Recent Responses
Is there a contradiction at the root of philosophy? Here's what it might be: Philosophy began "in wonder", and asks us to question things -- the roots of our opinions, our beliefs, religions, the essence of objects, the values of life, etc. But it does NOT, emphatically, ask us to question the value of questioning. It ASSUMES (something philosophers should never do!!) that we should question. That seems to me a normative claim never questioned by you philosophers. And even if we WERE to question the value of questioning, we'd be engaging, it seems to me, in an act of performative self-contradiction. We'd still be assuming that we should question!
Peter Lipton
March 27, 2006
(changed March 27, 2006)
Permalink
To question whether we should question is not to assume that we should question: at most it is to assume that questioning is permissible. Moreover, even to assume that we should question whether we should question seems coherent. We might thereby usefully discover that our assumption was incor... Read more
Ernst Mach asserted the the world consists entirely of sensations. Does this make him a solipsist, and how might one refute him?
Cheryl Chen
July 12, 2007
(changed July 12, 2007)
Permalink
I'm not an authority on Mach, but (as Peter Lipton suggests) some of the philosophers who believe that “the world consists entirely of sensations†do not think they are thereby committed to solipsism. One obstacle for this view is how to account for the possibility that more than one mind can... Read more
From the some of the questions I see submitted to this site, it seems that many people expect philosophers to affirm that their faith / superstitious beliefs have some positive value or grounding in reality. I cannot however think of many modern philosophers who would support such a belief system, so my question is: why do people feel that philosophy will be more supportive of faith-based belief systems than science?
Peter Lipton
March 26, 2006
(changed March 26, 2006)
Permalink
Maybe there is some contrast in stereotypes, with scientists seen as more down to earth and philosophers seen as more speculative, and this leads folk to think that philosophers are more likely to take ungrounded claims seriously.
Here is another possibiliity. The great skeptical tradition in p... Read more
I've been giving a lot of thought lately to a line out of Woody Allen's most recent movie, "Match Point," in which the lead character opines that "...faith is the path of least resistance..." My tentative conclusion is that this may be true for what I call "megachurch faith," but perhaps not for thinkers like St. Augustine or Maimonides who struggled in their faith. What do your philosophers think about this proposition?
Peter Lipton
March 26, 2006
(changed March 26, 2006)
Permalink
I agree with you. We may be inclined to believe something, even though we don't have sufficient evidence for it. If we follow our inclinations, we might describe this as an act of faith and also as following the path of least resistance. But sometimes people feel that they ought to have a certai... Read more
Is it theoretically possible to quantify and/or classify all information, regardless of source or form? How about knowledge? In practical terms is there any limitations on our ability to create an Internet of information (knowledge?) containing ALL information (knowledge?) in the human world?
Luciano Floridi
March 26, 2006
(changed March 26, 2006)
Permalink
This is really a series of nested questionsthat might be treated separately, so let's see if I can be of some help.
1) Is it theoretically possible to quantifyall information, regardless of source?
Yes. As far as the quantification ofinformation is concerned, there is a well-developed branch... Read more
I'm in year 11 and obviously heading to my HSC and there are so many people expecting so much from me, but I don't know if I can live up to them. Since I'm the youngest in my family and my brothers and sisters never got into university, my mother hopes to raise atleast one child of hers makes it to uni. I could do what I like doing and live a happy life but it means not making it to uni. Can you please give me some suggestions on what to do. From Daniel H.
Alexander George
March 26, 2006
(changed March 26, 2006)
Permalink
And perhaps another consideration is this: once you go to university, you are free to take a job that does not strictly require your university education. But if you forgo a university education for now, it can be very difficult (though of course not impossible) to get one later on in life.... Read more
What is naive realism? For that matter, what is realism?
Peter Lipton
March 26, 2006
(changed March 26, 2006)
Permalink
'Realism' is used in a number of senses. One of the most common is the idea that there is determinate world out there independent of us and that we can know something about it. This contrasts for example with idealism, according to which everything that exists is mental. 'Naive Realism' may b... Read more
I'm in year 11 and obviously heading to my HSC and there are so many people expecting so much from me, but I don't know if I can live up to them. Since I'm the youngest in my family and my brothers and sisters never got into university, my mother hopes to raise atleast one child of hers makes it to uni. I could do what I like doing and live a happy life but it means not making it to uni. Can you please give me some suggestions on what to do. From Daniel H.
Alexander George
March 26, 2006
(changed March 26, 2006)
Permalink
And perhaps another consideration is this: once you go to university, you are free to take a job that does not strictly require your university education. But if you forgo a university education for now, it can be very difficult (though of course not impossible) to get one later on in life.... Read more
Can we really benefit from philosophy? Are we reaching a cumulative understanding of the universe or gaining any proof? Philsophy has destroyed the faith of believer; as far as I have seen, it has only increased the vigour of the sceptic. Would it be fair to say then that philosophy has only revealed the limitations of what we can know? Are we left in an unresolved epistemological crisis?
Peter Lipton
March 26, 2006
(changed March 26, 2006)
Permalink
I have considerable sympathy for your sentiment that philosophy has increased the vigour of the sceptic. But that may be a good thing. For if the sceptic is right -- if some of our beliefs don't have the warrant we supposed them to have -- then it may be good to know this. Moreover, grapplin... Read more
For any given term or concept, is it possible to formulate a correct definition? Some people claim all definitions are equally valid and subjective. I can't believe this though because if we can't agree on a definition, then you can't transmit your exact meaning to me through words, and the whole idea of communication is shot. How can definitions be rooted in reality and truth?
Gabriel Segal
April 16, 2006
(changed April 16, 2006)
Permalink
I will just talk ab0ut words, but the ideas apply to concepts as well.
It is very reasonbale to suppose that a typical word, such as 'apple', has a definite meaning. But then it can't be that all definitions are equally valid, since many will be inconsistent with the truth about what the wor... Read more