Recent Responses
The numbers e, i and pi are related. Is this natural or a consequence of the way we do our mathematics? Iain Nicholson
Daniel J. Velleman
November 5, 2005
(changed November 5, 2005)
Permalink
Richard makes a good point, but I still think that I had a good point also, although I may not have expressed it as well as I might have. It is often said that Euler proved that eix = cos(x) + i sin(x), but it seems to me this is somewhat misleading. Many (most?) modern complex analy... Read more
Can we prove anything, or is the best that we can hope to achieve an invitation to compare the plausibility of the premises of an argument with the plausibility of the negation of the conclusion of that argument?
Richard Heck
November 5, 2005
(changed November 5, 2005)
Permalink
There's also this point: If one has shown that, if X is true, then Y is true, then one has proven, without making any assumptions, that, if X, then Y. One might say that, if one has given an argument, then one has assumed that it is legitimate to use whatever principles of argument one appli... Read more
I don't believe in any sort of a god, or supreme being, or flying spaghetti monster, and as a consequence I don't have any expectations or fear about what happens after I die. Up till now I've always behaved ethically--in a socially responsible way, more or less--it's been convenient. However, it's more or less a habit, layered on early canalisation of moral training by religious parents. Can you give me a reason for continuing to behave in an ethical fashion? Is there a compelling philosophical reason for being 'good'--assuming I'm not afraid of punishment, or don't expect to get caught?
Peter Lipton
November 5, 2005
(changed November 5, 2005)
Permalink
This is a question that has bugged philosophers since at least Plato. Suppose you have a clever, rational jerk, that is, a person who just doesn't want to do the right thing. Is there any argument we can give him that would force him to be moral if he remains rational? I have not seen suc... Read more
Can you have knowledge that is based on a false belief?
Richard Heck
November 5, 2005
(changed November 5, 2005)
Permalink
One can slightly simplify Mark's case as follows. Suppose one believes that p and also believes that q. One therefore believes that p and q, but also that p or q. The disjunctive belief surely must be "based upon" one's beliefs in the disjuncts, but neither of them is essential: The belief i... Read more
How can the universe always be said to have existed, when there is nothing in the universe that always existed? People, plants, planets - all these things come into existence and then decay and disappear. In other words, every thing in the universe needs a cause for its existence. God, on the other hand, needs no such cause. This is not because he is "causa sui" or "self-caused"(an absurd notion, for how can something that has no being produce it own being?), but rather, he is "sine causa" or "WITHOUT a cause". Something, after all, always had to have existed. This is the Uncaused (call it God), not the Caused (Universe), which is inherently unstable and subject to flux. Scott from Ireland.
Richard Heck
November 6, 2005
(changed November 6, 2005)
Permalink
Just to echo Joe and Alex, it's not at all clear to me why the following isn't a coherent possibility. Suppose that, for convenience, we divide time into equal intervals, says, seconds, and let's suppose that time is infinte in both directions. (That may be false, as a matter of physical fac... Read more
Despite the common perception, is there actually anything really wrong with being hypocritical?
Peter Lipton
November 5, 2005
(changed November 5, 2005)
Permalink
Being hypocritical might mean that I argue for a standard of behavior that I do not myself meet. Thus I might argue that all parents should send their children to public (state) schools, even though I send my children to a private school. My behavior does not undermine whatever force my ar... Read more
What is the relationship between law and morality? Is the law simply a branch of morality?
Roger Crisp
November 11, 2005
(changed November 11, 2005)
Permalink
Some so-called natural lawyers have claimed that the idea of an immoral law is an oxymoron. If some state diktat says that people of a certain race can't travel into certain areas, then that's not a law. That's fine -- but essentially it involves giving a new and special meaning to the word... Read more
How can the universe always be said to have existed, when there is nothing in the universe that always existed? People, plants, planets - all these things come into existence and then decay and disappear. In other words, every thing in the universe needs a cause for its existence. God, on the other hand, needs no such cause. This is not because he is "causa sui" or "self-caused"(an absurd notion, for how can something that has no being produce it own being?), but rather, he is "sine causa" or "WITHOUT a cause". Something, after all, always had to have existed. This is the Uncaused (call it God), not the Caused (Universe), which is inherently unstable and subject to flux. Scott from Ireland.
Richard Heck
November 6, 2005
(changed November 6, 2005)
Permalink
Just to echo Joe and Alex, it's not at all clear to me why the following isn't a coherent possibility. Suppose that, for convenience, we divide time into equal intervals, says, seconds, and let's suppose that time is infinte in both directions. (That may be false, as a matter of physical fac... Read more
Are people who have more imagination (or who use their imagination more) better people (more moral, cause less suffering, make better choices)? For example, I could argue that: - imagination leads to more empathy for others, more understanding of others points of view, more tolerance - imagination leads to creative solutions to problems (rather than punch the other guy in the face) - imagination allows a person to forsee the potential consequences of actions, and make less destructive choices - imagination stimulates thought, expression, variety, the artistic side of life which feeds the human spirit - imagination improves tolerance of others because a person is more comfortable with novelty and differences I often wonder if a certain kind of person or a specific person had had more imagination, would they have been a better person, or not have done something awful that they did. Saskatoon, Canada
Joseph G. Moore
November 5, 2005
(changed November 5, 2005)
Permalink
To be plausible, all of your claims about imagination need to be qualified as "other things being equal", since there are, of course, examples of vivid imagination leading to terrible (and destructive and intolerant) actions. This said, I'm inclined to agree to most of the general claims... Read more
Can you have knowledge that is based on a false belief?
Richard Heck
November 5, 2005
(changed November 5, 2005)
Permalink
One can slightly simplify Mark's case as follows. Suppose one believes that p and also believes that q. One therefore believes that p and q, but also that p or q. The disjunctive belief surely must be "based upon" one's beliefs in the disjuncts, but neither of them is essential: The belief i... Read more