Recent Responses
Are statements about resemblances objectively true/false, or are they merely statements about the way things seem to us, hence subjective? Is it "objectively" true that pentagons are more like hexagons than circles? Is it objectively true that the paintings of Monet are more like those of Renoir than those of Picasso?
Peter Smith
June 29, 2008
(changed June 29, 2008)
Permalink
Surely the question whether pentagons are more like hexagons than circles just invites the riposte: "more like in what respect?".
If we are interested in whether figures have straight sides and vertices or lack them, then of course pentagons will get put in the same bucket as hexagons, while circle... Read more
Hello, what do you think of this argument against God's existence? If the world's existence is contingent. There is a possible world in which the world doesn't exist. There isn't a possible world where the world doesn't exist. The world's existence is not contingent. If the world's existence is not contingent, it is impossible or it is necessary. The world exists; therefore, its existence is not impossible. The world's existence is necessary. If the world's existence is necessary, the world cannot not exist. If it cannot not exist, it is eternal. If it is eternal, it's uncreated. If it's uncreated, it doesn't have a creator. If it doesn't have a creator, God doesn't exist. The world is eternal. God doesn't exist.
Allen Stairs
June 28, 2008
(changed June 28, 2008)
Permalink
This argument is lots of fun! Thanks for offering it. Whether it works, of course, may be another matter. There are many places to try to poke holes, and others on the panel may have their needles poised over other places. But here's my pick.
Your first premise says: if the world's existence is c... Read more
How do we know that plants and similar don't feel pain? As far as I see it plants just don't act like they're in pain, but that doesn't mean they aren't. They could just be very stoic about it.
Cheryl Chen
June 27, 2008
(changed June 27, 2008)
Permalink
You might just as easily wonder how you know that other people do feel pain. Both questions are instances of what philosophers often call "the problem of other minds." I believe that other people have psychological states (thoughts, beliefs, sensations, etc.) and that things like rocks and plants... Read more
Could you please tell me about the origin of the phrase "conceptual role semantics"? Thank you very much!
Gabriel Segal
June 27, 2008
(changed June 27, 2008)
Permalink
Have a look at Ned Block's article 'Semantics, Conceptual Role' in The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You can find this by Googling 'Conceptual Role Semantics', or going here http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/ConceptualRoleSe....
Log in to post c... Read more
For clarity, I will ask the "same" question several different ways: Is it wrong to have bad thoughts? Does having and enjoying evil thoughts make one evil? Is having bad thoughts wrong, even if no action is intended? Is it wrong to wish harm to another person? Mainly, if merely having bad thoughts is wrong, why EXACTLY is it wrong? A version of this question has been asked here before, but I feel the answer did not address the essence or why having bad thoughts is wrong. (What I'd really like to know is what philosophical principle addresses this question, so that I can look into it much further than this small space can provide.)
Oliver Leaman
June 27, 2008
(changed June 27, 2008)
Permalink
It might be argued that it is wrong to contemplate favourably doing evil things, even if one does not actually do them. Perhaps that is what Jesus had in mind when he condemned adulterous thoughts, and equated them with adulterous actions. There is of course a connection between thinking and acti... Read more
(First question here:) If our world were to become a world without borders, would that necessarily be a good thing or a bad thing?
Allen Stairs
June 26, 2008
(changed June 26, 2008)
Permalink
No. That is, it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing, and it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It would depend on what this borderless world was like. There's a certain sort of idyllic situation we might imagine when we think of a borderless world where people are free (at least nominally) to l... Read more
Why should consistency be seen as a universal moral principle? Unless everybody is a Jesus that sacrifices for others, isn't everyone to some degree a hypocrite? The only thing that matters is how much one disregards other people. Couldn't some term like "stability" or "peace" replace the necessity of absolute consistency (lack of hypocrisy), although it would be hard to define exactly what that stability ought to look like.
Allen Stairs
June 26, 2008
(changed June 26, 2008)
Permalink
Perhaps we could make a distinction. Perhaps we could all agree that ideally, we'd all steer clear of hypocrisy. The phrase "good hypocrisy" has a strange ring, suggesting that nothing would count. The phrase "tolerable hypocrisy," however, is less strange. Few of us, if any, manage to steer clear... Read more
I believe that there are only 3 possible options. 1) That God or some all powerful being created the universe. This is a very bizarre state because it means we are all subordinates to an independent being that has always existed. Strange. 2) The universe was created out of nothing. Truly weird. 3) That the universe has always existed. This is simply incomprehensible. Because these are the only 3 options I see and because each is mind-bogglingly discouraging or incomprehensible - or downright goofy - I think this whole existence thing is either some sort of hallucination or a complete joke. (Another possibility is that I am in some sort of hell.) Therefore, I take nothing seriously and treat this whole thing sort of the way you deal with the pain of stubbing your toe. Kind of grit your teeth and wait for the pain to end. Any thoughts?
Jonathan Westphal
June 26, 2008
(changed June 26, 2008)
Permalink
The three options you offer for the origin of the universeare: 1) That God created the universe. This, you say, is “bizarre”, becausethen in some sense we would be “subordinate” beings. (Why should that be bizarre?) 2) The universe wascreated out of nothing. This, you say, is “truly weird”. A... Read more
Do humans have a greater right to live than other animals? If so, would beings of much greater intelligence and perception hold that same right over humans?
Gordon Marino
July 25, 2010
(changed July 25, 2010)
Permalink
I am not a vegetarian but I think I should be. I would not couch the issue in rights language but putting animals through suffering just so I can have my New York Strip Steak just seems wrong to me. Given human history, I cannot imagine what kind of arguments we humans could muster if aliens cam... Read more
I have a small question about logic. In my text, "3 is less than or equal to pi" is translated as PvQ, where P is "3 is less than pi" and Q is "3 is equal to pi." Seems simple enough. But why isn't the statement better translated as (PvQ)&~(P&Q)? Of course, if you know what "less than" and "equal to" really mean, you'll understand that P&Q is precluded; but it bothers me that this is not explicitly stated in the translation. Someone who understands logic but not English might infer from PvQ that 3 may be simultaneously "less than" and "equal to" pi, and this strikes me as problematic.
Allen Stairs
June 26, 2008
(changed June 26, 2008)
Permalink
Just to be sure I'm addressing your worry: it's often said that there are two senses of "or": an inclusive sense, where "P or Q" means "At least one of the statements 'P' and 'Q' is true, and an exclusive sense, where "P or Q" means "exactly one of the statements 'P' and 'Q' is true." Let's suppo... Read more