Recent Responses
I have always been curious how the typical, bright Western philosopher views Eastern philosophers and sages. Quite a few sages and philosophers of the East seem to feel as if they have attained 'truth' or 'enlightenment'. I wonder sometimes what a Western philosopher is hoping to reach or attain in life through philosophy. Is it the same 'truth' or 'enlightenment' that the sages of the East strive for? Is there a common goal between the two different philosophies? It seems to me as if the stress of Western philosophy is on sound logic and reason and clarity of thought. Many times, this is not the stress of Eastern thought. It stresses intuition, metaphors, meditation, and faith (at least in Vedanta). So I guess what I'm really interested in is, does the Western philosopher believe that a 'sage' or great philosopher of the East has truly attained truth or enlightenment (even though the emphasis and stresses in 'philosophy' are very different [often times])? Or, rather is the eastern sage or philosopher under some sort of illusion when he claims that he is enlightened?
Jay L. Garfield
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
The West is a big place, with a lot of philosophers, some of whom use careful rigorous arguments; some of whom do not, but give voice to deep insights in other ways; some of whom have explicitly religious agendas; some of whom are anti-religious or secular. The East is a big place, with... Read more
You have no doubt heard this example of the problem of identity before, but bear with me. Say you are given an axe for your birthday. Upon using the Axe on a length of wood you smash the axe head on a rusty bolt. You venture to get another Axe head from your local hardware store, return home and replace the damaged part with the new. Upon striking the wood a second time you consciously avoid the bolt to no avail as now the Axe handle shatters. You, for a second time, venture to the hardware store to get a replacement handle, return home and install it. Now, the question you probably saw coming is – is this still the Axe you were given for your birthday? I say yes, because you attached the replacement parts with respect to its original condition, not with intent to modify or improve. The deeper problem with saying that, indeed, the Axe SHOULD now be considered a different Axe is that the human body replaces all its atoms every 7 years (or so), yet nobody says that we are doppelganger (many times over) masquerading as our original self. What do you think?
Jay L. Garfield
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
I think that it depends upon what your criteria are for identity.
Log in to post comments
Is it fair to say that analytic philosophy of language has been more concerned with language as (actual) use and language as (actual) knowledge than with the problem of correct interpretation? When I say "the problem of correct interpretation" I mean the problem of giving good reasons to justify the claim that some interpretation (a paraphrase or a translation) is correct or the correct one. I am aware that much has been written on the "indeterminacy of translation", but isn't it possible to give arguments for or against the correctness of a certain interpretation in spite of such "indeterminacy"? Where can I read about it?
Jay L. Garfield
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
There is a big literature on translation. It is a hard topic. I would start by reading Gadamer's TRUTH AND METHOD, parts II and III, as well as some of his essays in PHILOSOPHICAL HERMENEUTICS. Also, read the excellent article by Dorit Bar-On in PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH... Read more
Hello, Is there such thing as the 'best' philosopher?
Jay L. Garfield
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
I can't imagine what that would mean. There are so many dimensions to philosophy, and so many philosophers who are competent on distinct dimensions. Don't worry about rankings.
Log in to post comments
When does artificial intelligence just become intelligence?
Jay L. Garfield
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
When we come to use the word "intelligence" simply to refer to a set of capacities, and when it becomes natural to treat non-biological machines and biological machines indifferently when assessing those capacities. See this week's NEW YORKER for a fascinating article on how that is playi... Read more
Is the value of democracy purely instrumental? To put it another way: if 'the republic' truly worked, would it be better than the misfiring democracies that we see in the world?
Jay L. Garfield
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
This is a hard one. If you think, as did Kant, for instance (see his fine essay, "What is Called 'Enlightenment'" or Mill (read "On LIberty") that there is a special non-instrumental value in being a free participant in a public sphere where ideas and views can enter into dialogue with on... Read more
Do we think in our native language? Can we speak German but think French? My French friend insists that we cannot as his native language is French yet when he speaks English he thinks in English and vice-versa.
Jay L. Garfield
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
There are actually three questions (at least) here: Do we think in a natural language? Is there a special role that our native language plays in our thought? Can more than one language play that role for a person?The first question is the basis of a major controversy in the foundations... Read more
Why should I be concerned about torture? As a middle class, white atheist living in the UK, neither I nor anyone I know is likely to suffer from it. I consider my aversion to it to be mere sentimentality. Bill Foster
Jyl Gentzler
December 10, 2005
(changed December 10, 2005)
Permalink
I wonder what you believe is the relevance of the fact that you are an atheist. Perhapsyou believe that in the absence of God, nothing really counts as goodor evil, and so, for you, the only practical question that suchpractices as torture raise is whether you (or those close to you) arel... Read more
How do you know that you know something? Isn't everything a perception? Even science assumes that the world is real and the senses convey truth about the world--and perhaps even more. If everything is perception, then how does one leap to the level of finally "knowing" something.
Peter Lipton
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
You can't think without thinking, but fortunately it doesn't follow that you can only think about thinking. There are wonderful philosophical questions about how we perform the feats of representing things in the wolrd and of distinguishing correct from incorrect representations; but the th... Read more
Why is it important to know the truth and falsity of a proposition?
Peter Lipton
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
Also because you want to know what the world is like (even when your life doesn't depend on it) and only true propositions tell you that. To have any beliefs at all is to manifest an interest in the truth and falsity of propositions.
Log in to post comments... Read more