Recent Responses
Existence is filled with happiness and suffering, but the amount of happiness and suffering is not guaranteed. Non-existence, on the other hand, has no happiness or suffering. Non-existence isn't good or bad, yet existence is labeled either good or bad. Why is it that existence must be labeled good or bad (or fulfilled/not fulfilled) with no middle ground, yet non-existence must remain neutral?
Here's one reason to think
Michael Cholbi
July 7, 2016
(changed July 7, 2016)
Permalink
Here's one reason to think that not existing is neither good nor bad (this reasoning is due, roughly, to Epicurus): Non-existence is not a state of us -- it's not a state that one can be in. Moreover, it's not a state a person can experience or undergo. And if every... Read more
Many astrophysicists speculate that everything came from nothing. How can something come from nothing? The above speculation would break the law of conservation. Either something has always been here or what we call something is actually made of nothing (nonmaterial.) Please give me your prospective. Thank you, Awareness1963
For the record, I'm far from
Stephen Maitzen
July 7, 2016
(changed July 7, 2016)
Permalink
For the record, I'm far from happy with Krauss's way of putting things, which is why in my response I linked not to Krauss's book but to Albert's (scathing) review of it, the same review later linked to by Professor Stairs.
Log in to post comm... Read more
Many astrophysicists speculate that everything came from nothing. How can something come from nothing? The above speculation would break the law of conservation. Either something has always been here or what we call something is actually made of nothing (nonmaterial.) Please give me your prospective. Thank you, Awareness1963
For the record, I'm far from
Stephen Maitzen
July 7, 2016
(changed July 7, 2016)
Permalink
For the record, I'm far from happy with Krauss's way of putting things, which is why in my response I linked not to Krauss's book but to Albert's (scathing) review of it, the same review later linked to by Professor Stairs.
Log in to post comm... Read more
Does an universal affirmative (A) premise entail a particular affirmative (I) one? I mean "All men are mortal" entails "Some men are mortal" or not? This is somehow confusing. Since, if you think that in a relation with set theory, it is impossible for (I) not to be entailed by (A). (A) intuitively entails (I). However, when looking at the opposition of square and applying, for example, tree method to prove the entailment, it results that (A) does not entail (I).
In Aristotle's syllogistic
Stephen Maitzen
July 7, 2016
(changed July 8, 2016)
Permalink
In Aristotle's syllogistic logic (including in his square of opposition), "All men are mortal" implies "Some men are mortal." But in the standard logic of the past 100 or so years, that implication doesn't hold.
This failure of implication arises because modern stan... Read more
If science, robotics, and society progressed to the point where all human basic needs were provided for (food, clothing, shelter, health care, daily chores) at no cost and therefore nobody was required to labor, what would be of value?
Interesting! I may be
Charles Taliaferro
June 30, 2016
(changed June 30, 2016)
Permalink
Interesting! I may be misunderstanding the question, but you seem to suggest (or want to explore whether) labor is an essential measure or determinant of value, for the way you put matters is that if food, clothing, shelter, health care, daily chores, were not the resu... Read more
Can something with attributes not have a definition?
It is natural to think of
Charles Taliaferro
June 30, 2016
(changed June 30, 2016)
Permalink
It is natural to think of definitions as something that we formulate, whereas attributes are usually thought of as something that we might formulate or construct (the attribute of being a human invention, for example), but also something that we do not invent or crea... Read more
How much does one has to "know about" a person to "know" a person? When does a stranger become an associate or acquaintance, an associate or acquaintance become a friend, and a friend become an intimate? When is a stranger no longer a stranger? How does one know when one is "close" to someone? Those questions have bothered me for quite some time. If I read a biography of a celebrity whom I have never met, and I am able to memorize the entire contents of the biography, could it be argued that I "know" the celebrity without actually having never met the celebrity? Since no human being has complete knowledge about any other human being, do we truly know anyone except for ourselves?
I think the best answer is
Allen Stairs
June 30, 2016
(changed June 30, 2016)
Permalink
I think the best answer is that there's no one answer.
Let's start with the easiest of your questions: you've read a biography of someone you've never met. Do you know them? Most people would say "No" because when we say things like "I know Robin," we generally mean tha... Read more
First of all, I'd like to express my personal thanks for having this resource online. I'm having difficulty understanding the distinction between metaphysical possibility and logical possibility. It is said that Kripke's example, "Water is H2O" is an example of a metaphysically necessary truth, but not a logically necessary one. However, to me it seems that the extension of the terms "water" and "H2O" is the same, so the meaning of the statement is of the form A is A. (Isn't it with the meaning of a statement that logic is concerned, and not whichever semantically equivalent terms are used?) Isn't the statement that A is A logically necessary? A world where A is not A seems to be a violation of the law of identity. I guess it's likely that I am wrong. What are my mistakes? Thanks again.
Interesting question! First,
Stephen Maitzen
June 24, 2016
(changed June 24, 2016)
Permalink
Interesting question! First, I should note that some philosophers object to the claim that the ordinary term "water" refers to the chemical kind H2O. See here and here. Just for simplicity, my answer will ignore their objections.
Second, a point about form. Using it... Read more
In an answer to a question, Stephen Maitzen wrote, "if one's argument depends on controversial premises, then one ought to improve the argument by finding less controversial premises that imply one's conclusion." Am I mis-reading what he wrote? Does it come across to others as "one starts with the desired conclusion and then works backwards to develop premises that would support the desired conclusion." ? There may be evidence from recent psychological studies (e.g., Kahneman's <I>Thinking Fast and Slow</I> that indicate that our minds actually <I>do</I> work in this manner. However, I was under the impression that philosophers generally reason by starting with premises that seem reasonable, and then using logic to determine where those premises lead. His statement perhaps indicates a different path.
Thanks for the chance to
Stephen Maitzen
June 24, 2016
(changed June 24, 2016)
Permalink
Thanks for the chance to clarify my answer to Question 25338. I can see how my answer might have given the wrong impression.
I didn't mean to suggest that, whatever one's desired conclusion, one can always find less controversial premises that imply it. That is, one may... Read more
Irrational numbers and infinity have made me come up with this problem: pi, for example, is an irrational number, which means that it doesn't terminate or repeat. Every new digit found in pi increases the value of the number, no matter the value of the digit (for example, 3.141 is larger than 3.14, and 3.1415 is larger than 3.141). If pi never ends, then that means that there is an infinite amount of digits that will increase the value of pi by a tiny fraction. Therefore, pi should be infinitely large. So, pi = infinity. But there is a problem: pi is between 3.13 < x <3.15. This goes far beyond pi to 1/7 and even rational numbers that don't terminate (ex. 1/3). What is the problem associated with my logic?
This is actually a very good
André Carus
June 24, 2016
(changed June 24, 2016)
Permalink
This is actually a very good question to illustrate how everyday intuitions can lead you astray in thinking about philosophical problems -- or about any problems, really, that require finer and more sophisticated distinctions than needed in typical situations of everyday... Read more