Recent Responses
Someone deliberately advances a fallacious argument in an attempt to advance a cause she considers just. For example, she may treat contraries as if they are contradictories and thus commit a fallacy of false alternatives. Are there any living philosophers who defend the use of "noble fallacies" or "noble fallacious arguments" (and is there a better term for this kind of thing)? And are there any contemporary philosophers who criticize or condemn the practice, including when it is practiced by people who are on "their side" regarding social and political issues?
Charles Taliaferro
August 21, 2014
(changed August 21, 2014)
Permalink
Fascinating inquiry! I do not recall articles or books explicitly on when it is good to commit fallacies, but you might find of interest the literature on the ethics of lying. There is a great deal of philosophical work on when, if ever, it is permissible to lie, and this probably woul... Read more
During a discussion in the pub the other day my friend suggested that morality -- and the associated concepts of right and wrong, good and bad -- doesn't objectively exist, and that the universe is therefore essentially indifferent and meaningless. Any meaning or idea of "rightness" or "wrongness" that we perceive is a completely subjective human construct. This seems to me to be intuitively incorrect, but is there a way to effectually counter this view?
Stephen Maitzen
August 21, 2014
(changed August 21, 2014)
Permalink
Philosophers have been debating this issue for about 2500 years. As things now stand, most academic philosophers deny, or are inclined to deny, that moral rightness and wrongness are purely subjective: in the recent PhilPapers survey, a majority of "target faculty" favored moral realism ove... Read more
Is it possible for someone to produce knowledge simply based on reason alone, without any emotion?
Stephen Maitzen
August 21, 2014
(changed August 21, 2014)
Permalink
I see no reason, in principle, why not. If knowledge were not possible without emotion, then no emotionless computer could achieve knowledge, which would come as a shock to the proponents of artificial intelligence (AI). Nor do I see anything in the concept of knowledge itself that rules ou... Read more
What is the difference between a conclusion that is "necessarily true, but not false" vs. "necessarily false, but not true"? They seem the same to me or is the answer based on probability? In the same light, what is the difference between "probably not necessarily false" and "probably but not necessarily true"? Thank you, Joe
Stephen Maitzen
August 21, 2014
(changed August 21, 2014)
Permalink
Hello, Joe. Except for the difference in truth-values, I see no interesting difference between your first two descriptions. "Necessarily true, but not false" is a redundant description, because any proposition that's necessarily true is ipso facto not false and in fact couldn't have been fa... Read more
Have Zeno's paradoxes of motion actually been satisfactorily solved? Physicists and mathematicians I've read on the matter seem to regard them as no longer important, but never explain convincingly (for my money) why they're not still important. Have philosophers said anything interesting about them recently? Could you either succinctly explain how they've been solved or point me in the direction of good recent discussions?
Stephen Maitzen
August 21, 2014
(changed August 21, 2014)
Permalink
I recommend starting with the SEP entry on the topic, available here.
There's an article not cited by the entry that may be relevant because it takes a skeptical view of the standardly accepted solution to one of the paradoxes: "Zeno's Metrical Paradox Revisited," by David M. Sherry, Philos... Read more
Hello everyone. I am a sophomore starting a philosophy club at my high school. No other high school in the district has one. To get straight to the point, I need a clever acronym for the club's name. Although this isn't really a philosophical question, can you please take your time and possibly give me a good, witty name? We cover all fields of philosophy.
Andrew Pessin
August 19, 2014
(changed August 19, 2014)
Permalink
Good for you! .... There's also this organization you might want to check out, interested in promoting philosophy in high school: http://plato-philosophy.org/lesson-plans-2/pre-college-course-material/What you clearly need is a slogan and a t-shirt. How about "Philosophy: It's What You Think"... Read more
Is murder illegal because its wrong? Or is murder wrong because its illegal?
Andrew Pessin
August 19, 2014
(changed August 19, 2014)
Permalink
a great question -- a deep one, and an old one -- basically grounded in the classic theistic question addressed by Plato (in Euthyphro) and many others since -- does God command us not to do things (such as murder) because they're wrong, or are they wrong (simply) because God commands us not... Read more
I have just finished Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy, and like so many find the purely wicked Judge Holden the most fascinating character. And there are other wicked characters that fascinate. But pure goodness doesn't seem to make for that kind of interest, in fiction anyway. Assuming you agree with this, maybe you have some ideas why this is so? Would be interested to know them.
Oliver Leaman
August 15, 2014
(changed August 15, 2014)
Permalink
You are right, one often thinks that the denizens of Hell would make for much more entertaining company than those of Heaven. I don't know the book you mention, and to a large extent this is a psychological rather than philosophical question, but it probably has something to do with the fact... Read more
Woods cut from trees have certain physical properties that a reductionist might claim are expressions of atomic or sub-atomic phenomena (mostly empty space, though we experience wood as hard). Since the tree is alive can reductionism account for the role of organic life in organizing or directing (e.g., cell division) those physical properties? I think that a physicist cannot fully explain the macroscopic properties of wood (e.g., hard) by material reduction without recourse to life sciences that are beyond his/her realm of study. What I am proposing is that reductionism fails via category error when applied to life or consciousness.
Charles Taliaferro
August 14, 2014
(changed August 14, 2014)
Permalink
I think you raise a great point. This is an area that is much debated, so my response should not be considered the official philosophical position. I think the direction of your thinking is sound. If we are to limit ourselves to the world as described and explained in an ideal physics... Read more
A friend of mine thinks that we can define art as 'a statement of creativity'. I'm not sure I agree with him but am struggling with working out what a 'statement' is. Has any philosopher written about this question? Is it possible to define a statement?
Charles Taliaferro
August 10, 2014
(changed August 10, 2014)
Permalink
You and your friend are on to a great topic that has a long and important history. The term art is derived from the Latin term for a principled way of making thing or in Greek from the term techne ... from this standpoint in the ancient world the term art would be shorthand for a work o... Read more