Recent Responses
Could God have made pi a simpler number?
Richard Heck
November 1, 2005
(changed November 1, 2005)
Permalink
There are a few distinctions we need to make before we can addressthis question. The work we need to do to make these distinctions is anice example of how philosophy can help us be clearer about whatquestion we're asking.
Ask first: Could π have beena different number? Most philosophers tod... Read more
Why was theology removed from the study of philosophy? Since it was, why is Medieval Philosophy still included in introductory texts?
Richard Heck
November 1, 2005
(changed November 1, 2005)
Permalink
Philosophy is a subject with very porous borders, and, as has beenpointed out by others here, disciplinary distinctions don't alwayscorrespond to anything important. There are plenty of questionstheologians discuss that philosophers also discuss, such as the problemof evil, which has been mu... Read more
Would you please explain two quite philosophical terms, "semantic" and "syntactic", to me in plain and ordinary language? It seems impossible for a person without much philosophical knowledge like me to understand these two terms...
Gabriel Segal
November 1, 2005
(changed November 1, 2005)
Permalink
Syntax has to do with grammarand semantics has to do with meaning. The syntax of a language can bethought of as a set of rules that determine which things are expressions of thelanguage and which things are not, and that determine the identity of eachexpression in the language. So, for exa... Read more
How can we rationalise societal condoned killing like war and execution. Is our collective conscience so bereft of compassion that killing others in the cold light of day is ok, especially if our peers say it is?
Alexander George
November 1, 2005
(changed November 1, 2005)
Permalink
I'm not sure those who hold that is is just to kill or execute people under certain circumstances believe this simply because "our peers say it is". That might explain why some people have formed this judgment, but it doesn't tell us why we ought to form the judgment, that is, tell us w... Read more
Why is it that we can "think" about something such as breathing or blinking, but not about such things as, let's say, moving our fingers? (I have been thinking about this question for a long time now. Can someone please shed some light on this if they get what I am asking?)
Alexander George
November 1, 2005
(changed November 1, 2005)
Permalink
I'm not sure I do quite get what you're after. Can't one think about moving one's fingers? Didn't you think about just that when you formulated your question? Is it that you believe that we don't have familiar concepts or words to describe the movements our fingers make, but we do to... Read more
Do you agree with "Right is still right even if nobody's doing it. And wrong is still wrong even if everybody is doing it"?
Alexander George
November 1, 2005
(changed November 1, 2005)
Permalink
To say that some action is right isn't a short-hand way of saying thatmost people perform that action. If that were so, there'd be no senseto the question "Everyone's torturing their children, but is itright?". For more on this style of argument, which purports to showthat rightness can'... Read more
What are the major open questions of mathematical philosophy? Of these, which are mathematically significant, if any? By "mathematically significant," I mean "would affect the way mathematicians work." For example, the question of whether mathematics is created or discovered has no impact on working mathematicians. On the other hand, studies into the foundations of Math were certainly mathematically significant, and although one could argue that that was more Math than Phil, we can give Phil some credit. But that question is now closed, as far as mathematicians are concerned.
Alexander George
October 31, 2005
(changed October 31, 2005)
Permalink
You write that "the question of whether mathematics is created or discovered has no impact on working mathematicians", but this doesn't seem so to me. If that question is a vivid way of asking whether intuitionistic logic or rather classical logic is correct, then the answer to the quest... Read more
I am reading a logic book which discussed the differences between Aristotelian Logic and Boole-Russell (modern) Logic. If the Boole-Russell logic leaves 5 valid moods out, which Aristotelian Logic covers, why do we continue to use Boole-Russell logic if it is "incomplete" per se?
Richard Heck
October 31, 2005
(changed October 31, 2005)
Permalink
There are some syllogistic figures that at least some Aristotleansregarded as valid that are not treated as valid by modern logic. Anexample would be: All Fs are G; all Gs are H; therefore, some Fs are H.This is valid if,but only if, one supposes that "univeraljudgements are existentially co... Read more
What are the major open questions of mathematical philosophy? Of these, which are mathematically significant, if any? By "mathematically significant," I mean "would affect the way mathematicians work." For example, the question of whether mathematics is created or discovered has no impact on working mathematicians. On the other hand, studies into the foundations of Math were certainly mathematically significant, and although one could argue that that was more Math than Phil, we can give Phil some credit. But that question is now closed, as far as mathematicians are concerned.
Alexander George
October 31, 2005
(changed October 31, 2005)
Permalink
You write that "the question of whether mathematics is created or discovered has no impact on working mathematicians", but this doesn't seem so to me. If that question is a vivid way of asking whether intuitionistic logic or rather classical logic is correct, then the answer to the quest... 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