Recent Responses

Recent Responses

Response by Allen Stairs on December 12, 2019

Are most philosophers of religion theists? You may be right, but I don't actually know. And I also don't know whether most philosophers of religion are theists before they study philosophy of religion. I also don't know how many philosophers change their minds after they study philosophy of religion.

...more
Response by Stephen Maitzen on December 12, 2019

I tend not to distinguish between a property and a quality. I would say that truth is a property (or quality) of propositions primarily and sentences derivatively: sentences are true when and only when they express true propositions, but propositions can be true without ever being expressed by sentences.

...more
Response by Allen Stairs on December 5, 2019

The problem here, I think, is that there's no one answer to the question "What are the fundamental laws of logic?" We can do things in different ways, and things which are fundamental on some accountings will be derived on others.

...more
Response by Allen Stairs on November 30, 2019

An interesting question.

...more
Response by Stephen Maitzen on November 28, 2019

I don't know that book in particular, but I can give you a standard explanation that at least makes sense of the view you find puzzling.

...more
Response by Allen Stairs on November 21, 2019

You ask: "morally speaking, can my action BE more serious or offensive only because other people see it so?

...more
Response by Allen Stairs on November 7, 2019

You offer two reasons (though really it's three.)

...more
Response by Charles Taliaferro on October 31, 2019

Great response. I would add that since the 17th century, theology as a discipline has largely been seen as distinct from philosophy. Theology, though, historically and today, has drawn from philosophy and philosophers (throughout its history) have addressed religiously significant themes. Philosophy of religion is a respected sub-field of philosophy (see the entry Philosophy of Religion in the free online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) just like philosophy of science, philosophy of art, and so on....more

Response by Allen Stairs on October 26, 2019

There are two sorts of issues here. Let's start with the one that I think underlies your discomfort.

...more
Response by Jonathan Westphal on October 24, 2019

There could be a picture of an X that is itself an X. For example, there could be a minimalist picture of a square that is itself a square. The picture could even be titled in such a way that it is or is meant to be a picture of itself, so that this square is a picture of this square. But in general a picture of X is, obviously, not X. A picture of a unicorn is an oil painting, say, and an oil painting is not a unicorn. The famous portrait of the Duke of Wellington by Arthur Lawrence (1815-1816) is most certainly not the Duke of Wellington himself....more