Recent Responses
René Descartes said that "I think therefore I am". Would it not be more true to say: "I am therefore I think"?
Joseph G. Moore
November 7, 2005
(changed November 7, 2005)
Permalink
My pet rock, Rocky exists--he's on the desk in front of me. But this doesn't entail that Rocky thinks. In fact, I'm pretty sure he doesn't. That's why I like him so much. But if Rocky were to think something, then he would surely think. "I am" is something that a thinker could think. So i... Read more
René Descartes said that "I think therefore I am". Would it not be more true to say: "I am therefore I think"?
Joseph G. Moore
November 7, 2005
(changed November 7, 2005)
Permalink
My pet rock, Rocky exists--he's on the desk in front of me. But this doesn't entail that Rocky thinks. In fact, I'm pretty sure he doesn't. That's why I like him so much. But if Rocky were to think something, then he would surely think. "I am" is something that a thinker could think. So i... Read more
What does Spinoza mean by "essence"? His geometric method in <i>The Ethics</i> starts from definitions, the first of which is: "By that which is self-caused I mean that whose essence involves existence." Essence itself, however, is never defined.
Sean Greenberg
November 7, 2005
(changed November 7, 2005)
Permalink
Spinoza doesn't define 'essence' in Part I of the Ethics because he takes the meaning of that term to be well-understood: the essence of a thing is its nature. (Descartes, whose work Spinoza knew quite well, uses the terms 'essence' and 'nature' interchangeably in the Principles of Philos... Read more
René Descartes said that "I think therefore I am". Would it not be more true to say: "I am therefore I think"?
Joseph G. Moore
November 7, 2005
(changed November 7, 2005)
Permalink
My pet rock, Rocky exists--he's on the desk in front of me. But this doesn't entail that Rocky thinks. In fact, I'm pretty sure he doesn't. That's why I like him so much. But if Rocky were to think something, then he would surely think. "I am" is something that a thinker could think. So i... Read more
I study economics. In the first few pages of introductory textbooks there is often a distinction between positive economics (concerned with explanation and prediction) and normative economics (concerned with what one ought to be). I have a feeling that the distinction is not as clear as economists seem to assume, but I can’t put my finger on exactly why this is. Does philosophy have anything to say about this distinction?
Joseph G. Moore
November 7, 2005
(changed November 7, 2005)
Permalink
Philosophy has much to say about this type of distinction, though I doubt I'm the one to say it. Nevertheless...It seems quite right to distinguish between the normative or prescriptive question of what the ends or even choices of an individual or institution ought to be, and the descript... Read more
An atheistic blogger recently responded to a question about reincarnation by saying that he was certain that the mind's energy simply dissipates impotently, once its host (the body) is no more. Why, though, is the concept of reincarnation any more ridiculous than it is for my wireless laptop to transmit an intangible email, and for another computer to receive and reconstitute it, in a similar form though not exactly the same?
Richard Heck
November 7, 2005
(changed November 7, 2005)
Permalink
It's also not clear why, if your mind were "cloned" in this way, the resulting creature would be you. If your thoughts and memories can be transferred in this way to another body, then they could presumably be so transferred while you remained as you are. That other person is not, I take it,... Read more
"If I know I am right, I am probably wrong." Is this a true statement?
Peter Lipton
November 7, 2005
(changed November 7, 2005)
Permalink
Another necessary condition for knowledge is truth: that's another reason why, if you really do know you are right, you can not probably be wrong. But the slogan 'if I think I know I am right, I am probably wrong' could be be true. And it could be true in at least two different ways: I cou... Read more
Is astrology really a science that can be proven? Can the alignment of the planets of when and where someone was born make them who they are?
Noga Arikha
November 7, 2005
(changed November 7, 2005)
Permalink
The "profound human impulse" mentioned by Richard Heck in his response is worth characterizing further: it is the impulse to believe that there are correlations between dimensions of which we have direct experience (the earthly, the present) and those which lie beyond the realm of experience... Read more
If one could prove that there can be no thought without an organic host (such as a human being) to process the thought, then would we not prove that God's awareness could not have preceded life on earth, and hence, that God could not exist?
Mark Crimmins
November 6, 2005
(changed November 6, 2005)
Permalink
I'll grant you that there could be no immaterial god with cognitive capacities if such capacities are possible only for "organic" creatures. But I very much doubt that the latter condition is true.
Log in to post comments
What if we look at the universe completely wrong? In other words, what if all the laws of gravity, physics, and everything are actually wrong? Would people keep trying to make a fictional world with fictional rules or strive for the truth? Nick-14
Joseph G. Moore
November 6, 2005
(changed November 6, 2005)
Permalink
It depends, and even then it depends. It depends first upon whether we ever discover our massive misconceptions. If not, then I imainge we'd continue along merrily piling fancy details upon them. But if (as I think you are imagining) we one day discover that we've gotten it all wrong, the... Read more