Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free! If you are a member, please log in.
Search found 142 matches
June 1st, 2012, 1:56 pm
(quote not shown) I am a guilty adult. I have leather sex with my own gender. I love gloryholes. And I am not dull-witted or boring. Also, most of my friends are greasy, guilty bastards too. It goes with being an adult. Children are lame. To OP. You become an adult when you are physically outgrown a...
April 9th, 2012, 3:36 am
I agree with fiveredapples. The text is unreadable, and even if you put some effort into it and really try to make sense of it, most seems like random strings of stifflip'd words. And Fiveredapples is probably right: you are talking about self-consciousness. One comment of my own: why do you think i...
April 8th, 2012, 6:05 pm
(quote not shown) No, it isn't. Qualia is that entity that accounts for the difference between having theoretical knowledge, and having knowledge by acquintance, i.e. "knowing what it is like to see". The thing is that not all arguments are deductive. Mary's room is probably intended as an...
March 29th, 2012, 7:40 am
(quote not shown) But, if there is a possible world in which Peter is not the king of France even though Peter happens to be the king of France in the real world, then if the name Peter refer to both the King of France and the non-king of France wouldn't the name Peter not be a rigid designator ? No...
March 28th, 2012, 11:20 am
I am not well versed in modal logic, but I will return in a couple of days when I have read up on it. The "is" in the sentence is not of predication, but identity. In a Russellean paraphrase, it goes roughly "there is a person, Peter, and a person, the King of France, and those two ar...
March 27th, 2012, 4:00 am
I agree with Metaman in some part, though I believe names are rigid designators. An identitystatement with nonempty names on both sides of the identitymark, and which is true in the actual world, is nec. true. But that does not exhaust the form of identity statements. Consider: Peter = the king of F...
March 21st, 2012, 1:09 pm
(quote not shown) It is. Especially since the "if, then" means to denote a causal relationship and should not be read as a material implication. So really: H causes O. If not H, then probably not O. O. Probably H. That is kind of how the reasoning works. So it is not formally invalid, sinc...
March 21st, 2012, 8:58 am
Plato was a teacher. Wittgenstein was. Carnap was. Kuhn was. Popper was. Socrates was. Descartes was. Einstein was. Foucault was. Derrida was. Searle was. Putnam was. Cohen is. Bonjour is. Keith Allen is. Byrne is. Burge is. McGinn was. Rawls was. Nozick was. Hell, all the great philosphers and scie...
March 20th, 2012, 7:17 pm
Okay, I think I see where you are going. Basically, to put it in supercompressedmode, we want to test the hypothesis that: Soldier with battle experience grows war lust --> soldier becomes general with warlust --> general reinforces war tradition --> new soldier with battle experience grows war lust...
March 20th, 2012, 6:21 pm
It is an empirical question, and it is also a yes/no question. I was not brow beating you. I simply think the question isn't very philosophical. I mean, there are many political reasons for having a military. Further, most western countries have governments that function independently of the militar...
March 20th, 2012, 10:03 am
(quote not shown) That is an empirical question, and since you asking "yes/no"-questions and implying that they should be answered with the first I want to add that it is most likely false that generals just want to continue their tradition of war. Further, it might not be very relevant to...
March 20th, 2012, 9:56 am
Perception represents objects as having certain properties. There is a jump from the fact that perceiving objects as having properties is relational to the conclusion that the objects so represented are in fact themselves relational. There is nothing unintelligible about accepting the first part, th...
March 18th, 2012, 5:31 am
(quote not shown) Well, empiricism (at least the traditional empiricism) entails verificationism, which entails idealism. As a consequence, empiricism entails idealism. You say that Berkeley and Hume (and the early positivists) were extreme, but, I think they were doing nothing but acknowledging the...
March 14th, 2012, 5:59 pm
All the different versions of the argument posted in this thread suffer the same problem, namely that one or more of the premisses is as controversial as the conclusion.
March 10th, 2012, 9:08 am
(quote not shown) Well, empiricism (at least the traditional empiricism) entails verificationism, which entails idealism. As a consequence, empiricism entails idealism. You say that Berkeley and Hume (and the early positivists) were extreme, but, I think they were doing nothing but acknowledging the...