Recent Responses
Why do so many equate 'natural' with 'good?' It seems to me as though there are loads of cases stating the very opposite. So is what is natural always what is good?
Eddy Nahmias
October 22, 2009
(changed October 22, 2009)
Permalink
To answer your second question first, you are correct that what is natural is not always good (though of course we need to know what we mean by "natural" and "good"). For instance, if we mean by "natural" what humans have strong desires to do, presumably in part because of our evolutionary... Read more
Is it true that all language is meaningless without context?
William Rapaport
October 22, 2009
(changed October 22, 2009)
Permalink
It depends on what you mean (!) by "meaning" and on what you mean by "context" (but surely you didn't expect a philosopher to say anything different, did you?).
If by "meaning" you mean "reference" (or "denotation", or "extension"), e.g., a thing in the world, and if by "context" you mea... Read more
I have a question about the identity of a certain kind of fallacy, namely: A = C B = C therefore A = C Confusingly, I have read that the above syllogism is valid; and yet consider this argument I've heard recently: Obama = Good speaker Hitler = Good speaker therefore Obama = Hitler Clearly the latter is a fallacy. So, I have two questions, really: 1) What is the name of this fallacy? 2) How can it be a fallacy if the first syllogism (A = C, B = C, therefore A = C), whose form it follows, is considered to be valid . . . or am I wrong about it being valid?
Richard Heck
October 19, 2009
(changed October 19, 2009)
Permalink
And, to add to all the confusion, one can say: Obama is identical to a good speaker; and also: Hitler is identical to a good speaker. But it certainly doesn't follow that Obama is Hitler. The reason, in this case, is because what stands on the right-hand side of the identity here is not a na... Read more
I am a tremendous fan of your site, and I recommend it all the time to friends & colleagues. Sorry if my question seems silly, but I'd really like to hear some comments on how you think philosophers could be best utilized by society. I know that if I could afford it, I'd love to have a small staff of highly-paid philosophers to hammer out water-tight arguments on the efficacy of a proposed policy, that, when properly marketed, would be hailed as a breath-taking human achievement. Or even some philosophers to proofread my blog entries for glaringly obvious fallacies. OK, maybe that's stuff for philosopher-interns, sorry. Short of being crowned a benevolent, philosopher-monarch, what's the best way for you and us to benefit from your brilliance?
Peter S. Fosl
October 19, 2009
(changed October 19, 2009)
Permalink
I guess I think that the most important thing would be for philosophy to be taught more widely. I think it a scandal, for example, that logic isn't required in every school--primary, middle, high school, and university--across the country. How is it that we've come to require geometry but n... Read more
I have a question about the identity of a certain kind of fallacy, namely: A = C B = C therefore A = C Confusingly, I have read that the above syllogism is valid; and yet consider this argument I've heard recently: Obama = Good speaker Hitler = Good speaker therefore Obama = Hitler Clearly the latter is a fallacy. So, I have two questions, really: 1) What is the name of this fallacy? 2) How can it be a fallacy if the first syllogism (A = C, B = C, therefore A = C), whose form it follows, is considered to be valid . . . or am I wrong about it being valid?
Richard Heck
October 19, 2009
(changed October 19, 2009)
Permalink
And, to add to all the confusion, one can say: Obama is identical to a good speaker; and also: Hitler is identical to a good speaker. But it certainly doesn't follow that Obama is Hitler. The reason, in this case, is because what stands on the right-hand side of the identity here is not a na... Read more
What exactly is metaphysics? I’ve heard it argued that metaphysics is simply asking about the existence of things that are or the nature of that existence. I cannot say, “it is,” without talking about metaphysics. Would that mean that everybody is a metaphysician?
Peter S. Fosl
October 19, 2009
(changed October 19, 2009)
Permalink
Gosh, wouldn't it be great if everyone were a metaphysician? Unfortunately, using ideas that metaphysicians explore no more makes one a metaphysician than using using religious concepts makes one a theologian. There's no simple definition of "metaphysics," but as a serviceable start one mig... Read more
Is hope ever not irrational?
Thomas Pogge
October 18, 2009
(changed October 18, 2009)
Permalink
I think hope is often not irrational. Here is an example. You get lost in a nature preserve with little food and water. You remember someone telling you that, in a situation like this, it makes sense to walk in a straight line with the help of the sun and your watch. That's what you do, whil... Read more
Thoreau says that we have professors of philosophy but not philosophers. He said that over 150 years ago and it's obviously more true in 2009 than it was then. Could it be that what's missing today is leisure for philosophic souls to contemplate, inquire, wonder, converse, etc? What is the relationship between leisure--in the classic sense of schole or otium--and philosophy? I understand philosophy to be a love of wisdom that manifests itself as a way of life - especially a way of life predicated upon leisure and animated by the endless search for and cultivation of self-knowledge. Am I correct? Is leisure an essential prerequisite for philosophy, or can it be reduced to a mere profession, like law or medicine? What in the world do people mean when they speak of "doing" philosophy?
Allen Stairs
October 16, 2009
(changed October 16, 2009)
Permalink
On Thoreau: Meh!
Thoreau apparently thought of "philosopher" as an honorific, meaning something like "wise person." If that's right, then I'm reasonably sure he was wrong in his day, and I'm reasonably sure that he'd be wrong today. There were, there are and with luck there will continue to... Read more
I enjoy playing lots videogames, listening to (and DJing) lots of various styles of electronic dance music, and frequently smoke marijuana. These things are hobbies of mine that usually make me happy. It seems, however, that most philosophical thought says to disregard things like this because they instill a false sense of happiness in us; that they are temporary, material things that satisfy the senses and should be discarded in favor of supposed "real" things that have a lasting value. Take Plato's cave allegory, for example. Are the things that I like simply shadows, fooling me from real happiness? Because I fill my free time with these things, am I living in ignorance of what real happiness could be? Is there any value from engaging in these activities at all?
Eric Silverman
October 16, 2009
(changed October 16, 2009)
Permalink
An excellent question, it is important to reflect upon the things we invest our lives into. I think there are three very different concerns you might have about investing life into these activities:
1: Perhaps, these activities aren't happiness at all, but merely distract you from genuine... Read more
Don't you agree that real philosophy has ended? (Heidegger) What you guys practice is conceptual hairsplitting and prostitution to successful sciences that DO have an object of research and a genuine method. What is the object of philosophy and what is its method? Do you really believe that philosophy is some kind of science? Where are its results and how does it progress? Don't you think philosophy is useless, except as a feel-good sense-giving practice, without real sense of itself? Philosophy is more akin to art than to science, because both are incapable of giving sense to life, whereas science and technology shape our lives and direct us towards oblivion. There will never be a philosophy to stop that... Sorry to disturb your dreams!
Allen Stairs
October 16, 2009
(changed October 16, 2009)
Permalink
You didn't disturb my dreams at all. But what you've offered up is a fair bit of bald assertion and rhetorical questioning that doesn't exactly move me to offer detailed comments. There is no one object of philosophy, and there is no one method. I don't believe that philosophy is a science... Read more