Recent Responses
Can space be cognized by only verbal means or does it require experience to be understood? Let me show you what I am getting at. You could never imagine what the color red is from a description of it and I think most people see that as an intrinsic limitation on language. No matter how sophisticated the person listening/describing or how sophisticated the language used you would never know what red is without an experience of it. Is space equally ineffable when it comes to descriptions of it?
Jasper Reid
February 14, 2013
(changed February 14, 2013)
Permalink
Imagine there's a pure, disembodied intellect, and you somehow have the ability to communicate with it. It's a very clever intellect, so it's perfectly receptive to abstract, a priori mathematics: but it has never had any experience of spatial things, and it wants you to explain space to it... Read more
Euclid in "Elements" wrote that "things which equal the same thing also equal one another." Is this true in all cases? I've read that it is only true for "absolute entities," but not to "relations," although I do not understand this exemption. Are there any examples of things that are equal to the same thing but not to one another? Are relations really exempt from Euclid's axiom, and if so, why?
Stephen Maitzen
February 14, 2013
(changed February 14, 2013)
Permalink
If by the adjective "equal" Euclid means "identical in magnitude" (which I gather is what he does mean), then his principle follows from the combination of the symmetry of identity and the transitivity of identity. The symmetry of identity says that, for any x and y, x is identical to y... Read more
I ended a very loving relationship on the basis that the man I was with was not my intellectual equal. The relationship had everything for me, except for this compatibilty. People say I made a mistake, and half of me is living in regret. However this nagging feeling would not leave me throughout it all that I would be better suited to someone who challenged me intellectually, and would thus command more respect from me (that last part I feel terrible for saying but I know there is a truth in it, indeed I yearned for a challenge). Can a person who values intellectual pursuits really have a long term relationship with somebody who can't fully share in them? Did I make a mistake?
Oliver Leaman
February 14, 2013
(changed February 14, 2013)
Permalink
Sure, some people can only be in love with people who are entirely different from them. One of the nice things about romance is that it brings very different people together and we often wonder why they are together, what they see in each other, and whether it will last. Hollywood romance... Read more
How do you know that you are sure that your parent are your parents?
Stephen Maitzen
February 14, 2013
(changed February 14, 2013)
Permalink
Your question asks about your knowledge of your own certainty: "How do you know that you are sure...?" That's a question about your knowledge of your own mind rather than about your knowledge of your parentage. So I think the best answer is "By introspection -- by looking inward -- and... Read more
Hello, My name is John T., a senior in high school. My question, I do regret, does include "what is evil", but before this message is ignored I wa hoping to bring the idea of existentialism into the topic. I specifically have been looking into views of Albert Camus in his book "The Myth of Sisyphus" which deals with absurdism. I will admit this does unfortunately have some connections to my Ap Literacy class. Before you decide to ignore this I'd like to narrow it down as a great personal interest. I decided to go all out and do real research. The assignment asks us to define our personal definiton of evil. As I stated before I have included absurdism. The central idea of my definition is one that completely cancels out all study of morals, ethics, psychology, religion, etc... I have decided that there is no evil. Evil is a term that humans have created to describe the world better. But beyond humans, evil has no meaning. We use it to categorize and theorize because that's who we are (which I understand is debatable). Moral and psychological are simply social and individual definitions that are , from my understanding) decided by current culture and upbringing of the individual. In a nut shell this is the view I have decided on. I'm asking for opinions, references to other works that may help, etc.... Thank you for your time
Allen Stairs
February 14, 2013
(changed February 14, 2013)
Permalink
Hi John. Humans create lots of terms to help them talk about the world. But if you think about it, none of our terms have a meaning for creatures who aren't capable of language. The word "electron" doesn't have a meaning for your dog, but that doesn't tell us anything about the reality of... Read more
Is there any way we can be sure that reality is as we perceive it through our senses, or that it is not an illusion that some third party imposes on us? I know that this subject was solved by Descartes, but I'd like to know is there any way of answering this question without an inate idea of God.
Stephen Maitzen
February 14, 2013
(changed February 14, 2013)
Permalink
"Is there any way of answering this question without an innate idea of God?" Yes! I recommend starting with the detailed SEP entry on skepticism.
Log in to post comments
I am confused about how a conditional statement is necessarily true, and not false or unknown, when the antecedent and consequent are both false. According to the truth table, the sentence "If Bill Clinton is Cambodian, then George Bush is Angolan" is true. How can such an absurd sentence be true? It seems initially like the sentence could just as easily, or more easily, be false or unknown.
Stephen Maitzen
February 14, 2013
(changed February 14, 2013)
Permalink
The truth-table for the material conditional says that any material conditional with a false antecedent is true. If we construe the conditional you gave as a material conditional, then (because it has a false antecedent) it comes out true. But the material conditional doesn't come out n... Read more
hello - i am trying to identify the school of philosophy that posits that optimal systems or societies are created only when the designers or creators are blind to the role they will play in that system or society. I haven't the foggiest idea where to start. i apologize if the question is too vague but if you can point me in a direction that would ehlp i would be most appreciative. thanks
Stephen Maitzen
February 14, 2013
(changed February 14, 2013)
Permalink
What you describe sounds very much like the "veil of ignorance" imposed on the designers of society in John Rawls's hugely influential book A Theory of Justice (Harvard, 1971). I recommend starting there.
Log in to post comments
philosophy is a mind opener to me personally, thats is talking in respect as subject in school. but i would like to know if their reasons why other people think this subject is foolish?, please be sincere
Gordon Marino
February 10, 2013
(changed February 10, 2013)
Permalink
I applaud Charles Taliaferro's answer but might add that many people have the sense that there is no progress with philosophical questions. As CT noted, the brilliant philosopher Wittgenstein held that many philosophical questions are pseudo-questions. Grammatically they seem like questio... Read more
I hope this question doesn't conflict with the ''don't ask questions that are too general'' in the guidelines, but I have a question that I think goes under analytical philosophy, if I am not wrong, that I can't seem to find anywhere on the internet. The question is: what does it mean to understand? It seems like there are so many other questions that hinges on this question; so many other question that will become more intelligible if this question is answered. For example, if I am wondering whether or not we will be able to understand everything there is to understand in the universe, i.e. that nothing will remain mysterious in the end, it all depends on what is meant by understanding. It can't be the same as predicting, because one may be able to predict something without necessarilty understanding it. It can't be the same as saying some words, because one may recite something someone else have said without understanding. It can't be having the correct ''images'' showing up in your mind, because the images different people use to represent the same knowledge could probably be different. I could give more of such common-sense suggestions that seem to be wrong, but I seem to end up thinking that the only possibility to explain understanding is that it doesn't exist ''in it self'' in any form (any brain state or constellation of states), but that its closest stigmatized relative, ''convincing'' is the only real part of it, and that it masks itself as understanding. Convincing is easier to operationalize, such as ''a person's grouping concepts in a certain way and attaching a relatively higher emotional commitment to it than other things'' or that ''a person is more prone to actively defend x''. But I still haven't given up hope on the semantics of understanding, and I am hoping you can give some sort of answer.
Charles Taliaferro
February 10, 2013
(changed February 10, 2013)
Permalink
Thank you for the question and your reflections on some possibilities and suggestions! I believe that in our ordinary usage in English, the term "understand" often suggests both a level of comprehension as well as some degree of empathy or sympathy (but not necessarily endorsement).... Read more