Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

54
 questions about 
Medicine
67
 questions about 
Feminism
133
 questions about 
Love
105
 questions about 
Art
81
 questions about 
Identity
124
 questions about 
Profession
70
 questions about 
Truth
27
 questions about 
Gender
87
 questions about 
Law
51
 questions about 
War
153
 questions about 
Sex
1
 questions about 
math
79
 questions about 
Death
219
 questions about 
Education
34
 questions about 
Music
68
 questions about 
Happiness
38
 questions about 
Race
69
 questions about 
Business
221
 questions about 
Value
365
 questions about 
Logic
285
 questions about 
Language
243
 questions about 
Justice
96
 questions about 
Time
208
 questions about 
Science
169
 questions about 
Freedom
283
 questions about 
Mind
1273
 questions about 
Ethics
36
 questions about 
Literature
107
 questions about 
Animals
75
 questions about 
Beauty
2
 questions about 
Action
391
 questions about 
Religion
32
 questions about 
Sport
24
 questions about 
Suicide
572
 questions about 
Philosophy
4
 questions about 
Economics
2
 questions about 
Culture
110
 questions about 
Biology
58
 questions about 
Abortion
88
 questions about 
Physics
77
 questions about 
Emotion
31
 questions about 
Space
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
75
 questions about 
Perception
58
 questions about 
Punishment
151
 questions about 
Existence
43
 questions about 
Color
282
 questions about 
Knowledge
116
 questions about 
Children
23
 questions about 
History

Question of the Day

Suppose S is the set of all things that are blue or green. Then my mug is in S because it's green and therefore satisfies "x is blue or x is green," and my pen is in the set S because it's blue and therefore satisfies "x is blue or x is green." Now it's true: satisfying "x is blue or x is green" picks out only one set: the set of all things that satisfy "x is blue or x is green." But the condition "x is green" is a different condition, and so is "x is blue."

However: when you say "being blue or green cannot be the reason why any other object is in any other set," there's an ambiguity. That could be read as "being blue cannot be the reason why an object is in any other set and being green cannot be the reason why an object is in any other set." In that case, however, it's false. Being green, and hence satisfying "x is green" puts my mug in the set G of all green things, and in the set S of all things that are either green or blue—that satisfy "x is green or x is blue." These two sets are not the same. One is a proper subset of the other. Being in the set S doesn't entail being in the set G, and also doesn't entail being in the set B, though it does entail being in either G or B.

The key is to formulate the membership condition so that there's no room for ambiguity. We have

o is in S if and only if o satisfies "x is green or x is blue."
o is in G if and only if o satisfies "x is green"
o is in B if and only if o satisfies "x is blue"

These are three different conditions that pick out three different sets. G and B are disjoint from one another and are proper subsets of S. The union of G and B is S. But the formulation "x is green or blue," while not wrong, masks the fact that "x is green or blue" amounts to "x is green or x is blue," and so is the disjunction (the "or") of two conditions. An object is in S if it satisfies either of those conditions. It's in G only if it satisfies the first, and in B only if it satisfies the second. But clearly by virtue of satisfying one condition ("x is green") my mug can be in S and also in G.