Recent Responses
Did Bertrand Russell or any of the logicists ever reply or address Goedel's incompleteness theorem directly?
Richard Heck
January 11, 2011
(changed January 11, 2011)
Permalink
I do not think Russell every addressed it directly, and Frege died before Gödel did his work. It is possible that some of the positivistic logicists, like Hempel, did, but not so far as I know.
That said, incompleteness has been raised as a problem for contemporary forms of logicism, general... Read more
Suppose a man, Frank, weighs 250 lbs. To some extent, whether or not we count Frank as fat will depend on context. If Frank stands only 5'3" then we might say he's fat; however, if Frank is 7'4" then quite clearly he is not fat. There are, of course, other factors to consider, too (e.g. muscle mass). With that said, it seems to me that we can tweak his height, muscle mass, etc., to the point where it's simply unclear whether Frank should count as fat or not, and neither empirical examination nor rigorous conceptual analysis will clear up the matter. There is ultimately a problem with our very notion of what it is to be fat--and there are many, many other similar cases of vagueness in our language. Does this inherent vagueness imply that there is no fact of the matter about whether Frank is fat? What about the cases where it seems so intuitively clear that Frank is fat (e.g. in possible worlds where he's only 5'3")?
Richard Heck
January 11, 2011
(changed January 11, 2011)
Permalink
Vagueness has been much discussed in recent years, and pretty much every possible view has been held. Let me just try to clarify a few things, and then I'll suggest some additional reading.
First, I'm not absolutely sure, but the last few sentences seem to express a worry of the following fo... Read more
Utilitarianism takes the "good" to be that which provides pleasure, or benefit, or reduces suffering. But how does the utilitarian decide that pleasure, benefit or lack of suffering are the yardsticks for ethics? It could be coherent that there are pleasurable things (that don't simultaneously cause suffering) which are unethical, or that there are ethically necessary actions which don't provide any pleasure for anybody, and even increase suffering. I am thinking of ethical, moral or religious systems that, for example, harshly restrict sexuality, the consumption of foods, certain forms of art, etc. So how does the utilitarian view argue that pleasure and pain are indeed, indisputably (from its own point of view, anyway), the foundations of ethics? Is this just common sense, or is there something more?
Thomas Pogge
January 11, 2011
(changed January 11, 2011)
Permalink
Yes, the options you outline are coherent, and it's therefore not a necessary truth that the good coincides with pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This is essentially G. E. Moore's "further question" argument presented in his Principia Ethica: "whatever definition [of "good"] be offered, i... Read more
If personal taste is something that emerges somewhat chaotically from personal experience and potentially genetics, then how can it belong to oneself and truly be personal? Surely, we don't like to think of our tastes as random; on the contrary, they define us. And yet if our tastes are something rational, then we might indeed be able to dispute them with some level of objectivity - some tastes would just be bad or good, and this could be proven. Clearly this isn't the case - so it seems personal taste is neither a chaotic result of our interaction with our life experience, nor some sort of rational conclusion on the subjects of the taste. What, then, is personal taste?
Charles Taliaferro
January 9, 2011
(changed January 9, 2011)
Permalink
I think this is a fine question or questions. Consider first the issue of whether what you are calling taste can be subject to proof or at least rational dispute. It may be that what you mean by "taste" simply means a desire or aversion to (for example) limes or apples, something which... Read more
Hello philosophers, I have a question concerning songs. I often listen rappers songs and sometimes I find verses within songs which I suppose are kind of philosophical ones. And I would like to ask you if I could use these verses in my essays as an argument to justify a proposition? I consider that these verses are type of micro philosophy. Yet my teacher can suppose that such an argument is inappropriate or invalid. Moreover, a teacher may perceive that rapper is not an influent figure. But I proclaim that he is a person who creates art. A song is a genre of lyrics like poetry. As a result, I notice a close connection between songs and poetry. People create poetry when they do a lot of thinking. Rappers create songs when they think too. They write their verses on the paper or they think before going to record a song. And it is a big similarity of poetry. Just in a different style. In conclusion, rapper song verses could be a valid argument to justify a proposition in my essays? Or it is not a suitable one?
Thomas Pogge
January 9, 2011
(changed January 9, 2011)
Permalink
In a philosophy paper, you are responsible for your conclusions. The quality of your paper depends on how well you can back up what you conclude. In many cases, you can back up a conclusion by citing someone else's work. But in order for that other work to support your conclusions, what it say... Read more
Is there not something disingenuous and disrespectful in claiming that an opponent's views are not sincere or belonging to themselves, but rather unconsciously motivated by psychological insecurities, social power dynamics and ideology?
Thomas Pogge
January 9, 2011
(changed January 9, 2011)
Permalink
There is something disrespectful about such a claim alright: one is not engaging with the opponent's expressed view on its merits but is dismissing this view as not based on conscientious, reliable reflection.
But then such a claim may be true: some people do indeed hold views that are unconsc... Read more
Was there any recorded case of Kant exercising his ethics and perhaps being put in an awkward social situation (I will not lie, I do want to see Kant put in an awkward situation!)? In every day life, one must tell lies every now and then, and it is an accepted part of society (so I think). I find it really hard for Kant to exercise his ethics.
Thomas Pogge
January 7, 2011
(changed January 7, 2011)
Permalink
A case very similar to the one you imagine is found in Kant's writing. The case is so widespread in academic life that we can be pretty sure that Kant was speaking from experience.
An author comes up to you and asks: "How do you like my publication?". Well, you actually don't think much of it... Read more
I have recently become very interested in philosophy and have recently decided to work through Plato's Republic. However, I am already a little confused with Book I. Ideally; I should like to understand Book I before I move on. What confuses me is how Socrates presents his arguments, or rather how he undermines the arguments of others. It almost seems that all of what Socrates says is trickery. I think a good example of what I'm saying is the "Analogy of the Arts". Socrates uses the analogy to convince Polemarchus that "justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies". So far, this analogy seems to make sense and I would agree with Socrates. However, Socrates goes on to use the analogy to make it appear that Justice is of no use in times of peace. Really? At this point I believe that the analogy has been taken too far and has been taken in such literal understanding that it has been stretched beyond context. Another problem I am having is how specific Socrates is getting in comparison to the rest of the Republic. For example, Socrates asks if people are friends if they seem honest or are really honest but do not seem so. Its fine that Socrates is interested about Justice as it relates to friendship as it relates to honesty, but he makes no mention of any other characteristics of friendship in the Republic. Since he is so specific but leaves out many other specifics, it makes it seem that his argument for Justice would only hold under these specific investigations and would be useless against someone who has never read the Republic. I'm unsure of how to ask a clear cut questions that covers everything I laid out above. The best question I can muster is: Is there a trick or philosophy rudiment I am missing in fully understanding Socrates use of logic?
Sean Greenberg
January 7, 2011
(changed January 7, 2011)
Permalink
Although one way to work one's way into philosophy is to begin with philosophical problems, such as those considered in the books mentioned by Allen, another way--which I myself find more congenial, which, for what it's worth, is the way I myself came into philosophy--is to study its history... Read more
If elegance or simplicity is an indicator of truth in math or science, is this principle inductive? For instance: when a theorist claims simplicity in support of his theory, is he saying in effect "Well, in the past I've found that simpler theories tend to be correct; so simplicity should be taken to favor my theory in this case." Or is there supposed to be something else, something intrinsic to simplicity, perhaps, which makes it significant?
Sean Greenberg
January 7, 2011
(changed January 7, 2011)
Permalink
t does not seem to me that appeals to this principle are based on induction--although there may well be cases in which the appeal is so based, and, consequently, I think that case studies of the extent to which this principle is applied, and when it is applied, on what basis, would be very i... Read more
At what point does the parent become more "observer" than "manager" with regard to parenting issues? I've always tried to maintain a "value-driven" approach; no helicopter parenting. I've stressed "doing your best" rather than "making a grade," with regard to schoolwork. I've given books as gifts, encouraged them to find something they love as a guide to helping to find a vocation, etc. What I'm struggling with is seeing my 19-year old college freshman show some major blind spots with regards to how he conducts his relationships with family. He's arrogant and disrespectful at times, and will never apologize when confronted about his behavior. His first impulse is to make excuses to justify his behavior and, if failing that, will immediately go to blaming the other person for his perceived contribution to the situation. He's extremely smart scholastically, healthy, nice-looking, and is likely to be successful at anything he decides to do. How does a parent deal with an adult child who's not ready to accept full responsibility for his actions, and is resistant to input? By the way, he's counting on me for grad school, which obviously is very expensive (he chose state school for undergrad; post-divorce, a very wise decision) so cutting the cord is not in the cards, as I committed to helping him get through as debt-free as possible. And, there is a 16-year old younger brother watching how this unfolds...
Miriam Solomon
January 6, 2011
(changed January 6, 2011)
Permalink
You sound as though you are thinking of two choices (1) tell your son to shape up or you'll cut the financial cord OR (2) bite your tongue and keep your promise to help him through grad school. But there are many more choices than this. In fact, there need be no association between your ef... Read more