Recent Responses
Why is that if P entails not-Q and Q (a contradiction) do we conclude not-P? I understand that this a reductio ad absurdum and that because of the law of bivalence P either has to be true or false so if it entails a contradiction it is proved not true therefore false. But that last step is what I can't seem to justify...why does it become Not-P if it entails a contradiction? If I had to guess it's because contradictions don't exist in real life so if P were true and it entailed something that could never exist then it must be the case that P is not true (and this is true because of modus tollens: not-Q entails not-P). But we are dealing with symbols in the case of formal logic so how does this apply? Is formal logic an analogy of real life? I hope the question is clear after this rant!
Allen Stairs
October 16, 2009
(changed October 16, 2009)
Permalink
I'll confess that I'm not sure I have your question right. You've given a pretty good explanation of why P can't be true if it entails a contradiction. I'd rephrase the way you put it, however. Instead of saying "contradictions don't exist in real life," I'd say "contradictory statements are... Read more
I've been wondering this for quite some time now and I'm not sure how to word it in an intelligent way a philosopher may like to be asked. But I have been practicing photography for quite some time now and am currently studing it. My main interest is social documentary...i think it's important to document what it is today. My question is (and I'll try my best). Is it right for someone to document something and not interfere. Not help. Just watch? I'm thinking of this as there is a famous photographer who shot a world famous photo of a child and a vulture in Africa, Kevin Carter was the photographer if you would like to look it up, he never helped the child, was that right, I don't think he was allowed to interfere with things like that. But let's say even the likes of a war, documenting it, is it right to sit on the fence and observe someone being shot without doing anything about it? I suppose the question is, is it ok just to observe and not interfere when it is probably morally right to do so. I dont think I could not interfere with something I see as wrong, as much as it is important to document events like disasters and war, would Ibe looked down upon for just taking a photograph and not assisting? Recording something is in my opinon, important. Sorry if that was too long...I just find it hard to explain..
Oliver Leaman
October 16, 2009
(changed October 16, 2009)
Permalink
You put the point very clearly, and yet it is not clear to me why a photographer would feel that he or she could not intervene in a situation where such intervention would be helpful. Of course, by recording the event one is perhaps setting up a wider response to it which is going to put ev... Read more
The common pro-life argument against abortion is that the killing of an innocent person is always murder, and that all fetuses are innocent people; therefore, all abortions are murder…but who’s to say that either premise is correct? I’m willing to accept the latter, but I question the former. I think I can give a few examples of when killing innocent people is not murder. A car accident: somebody jumps out in front of your vehicle and you hit them. Collateral damage in a war: in 1990 coalition forces accidently bombed a bunker full of civilians. I believe they killed 2,000 people in this single raid and that many were women and children, but we don’t call THAT murder. I could go on. So, I ask: Is it always murder to kill an innocent person?
Lisa Cassidy
October 14, 2009
(changed October 14, 2009)
Permalink
First, let's dispatch with the abortion argument you mentioned. This is a classic example of a 'begging the question' argument. (So classic it appears in tons of logic texts!) The reason why it is question-begging is because whether or not a fetus is a person is exactly what is under deba... Read more
What qualifies one as a philosopher? I use a number of tools (reason, ethics, etc) to philosophize, and I can even use a smattering of philosophical terminology, but I would hardly consider myself a philosopher, though I suppose one could call me philosophical... in short, even if we can't all be Nietzsche (mercifully, most would say), are we all not philosophers (some admittedly better or worse than others, of course)? Or must one have gone through a certain process to be deemed so?
Lisa Cassidy
October 14, 2009
(changed October 14, 2009)
Permalink
You likely already know the root of the word philosopher: lover of wisdom. We could stick with just a simple, stripped down understanding of who philosophers are as lovers of wisdom. Anybody who loves wisdom would then qualify. 'Ah ha!,' you say, 'but what is wisdom?' Uncle, uncle - I g... Read more
Why is it that most people feel better after talking about their problems?
Peter Smith
October 11, 2009
(changed October 11, 2009)
Permalink
It doesn't take much science-fiction imagination to conceive of creatures -- Klingons, or whatever! -- who work differently. When their equanimity is disturbed, e.g. by relationships falling apart, then they naturally recover their emotional balance after a while, so long as they don't keep d... Read more
Suppose an angel visits me tonight and tells me that when I reach the age of 60, I will suddenly find great enjoyment in the music of Kenny G. The angel also tells me that by the time I am 60, Kenny G records will be in short supply, so it might be prudent to stock up on them now. As of now, I hate Kenny G music. The thought of my future self listening to Kenny G in the future disgusts me. Would it be rational for me to avoid buying Kenny G records today, in order to sabatoge my future self's attempts to listen to Kenny G? Or would it be rational to stock up on them now, which would further the goals of my future self while undermining the goals of my current self?
Jennifer Church
October 8, 2009
(changed October 8, 2009)
Permalink
Your question concerns the nature of our rights and obligations with respect to our future selves. My answer shall simply assume, as I think you do, that the angel's prediction is utterly reliable, that there won't be other ways to access Kenny G music in the future, that the pleasure of my... Read more
I am often confused by the rhetorics of physicists that their theory "came from mathematics". I remember the physicist, Brian greence tell the story of paul dirac discovery of anti-matter by pure a priori manipulation of mathematics. I see this to be very confusing, because i often imagine mathematics as being a priori, and necessary without any connection to the real world. That is, i can always imagine possible worlds( or universes) governed by different mathematical expressions, or descriptions. Does it follow that every mathematical expression/description describes our universe? Obviously not. With paper, and pencil, we could probable describe any universe with any arbitrary number of dimension of space, but does it follow that our universe has arbitrary number of spatial dimension? Obviously not. The use of mathematics seems to be good in formulating regularities of nature( laws of nature), and to extract the implication of those laws. It makes me wonder why physicists would say their theory comes from mathematics. It is like saying their theory comes from the english language, or the rules of chess. Can anyone help me out?
Miriam Solomon
October 8, 2009
(changed October 8, 2009)
Permalink
You are reasoning correctly--mathematics deals with possibilities and physics with actualities (even though in quantum mechanics these are probabilistic). Theory in physics is often expressed mathematically, but that does not make it mathematical knowledge. Some theoretical advances in phy... Read more
Do we have a right to procreate? Life can be a pretty difficult journey. What right do we have to decide that another person should go through it? Even if in good faith we wish our children health and happiness, we know that some suffering is inevitably part of life. If for example I know that my child will inherit with 99% probability a very painful disease: can I be held responsible for his/her suffering? What if the probability is 50%? what about 1%? What about the 100% certainty of death: aren't I responsible for the effects that I know will surely result from my actions? Life can also be quite unpredictable, who knows what will be of our world in 80 years. Isn't having a kid placing a bet (hopefully benevolent) on someone's else life? Does it even make sense to say that I do something for the well being of someone who doesn't exist yet? Isn't having a kid a very selfish thing, something we do out of our present desires (or fears) which will cause the suffering of another human being? I hope somebody will tackle these (many!) question (or at least some of them). Thanks
Oliver Leaman
October 8, 2009
(changed October 8, 2009)
Permalink
There is a Jewish joke that suggests that it would be better never to have been born rather than to live and then die, but who is so lucky? Many issues are raised here, but for most people it might be hoped that there are more pleasant than unpleasant aspects of life, and so playing a role in... Read more
Why doesn't knowledge of the obvious causal relationship between consciousness and brains destroy any ideas of an afterlife?
Jennifer Church
October 8, 2009
(changed October 8, 2009)
Permalink
The fact that one thing causes another does not mean than the second could not exist without the first. Consider the case of a forest fire, for example. A carelessly flung match could be the cause, and yet (a) the fire could continue even after the match is destroyed, and (b) other things... Read more
Why doesn't knowledge of the obvious causal relationship between consciousness and brains destroy any ideas of an afterlife?
Jennifer Church
October 8, 2009
(changed October 8, 2009)
Permalink
The fact that one thing causes another does not mean than the second could not exist without the first. Consider the case of a forest fire, for example. A carelessly flung match could be the cause, and yet (a) the fire could continue even after the match is destroyed, and (b) other things... Read more