that the mother's life is more valuable than the unborn child? Often the early baby could be incubated and go on to live its life. Is the mother's life more valuable because she has grown into a moral entity? Contributes more to society? Should the baby be more valuable because its life is brand new, with infinite possibilities, and the mother has had some years to life, is already closer to old age and death than the baby anyway?
Oliver Leaman
March 3, 2011
(changed March 3, 2011)
Permalink
I don't think it is quite that easy to extract a baby from a mother and for it to survive as you suggest. Even if it were and if we were to regard the fetus as having the same rights to life as its mother, there are reasons to prioritize the life of the mother. She is already alive while we do no... Read more
Is it morally justifiable to joke about serious crimes like rape? Humor can be a coping mechanism for people to deal with something so reprehensible, while at the same time acknowledging that it is a serious and immoral crime. Yet it's possible that for rapists or potential rapists, seeing how some parts of the community treat the crime so light-heartedly might mitigate their moral qualms about committing rape. Are there some things which we just shouldn't joke about?
Oliver Leaman
March 3, 2011
(changed March 3, 2011)
Permalink
I don't think so. As you say, by laughing at something we manage to cope with difficult events and people. Laughter does not imply taking something as not serious, quite the reverse. Even tragic situations often have a funny side to them and it is a sign of our humanity to acknowledge this and us... Read more