Recent Responses
As all logical arguments must make the assumption that the rules of logic work, is there any way to derive the laws of logic?
As you suggest, all logical
Stephen Maitzen
May 4, 2017
(changed May 4, 2017)
Permalink
As you suggest, all logical arguments (and hence all derivations) depend at least implicitly on laws of logic. So I can't see any way of deriving any law of logic without relying on other laws of logic. Nevertheless, we can derive every law of logic, provided we're allowe... Read more
If you had a child to make yourself happy, as most people do, would that violate the Kantian imperative to avoid treating people as means?
Unfortunately, this is a
Michael Cholbi
May 1, 2017
(changed May 1, 2017)
Permalink
Unfortunately, this is a tricky question for Kantian ethics to address.
On its face, it might appear that procreation (bringing a child into existence) in order to advance one’s own happiness treats the child merely as a means: One ‘uses’ the child to promote one’s own happin... Read more
I the Koran subject to interpretation or to be taken literally?
I'm curious why you raise
Andrew Pessin
April 30, 2017
(changed April 30, 2017)
Permalink
I'm curious why you raise this question only with respect to the Koran--and not with respect to other sacred literatures (or perhaps you have them all in mind). I'm no expert on the Koran but I am pretty sure that, first, your question has a false dichotomy: "inter... Read more
Does one have to be aware that one is exercising one's free will, in order to have free will?
Hard to see why, in my
Andrew Pessin
April 30, 2017
(changed April 30, 2017)
Permalink
Hard to see why, in my opinion. If (say) a free action is one that you undertake such that, at the moment of acting, it was at least logically, and perhaps even physically, possible that you either perform that action or not perform that action, those facts themselves at l... Read more
Is it morally acceptable to hate a crime but not the criminal?
I'm having a bit of trouble
Allen Stairs
April 29, 2017
(changed April 29, 2017)
Permalink
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why it wouldn't be. Among possible reasons why it would be just fine, here are a few.
1) People, and more generally sentient beings, occupy a very different place in the moral universe than mere things (including events... Read more
When I read most discussions about free will, it seems that there is an implicit unspoken assumption that might not be accurate once it is brought forward and addressed explicitly. We know from research (and for me, from some personal experiences) that we make decisions before we are consciously aware that we have made that decision. The discussions about free will all seem to assume that one of the necessary conditions of free will is that we be aware that we are exercising it, in order to have it. (sorry if I did not phrase that very well). In other words, if we are not consciously aware that we are exercising free will in the moment that we are making a decision, then it is assumed that we do not have free will, merely because of that absence of conscious awareness. Suppose we do have free will, and we exercise it without being consciously aware that we are doing so at that particular moment. That might merely be an artifact that either we are using our awareness to do something that requires concentration. Only later do we then use our awareness to reflect on what we just did.
Part of the problem with this
Allen Stairs
April 28, 2017
(changed April 28, 2017)
Permalink
Part of the problem with this debate is that it's not always clear what's really at issue. Take the experiments in which subjects are asked to "freely" choose when to push a button and we discover that the movement began before the subject was aware of any urge to ac... Read more
Lately, I have been hearing many arguments of the form: A is better than B, therefore A should be more like B. This is despite B being considered the less desirable option (often by the one posing the argument). For example: The poor in our country have plenty of food and places to live. In other countries, the poor go hungry and have little to no shelter. It is then implied that the poor in our country should go hungry and have little to no shelter. I was thinking this was a fallacy of suppressed correlative, but that doesn't quite seem to fit. What is the error or fallacy in this form of argument? How might one refute such an argument?
Years ago, I used to teach
Allen Stairs
April 28, 2017
(changed April 28, 2017)
Permalink
Years ago, I used to teach informal reasoning. One of the things I came to realize was that my students and I were in much the same position when it came to names of fallacies: I'd get myself to memorize them during the term, but not long after, I'd forget most of the n... Read more
A lot of philosophy seems to be "philosophy of x" -- philosophy of science, philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, etc. Given this, should philosophy, institutionally speaking, be treated as a separate discipline at all? I mean, why couldn't the various philosophies of x be absorbed into the various types of x?
What you are offering is a
Jonathan Westphal
April 27, 2017
(changed April 27, 2017)
Permalink
What you are offering is a philosophy of philosophy. From your principle that "philosophy of x" should be absorbed into the department of x, institutionally speaking, doesn't it follow that philosophy of philosophy should be absorbed into the department of philosop... Read more
Why did all the ancient philosophers seem so fascinated by astronomy? Their interest in math and "physics" is understandable, as math can be seen as very similar to certain branches of philosophy in that it is not the study of a particular existence, but, rather, the study of "existence," and physics is the study of the seemingly occult laws that govern everything, which is also very similar to philosophy in a sense, but astronomy is just the extrapolation of those two fields on "arbitrarily chosen" pieces of mass. Math, and even physics to a large extent, are "implicit" (for lack of better term) to existence, while astronomy is wholly explicit.
You are completely right to
Nickolas Pappas
April 20, 2017
(changed April 20, 2017)
Permalink
You are completely right to notice the early absorption with astronomy. I have heard people say “Greek philosophy began on May 28, 585 BC, at 6:13 in the evening” – because of astronomy. Thales, who is often called the first Greek philosopher, predicted a solar ecli... Read more
Humans can apparently commit to beliefs that are ultimately contradictory or incompatible. For instance, the one person, unless they're shown a reason to think otherwise, could believe that both quantum mechanics and relativity correspond to reality. What I wanted to ask is -- the ability to hold contradictory beliefs might sometimes be an advantage; for instance, both lines of inquiry could be pursued simultaneously. Is this an advantage that only organic brains have? Is there any good reason a computer couldn't be designed to hold, and act on, contradictory beliefs?
Fantastic question. Just a
Andrew Pessin
April 20, 2017
(changed April 20, 2017)
Permalink
Fantastic question. Just a brief reply (and only one mode of several possible replies). Suppose you take away the word "belief" from your question. That we can "hold" or "consider" contradictory thoughts or ideas is no big deal -- after all, whenever you decide which o... Read more