Recent Responses
The Kalam Cosmological Argument has as its first premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" (at least in the form I've heard it). Often examples of "chairs" or "people" are given for things that began to exist. But this seems to be a category error - the Universe did not begin to exist in the same way that a chair does. Indeed a chair doesn't "begin to exist" in that it was created from other things. So to me it sounds like the argument overstates its case with "everything that begins to exist" since the only thing that has begun to exist is, well, everything. One could restate this premise as "The universe began to exist" could it not? Is I missing something or is this what is meant by this argument? If so it seems to be more of an assumption than the inductive reasoning I hear it being used as (e.g. "you've never seen a chair 'pop into existence' have you?").
I think you've put your
Stephen Maitzen
October 1, 2015
(changed October 1, 2015)
Permalink
I think you've put your finger on a dubious feature of the KCA. While I would say that a chair does begin to exist when it's created from pre-existing materials, I agree with you that if the universe began to exist, the universe didn't begin to exist in the same... Read more
Do philosophers really understand the concept of free will and have it formally defined? Dr. Maitzen in response to question 5711 was able to answer the question without asking what free will is yet for question 24592 he seemed not to know what free will is and seemed to treat is an abstract construction so is it just an abstract construction and if it is, why create the concept in the first place?
Thanks for your question and
Stephen Maitzen
October 1, 2015
(changed October 1, 2015)
Permalink
Thanks for your question and the chance to clarify. In Question 24592, the questioner talked about philosophers "redefining free will" but never defined the term himself/herself. So I cited the definition of "free will" given at merriam-webster.com. I did so in o... Read more
P1. If today is February 29th, then it is a leap year P2. Today is not February 29th C. It is not a Leap Year Is this argument sound or unsound? From what I can tell it is invalid because it is possible for it to be a leap year and today not being February 29th. If it’s invalid then it should be unsound. However neither of the premises are false so it can’t be unsound? Even if it were sound, wouldn’t it technically become unsound if it happened to be February 29th in real life?
The argument is unsound
Stephen Maitzen
October 1, 2015
(changed October 1, 2015)
Permalink
The argument is unsound because, as you say, it's invalid. It commits the well-known fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Validity is necessary (but not sufficient) for soundness. So the argument is unsound regardless of the truth or falsity of its premises.... Read more
Are all beautiful paintings good paintings? If you answer Yes I would say that it's impossible to view all the beautiful paintings in the world, so it would be impossible to conclude that all beautiful paintings are good paintings. If you answer No, if you view a beautiful painting how can you judge whether it's good or not, if not all beautiful paintings are good paintings? What would your answer be?
I’m going to say ‘no’. But
Michael Lacewing
September 24, 2015
(changed September 24, 2015)
Permalink
I’m going to say ‘no’. But before answering your challenge to saying 'no', a comment on your challenge to saying ‘yes’. You assume that in order to know that all beautiful paintings are good paintings, I must view all beautiful paintings. But this assumes, i... Read more
So I know philosophy tries to answer all kinds of questions and from different subjects, but I have never heard of any philosopher that discusses sex. Or do they? And in that case, what kind of questions or dilemmas exist when a philosopher discusses sex?
You're in luck. We have an
Alexander George
September 24, 2015
(changed September 24, 2015)
Permalink
You're in luck. We have an entire topic devoted to philosophical questions pertaining to sex. You can browse through it here:
http://askphilosophers.org/advancedsearch?topic=245
Log in to post comments
Read more
I feel that it is okay for private citizens to break certain laws. As a matter of fact, when that law is unjust, I feel that it is a private citizen's duty to break that law. On the other hand, if someone is acting as a public official or as an authority figure then they should follow the law down to the last letter. Is this opinion valid or just inconsistent?
There are a few different
Michael Cholbi
September 24, 2015
(changed September 24, 2015)
Permalink
There are a few different issues in the air with your question.
Whether it's morally permissible to break the law depends on whether, or under what conditions, there is a moral obligation to obey the law in the first place. This is an old philosophical questio... Read more
Is there a particular order philosophy <a href="http://www.comprarviagraes24.com/">comprar viagra</a> should be learned--should it be chronologically from the earliest to the latest, or by branch of philosophy, or by school of thought? Also, what starting book do you recommend for aspiring philosophers that teaches how to TALK philosophy to a person and not just lecturing or writing it?
I think that the philosophy
Michael Lacewing
September 18, 2015
(changed September 18, 2015)
Permalink
I think that the philosophy in the first instance should be learned by engaging with the puzzles that it discusses. It is only after one has got into a sense of the puzzles and how philosophers tackle them that it really makes sense to study the chronology... Read more
What was the biggest procedural error made at Socrates' Trial that no fair legal system today would make? Why didn't those Greeks think about it back then?
The Athenians followed some
Nickolas Pappas
September 17, 2015
(changed September 17, 2015)
Permalink
The Athenians followed some sound procedures in their legal cases that we respect today, like having the jury decide one's guilt or innocence and letting the defense speak last. We know a fair amount about how courtroom speeches worked, not to be sure in So... Read more
I have been reading some of Aristotle's explanations of physical phenomena and I'm left wondering, "Did he get anything right?" Did he?
I don't know how broadly or
Nickolas Pappas
September 17, 2015
(changed September 17, 2015)
Permalink
I don't know how broadly or how narrowly you're using the word "physical," but if your "physical phenomena" include everything that takes place in the physical world, i.e. everything biological, then the answer is clearly Yes. As an observer of animals... Read more
Is there any single genuinely correct logic or so called all-purpose logic? If not, why should we find it?
I presume that you would
Stephen Maitzen
September 17, 2015
(changed September 17, 2015)
Permalink
I presume that you would dismiss out of hand the following answer to your first question: "Yes, there is a single genuinely correct, all-purpose logic, and there is no such logic, and there is more than one such logic." So I take it that your question presuppos... Read more