Recent Responses
I'm thinking of buying a philosophy dictionary as I'm just starting to read philosophy books and finding there are a lot of terms I don't understand. There are a lot of philosophical dictionaries out there however and I was wondering which one you'd recommend?
William Rapaport
January 10, 2009
(changed January 10, 2009)
Permalink
Robert Audi's Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is another excellent one. But I dislike dictionaries, especially for philosophy, where proper explication of terms requires a bit more discussion than most brief dictionary entries allow for. So after reading a definition in either the C... Read more
Do your parents have the right to impose their worldview on you, simply because they paid for your upbringing and education? What if their worldview and values offend you deeply - do you owe them anything more than you would to anyone else who had offended you, simply because they may have sacrificed financially for you, when you were a child and had no identity that could clash with theirs?
Oliver Leaman
January 9, 2009
(changed January 9, 2009)
Permalink
It depends what is meant by "impose". Parents are entitled to provide what they think is appropriate guidance for their children, and of course if these views are regarded as dangerous or deplorable by the state then there will be some official way of intervening despite the wishes of the par... Read more
Is it the responsibility of the layperson to align his/her opinion with a scientific consensus (if there is one)? For example, if there is a scientific consensus contending that global warming exists, is it the responsibility of the layperson to assent to that contention? Is it irrational or unjustified for the layperson to dissent in such a situation?
Miriam Solomon
January 8, 2009
(changed January 8, 2009)
Permalink
This is an interesting question, combining issues in the epistemology of testimony and expertise with questions about philosophy of science. The reasons to agree with the consensus may include: deference to experts, accounts of the rationality of scientific consensus. The reasons to disagr... Read more
I have been reading Robert Nozick’s Philosophical Explanations (a difficult text indeed) and have a question about his theory of knowledge; specifically, Nozick concedes to the knowledge skeptic that we cannot know, say, if we are a brain in a vat on Alpha Centauri (our experience of the world would be identical, says the skeptic, to what it is now, so we cannot know); but he then also notes that it does not follow that I cannot know, say, that I am typing on my computer. If I understand correctly, Nozick holds that my belief that I am typing tracks the fact that I am typing; I would not have the belief that I am typing if I were not typing. This, however, seems problematic to me; it seems to beg the question, i.e. assume the “fact” that I am typing is indeed a fact. Isn’t this what we precisely do not know according to the skeptic? What if I see a perceptual distortion, for example, a pencil wobbling like rubber when I place it between my thumb and index finger and quickly move it back and forth? My perception says it is “rubbery” but I know this to not be true; this seems to present a problem to what Nozick is suggesting, though I admit I may not understand the argument well enough.
Richard Heck
January 8, 2009
(changed January 8, 2009)
Permalink
This doesn't seem at all clear. First of all, the argument assumes that, to know whether we know, on Nozick's account, we would have to know whether a certain counterfactual is true. But this isn't obvious. Water is H2O, but it doesn't follow that, to know whether something is water, you have... Read more
I'm thinking of buying a philosophy dictionary as I'm just starting to read philosophy books and finding there are a lot of terms I don't understand. There are a lot of philosophical dictionaries out there however and I was wondering which one you'd recommend?
William Rapaport
January 10, 2009
(changed January 10, 2009)
Permalink
Robert Audi's Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is another excellent one. But I dislike dictionaries, especially for philosophy, where proper explication of terms requires a bit more discussion than most brief dictionary entries allow for. So after reading a definition in either the C... Read more
Time stretches back to infinity, therefore it cannot have reached NOW {let 2009 = NOW}. Manifestly, however, it has reached NOW. How can this be?
Peter Smith
January 8, 2009
(changed January 8, 2009)
Permalink
As a warm-up exercise, consider the following two infinite ordered sets of numbers. Firstly, take the negative and positive integers in their 'natural' ordering
... -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
trailing off unendingly to the left and to the right. Second, take all the negati... Read more
Theist: We should follow the Bible, and the Bible says that there is a God. Atheist: Why should we follow the Bible? Theist: Because the Bible says we should. Atheist: That’s circular reasoning. But then the Atheist says: We shouldn’t believe in God. Here’s logic to show he doesn't exist. Me: Why should we follow logic? Atheist: We’ve come to the conclusion that logic, and not the Bible, is right by using logic. Me: Is this not also circular reasoning? Someone please tell me why I’m wrong. Also, if I just disproved the validity of logic but used logic to disprove it, does that mean my argument is no longer valid because it’s based on logic, which is no longer valid. But if my claim is no longer valid that disproved logic, does that mean that logic is ok now. But then, that would mean that my argument is still ok, which means that… I think you get the idea. Someone please tell me why I’m wrong before my head explodes.
Thomas Pogge
January 7, 2009
(changed January 7, 2009)
Permalink
Fair enough, you cannot support logic by appeal to logic. But this does not disprove logic. It just shows that one attempt to justify logic is unsuccessful.
How then do we justify logic, or the Bible for that matter? You seem to think of justification as starting with nothing -- and then it's... Read more
I have been reading Robert Nozick’s Philosophical Explanations (a difficult text indeed) and have a question about his theory of knowledge; specifically, Nozick concedes to the knowledge skeptic that we cannot know, say, if we are a brain in a vat on Alpha Centauri (our experience of the world would be identical, says the skeptic, to what it is now, so we cannot know); but he then also notes that it does not follow that I cannot know, say, that I am typing on my computer. If I understand correctly, Nozick holds that my belief that I am typing tracks the fact that I am typing; I would not have the belief that I am typing if I were not typing. This, however, seems problematic to me; it seems to beg the question, i.e. assume the “fact” that I am typing is indeed a fact. Isn’t this what we precisely do not know according to the skeptic? What if I see a perceptual distortion, for example, a pencil wobbling like rubber when I place it between my thumb and index finger and quickly move it back and forth? My perception says it is “rubbery” but I know this to not be true; this seems to present a problem to what Nozick is suggesting, though I admit I may not understand the argument well enough.
Richard Heck
January 8, 2009
(changed January 8, 2009)
Permalink
This doesn't seem at all clear. First of all, the argument assumes that, to know whether we know, on Nozick's account, we would have to know whether a certain counterfactual is true. But this isn't obvious. Water is H2O, but it doesn't follow that, to know whether something is water, you have... Read more
Is anyone doing any serious work in Metaphysics these days? Anything accessible to someone with some philosophy background but not a professional? Thanks!
William Rapaport
January 10, 2009
(changed January 10, 2009)
Permalink
There is also a lot of metaphysically-relevant work being done by philosophers (and others) on ontologies. Ontology, as philosophers classically have understood that term, is the study of what there is, or of being. Ontologies, as that term is used by researchers in artificial intellig... Read more
Hi, What are the best ways to get informed about the current research areas/topics in philosophy (especially in philosophy of mind and philosophy of cognitive science)? Thank you.
Cheryl Chen
January 6, 2009
(changed January 6, 2009)
Permalink
Here are two other sources: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/): for helpful introductions and bibliographies on topics in all (or at least very many) areas of philosophyDave Chalmers's "Mind Papers" (http://consc.net/mindpapers/): a compilation of papers in phi... Read more