Recent Responses
Does writing a book or making a film render a hard copy of (part of) one's mind outside the brain? Are these two products as close as one can get to making one's mind accessible to others?
Charles Taliaferro
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
Without getting into the technicalities of philosophy of mind, I suggest that there is a general sense in which you give other people access to your mind any time you are honestly disclosive and expressive of your thoughts, feelings, desires. Films and books may be disclosive of the mind of... Read more
From a philosophical point of view, what is the difference between truth and fact?
Peter Smith
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
Some talk about facts is just a stylistic variant of truth-talk. For example, in ordinary discourse, to say 'It's a fact that the fast train to London from Cambridge takes less than an hour' is to say no more than that 'It is true that the fast train to London from Cambridge takes less than an hour... Read more
My teacher claims that he is utterly emotionless; according to him, he isn’t clouded by emotions of any form, and has no emotional desire. He argues that any emotions he appears to possess are simply superficial occurrences, with the purpose of manipulating others. He argues that he is utterly objective and consequently, completely exclusive from any form of bias. My question is that surely somebody who objectively chooses to use logic over any form of emotional guidance and has “no emotional desire whatsoever”, is therefore exhibiting a desire in itself? Surely, if one assumes logic as their only form of reasoning, the logic must be based upon basic desires and principles, therefore denoting an emotional presence? I would be grateful if somebody could enlighten me!
Andrew Pessin
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
I worry that framing the question this way begs the question -- you seem to assume that any 'choice' comes from or out of 'desire', but isn't that precisely what's at issue? I think we'd need to get a lot clearer on what a 'desire' is before we could answer the question in a satisfactory way ...... Read more
Why are there so many atheists in philosophy? Is this evidence that religion does not stand up to philosophical scrutiny?
Charles Taliaferro
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
Thank you to replies by Peter and Eric. I do agree with Eric and take note that more and more theists are in play, certainly more than when I started grad school in 1975. In typing in the names of current well known theists, I mangled a few names:Lynne Adams should be Lynne Baker. She is... Read more
Does Philosophy have a truth claiming capability? And if so are the truth claims of Philosophy somehow unique?
Charles Taliaferro
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
Interesting. Much of philosophy does consist in making and assessing claims about what is and what ought to be the case (is there a God? is there free will? what is justice? do we human beings have moral obligations to future generations or nonhuman animals or...? and so on). And in seekin... Read more
All things equal, is it more important to save a young person's life than an old person's?
David Brink
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
It does seem plausible that all else being equal it is more important or at least more valuable to save the life of a younger person than that of an older person, because when all else is equal doing so should produce more value. But, of course, all else being equal abstracts from a great many var... Read more
How do you show some conclusion of an argument cannot be derived in a complete system? Does one have to make the truth table to show that it is not valid and therefore, by definition it should be impossible for that conclusion to be derived?
Richard Heck
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
This question has essentially been answered, I think, as question 3211.
In brief: A truth-table is one way to show that a conclusion cannot be derived, but it is not by definition that it cannot be. This is a consequence of the soundness theorem, which states that every derivable formula is valid... Read more
Is it wrong to want power, just for the sake of power?
David Brink
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
Most people think that power, like money, is an instrumental good -- not good in itself, but rather good, if at all and because, it enables us to do other things that are good, prudentially or morally. And, of course, power can often be instrumentally bad, insofar as it enables us to do imprudent... Read more
What is the relationship between mathematics and logic?
Allen Stairs
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
It's a good idea to start with a distinction. If by "logic" you simply mean something like "correct deductive reasoning," then logic is something mathematicians use -- as do people in any discipline.
If by "logic" you mean the study of certain specific kinds of formal systems and their properties... Read more
I have recently stumbled upon a short book written by the Catholic theologian named Peter Kreeft. He deductively argued for Jesus’ divinity through an approach he summarized as “Aut deus aut homo malus.” (Either God or a Bad Man.) Basically, his argument works only on the assumption made by most historians. Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed. So, assuming this is true he says Jesus must’ve been one of three things. One possibility is that he was a liar. He said he was divine even though he knew it was not true. Another possibility is that he was insane. He believed he was divine even though he wasn’t. The final possibility is that he was telling the truth and he was correct. He was divine. He goes through and points out that Jesus shows no symptoms of insanity. He had no motive for lying. In fact, he was executed because of his claims. That gives him a motive to deny his divinity, which he apparently was given a chance to do by according to the Jewish and Roman sources on the issue. (Only the Ebionites, who wrote the bible, paint his trial as unfair. The Jews and Romans say that they gathered evidence for forty days. The Pharisees say he wasn’t crucified but rather hung.) Anyway, since he has no motive to lie and there’s no evidence that he was lying there’s no logical reason to make this conclusion. Since he shows no symptoms of insanity there’s no logical reason to think he was insane. He must be divine, according to Kreeft. He argues with a sort of ‘Ocham’s Razor,’ type approach, you see? Working on his assumption that the historical information claiming that he Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed, showed no signs of insanity, and had no motive for lying is there any counter for his argument?
Eric Silverman
June 23, 2010
(changed June 23, 2010)
Permalink
Thanks to Charles Taliaferro for resurrecting this interesting question (which I was too swamped to answer when it came around the first time). It is important to remember that like many philosophical arguments it has a specific audience in mind. Let's call the intended audience 'the agnostic ge... Read more