Recent Responses
Is the definition of marriage changing?
Richard Heck
October 3, 2009
(changed October 3, 2009)
Permalink
I couldn't agree more with what Miriam says here. But let me add a bit. First, the common talk one hears about the "definition of marriage" seems to me to be confused. One might reasonably speak of a definition of the word "marriage", but marriage, the civil or cultural or religious institutio... Read more
I believe it was Hume who made the point that reason cannot motivate us, only our feelings can. Supposing that's true, I have a far-flung conclusion that seems to follow from that: when the panelists on this site choose which questions to answer, they're motivated by some emotion, not by reason. But doesn't this corrupt the purity of the logic of the answer? Perhaps not necessarily so, but isn't it likely that of the 2,600+ questions a good number have been tainted? How is it not the case?
Jonathan Westphal
October 2, 2009
(changed October 2, 2009)
Permalink
A mathematician might find his feelings engaged by certain questions. Sir Andrew Wiles was passionate about Fermat's Last Theorem from the age of about ten, I believe. (Say, by contrast, that he took little interest in statistics. Perhaps statistics even disgusts him.) Does any of this "c... Read more
Is the definition of marriage changing?
Richard Heck
October 3, 2009
(changed October 3, 2009)
Permalink
I couldn't agree more with what Miriam says here. But let me add a bit. First, the common talk one hears about the "definition of marriage" seems to me to be confused. One might reasonably speak of a definition of the word "marriage", but marriage, the civil or cultural or religious institutio... Read more
Can a "fact" be defined simply be defined as a "proposition that is true"?
William Rapaport
October 1, 2009
(changed October 1, 2009)
Permalink
It can, and no doubt many people do define it that way. But others (including me) prefer to use the word 'fact' to refer to the states of affairs or situations in the world that correspond to true propositions or that can be said to make true propositions true.
Whenever you read someone... Read more
Many ideas on the 'meaning of life' (assuming death is an ultimate fate of non-existence) presuppose that meaning may still be derived in this world through the actions we make and the impact we leave, our 'legacies.' However, it is perfectly rational and scientifically plausible that not only will we die, but our entire race, world, and indeed the universe itself (at least this incarnation of it, assuming there ARE multiple incarnations) must some day end. Assuming this is in fact true, doesn't the argument that the meaning of life can be derived from our impact on the world seem, if not wholly incorrect, than at least rendered moot by the rather over bearing reality that whatever impact we have is not merely fleeting but permanently erased?
Eddy Nahmias
October 1, 2009
(changed October 1, 2009)
Permalink
I would suggest reading a wonderful essay by Thomas Nagel titled "The Absurd" (try here). One point it makes is that if our lives would be absurd or meaningless if they are fleeting (or if human existence is fleeting and small), then they would just be more absurd if they were longer (e.g., e... Read more
A famous philosopher is coming to visit my university. Would it be inappropriate to ask for his autograph?
Richard Heck
October 3, 2009
(changed October 3, 2009)
Permalink
I thought about the article idea. And, back in the day, one might have had an off-print for someone to sign. (I once saw an off-print that had apparently belonged to Henry Sheffer, he of the Sheffer stroke, signed by Gottlob Frege!) But it does seem odd to ask someone to sign a photocopy of an... Read more
The other day when work ended, rather than go to my car and drive home as I have every day for the last four years, I just sat outside the building for no reason at all. Maybe I didn't want to go home just yet; maybe I was tired; maybe this maybe that. I sat for about 30 minutes, almost without moving, before finally leaving. I was thinking and thinking about why I did it, and then I started to wonder why I felt anxious about not being able to answer the question. Is it possible we've all been brainwashed into accepting the - if I remember this correctly - "principle of sufficient reason" (assuming this states that all things happen for a reason). Is it possible I sat down for no reason at all?
Eddy Nahmias
October 1, 2009
(changed October 1, 2009)
Permalink
Professor Silverman is right about the PSR and how it relates to your question (though I'm not sure I agree that "it certainly seems that everything we observe does have a sufficient reason"). But perhaps you were also wondering if your action (or inaction) happened for no reason in this sens... Read more
The other day when work ended, rather than go to my car and drive home as I have every day for the last four years, I just sat outside the building for no reason at all. Maybe I didn't want to go home just yet; maybe I was tired; maybe this maybe that. I sat for about 30 minutes, almost without moving, before finally leaving. I was thinking and thinking about why I did it, and then I started to wonder why I felt anxious about not being able to answer the question. Is it possible we've all been brainwashed into accepting the - if I remember this correctly - "principle of sufficient reason" (assuming this states that all things happen for a reason). Is it possible I sat down for no reason at all?
Eddy Nahmias
October 1, 2009
(changed October 1, 2009)
Permalink
Professor Silverman is right about the PSR and how it relates to your question (though I'm not sure I agree that "it certainly seems that everything we observe does have a sufficient reason"). But perhaps you were also wondering if your action (or inaction) happened for no reason in this sens... Read more
What are the defenses to the attacks on the law of non-contradiction. In other words, what is the traditional philosophical orthodoxy's response to developments in paraconsistent logics (Graham Priest's "Doubt Truth to be a Liar" or "In Contradiction", etc.)?
Peter Smith
September 28, 2009
(changed September 28, 2009)
Permalink
This does sound a bit like a question asking for help with a student paper, which isn't really the role of this site: and certainly this sort of techie question doesn't lend itself to a snappy answer here.
So just two comments. First, paraconsistent logics don't have to attack the law of... Read more
Suppose someone in some remote corner of town is endowed with the gift of sublime philosophical wisdom and insight. When presented with centuries-old paradoxes s/he can simply see the correct answer. Think of him/her as the Susan Boyle of philosophy. Has Philosophy become so institutionalized that this person would have little to no chance of having his/her response heard in a respectable venue? What are the chances that this person might get the attention s/he deserved?
Peter Smith
September 28, 2009
(changed September 28, 2009)
Permalink
I'm not quite sure what is meant by "sublime insight"! But anyway, serious philosophy involves negotiating your way around thickets of argument. Philosophical originality is a matter of finding new moves to make (or breathing new live into old moves) in argued debates that have usually be... Read more