Categories
Uncategorized

Metaphilosophy links #6

J. Broad: Early Modern Philosophy: A Perverse Thought Experiment. M. Lenz: Intellectual regrets. How do I figure out what to think? (Part II). R. Jardón: Pre-Twentieth Century Metaphilosophy and definition of Metaphilosophy. E. Schliesser: On Plagiarism in History of Philosophy. E. Schliesser: On How Public and Experimental Philosophy Disappears (as Philosophy), and Reappears. A. Douglas: Susan […]

Categories
Uncategorized

Dennett on pointless philosophy

Daniel Dennett argues that exploring some philosophical problems is like exploring a game he calls “chmess”: Chmess is just like chess except that the king can move two squares in any direction, not one. (…) There are just as many a priori truths of chmess as there are of chess (an infinity), and they are […]

Categories
Uncategorized

History of philosophy: why bother?

One difference between science and philosophy is how they treat their own history. Physicists typically don’t spend too much time studying the theory of impetus, chemists don’t bother to learn about the theory of phlogiston, biologists don’t pay a lot of attention to the theory of the four humours, etc. They simply don’t need any […]

Categories
Uncategorized

Metaphilosophy links #5

T. Williamson: What is metaphysics? M. Lenz: Why we shouldn’t study what we love. M. Lenz: Are philosophical classics too difficult for students? E. Schwitzgebel: Philosophy That Closes vs. Philosophy That Opens. E. Schwitzgebel: Why Writing Philosophy Is Hard (and Why Every Historical Philosopher Focuses on the Wrong Things). S. Guttinger: A Virus Is Not a […]

Categories
Uncategorized

The worst argument for utilitarianism

How do we tell whether a particular moral theory is correct? What kind of test do we carry out? What kind of evidence do we appeal to? Many people seem baffled by this question. And the confusion around it is, I think, one of the reasons why some philosophers get away with really awful arguments […]

Categories
Uncategorized

Is neurophilosophy a thing?

According to Patricia Churchland, neurophilosophy studies “the impact of discoveries in neuroscience on a range of traditional philosophical questions about the nature of the mind”. The term has been around for more than three decades, but it doesn’t seem to have really caught on – apart from Churchland and her husband Paul, there aren’t too […]

Categories
Uncategorized

The overriding question

Can most philosophical questions be reduced to just one basic question? John Searle thinks so: There is exactly one overriding question in contemporary philosophy. As a preliminary formulation, we can say the question is: How do we account for our conceptions of ourselves as a certain sort of human being in a universe that we […]

Categories
Uncategorized

Metaphilosophy links #4

A. Callard: Publish and Perish. M. Huemer: Why Are the Great Thinkers Dead? J. Hawkins: What Exactly Is “Philosophy”? P. A. Murphy: Metaphilosophy: P.M.S Hacker vs. Timothy Williamson. F. Jongepier: On philosophical love (or why I fell in love with Iris Murdoch). E. Schwitzgebel: The 233 Most-Cited Workd in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. D. […]

Categories
Uncategorized

Kant, lying to a murderer, and bad philosophy

Are great philosophers bad philosophers? Michael Huemer thinks so. This is supposedly because they come up with bad arguments to support conclusions that are “absurd” and “outrageous”. In the face of conclusions like that, they should be “going back and questioning their starting points”, but they prefer to stick to their irrational reasoning. Huemer’s examples […]

Categories
Uncategorized

Is experimental philosophy useless? (Part III)

In Part I and II I argued that even though experimental philosophers are generally wrong to assume that philosophers treat intuitions as evidence (which makes x-phi largely pointless), sometimes they are not wrong to make this assumption, and in those isolated cases their research is not pointless. This time I want to argue that x-phi […]