Redditor since 20/02/2009 (4088 link karma, 38105 comment karma)
created by drinka40tonight on 21/02/2021 at 20:33 UTC - 731 upvotes (https, bostonreview.net)
created by drinka40tonight on 01/12/2020 at 18:53 UTC - 7 upvotes (https, huenemanniac.com)
A “simplified, informal rundown” of Gödel’s argument for his incompleteness theorems
created by drinka40tonight on 15/07/2020 at 13:50 UTC - 547 upvotes (https, www.quantamagazine.org)
created by drinka40tonight on 13/01/2020 at 23:28 UTC - 517 upvotes (https, sjbeard.weebly.com)
created by drinka40tonight on 06/06/2018 at 23:48 UTC - 10 upvotes (https, bostonreview.net)
Galen Strawson on consciousness, qualia, and those who deny such things.
created by drinka40tonight on 13/03/2018 at 22:01 UTC - 11 upvotes (http, www.nybooks.com)
Question about a particular phrase found in Singer or Cullity about fixing a problem completely
created by drinka40tonight on 15/02/2018 at 23:05 UTC - 7 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by drinka40tonight on 31/01/2018 at 14:56 UTC - 2423 upvotes (https, www.newyorker.com)
A philosopher of science on cyberspace, cybersecurity, civil rights, and civic virtues.
created by drinka40tonight on 11/11/2017 at 13:40 UTC - 7 upvotes (https, link.springer.com)
A Defense of the Reality of Time -- Interview with Tim Maudlin, philosopher of physics
created by drinka40tonight on 28/05/2017 at 10:33 UTC - 14 upvotes (https, www.quantamagazine.org)
How Aristotle Created the Computer
created by drinka40tonight on 21/03/2017 at 10:06 UTC - 11 upvotes (https, www.theatlantic.com)
Why treat "desire" as a propositional attitude?
created by drinka40tonight on 10/02/2017 at 08:48 UTC - 3 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
Physicist George Ellis Knocks Physicists for Knocking Philosophy, Falsification, Free Will
created by drinka40tonight on 18/01/2016 at 17:45 UTC - 262 upvotes (http, blogs.scientificamerican.com)
created by drinka40tonight on 17/01/2016 at 21:35 UTC - 69 upvotes (http, thepointmag.com)
Recent trends of adjunct faculty at universities and colleges.
created by drinka40tonight on 17/01/2016 at 21:30 UTC - 7 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by drinka40tonight on 27/10/2015 at 01:28 UTC* - 78 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
Kit Fine on the nature of numbers
created by drinka40tonight on 22/01/2015 at 01:11 UTC - 18 upvotes (https, www.youtube.com)
25 must read books for philosophy graduate students from Robert Paul Wolff
created by drinka40tonight on 18/01/2015 at 01:53 UTC - 13 upvotes (http, robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com)
Questions about Richard Price and desires.
created by drinka40tonight on 10/01/2015 at 01:45 UTC - 2 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
Suggestions for undergrad readings regarding economics and ethics?
created by drinka40tonight on 04/12/2013 at 19:31 UTC - 15 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by drinka40tonight on 03/09/2013 at 14:23 UTC* - 125 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
Audio of David Chalmers' talk on why there isn't more progress in philosophy
created by drinka40tonight on 22/05/2013 at 15:04 UTC - 61 upvotes (http, www.sms.cam.ac.uk)
created by drinka40tonight on 12/01/2013 at 01:57 UTC - 17 upvotes (https, www.youtube.com)
What have been the prevailing attitudes of doctors toward euthanasia in the history of medicine?
created by drinka40tonight on 14/11/2012 at 20:04 UTC - 2 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by drinka40tonight on 10/08/2012 at 14:58 UTC - 17 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
Comment by drinka40tonight at 04/02/2025 at 20:48 UTC
3 upvotes
I didn't say the same people metric was a better representation. As I've said multiple times, my point is that the survey results don't support claims of a trend. So, there is nothing "ironic" here. Again, you want to read more carefully, whether it's a reddit comment or a survey result.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 04/02/2025 at 20:20 UTC*
2 upvotes
It's just not supported by the survey results. The results are just not indicative of a trend that "[theism] is dying." Two survey results with very slight movement in one direction or another depending on the sample looked at is not sufficient to determine that a position is "dying." This isn't "cherry picking," it's basic statistical literacy. I mean, look at the N for 2009 and 2020-- 931 vs 648. Look at N for the overall number for 2020 (1770). We work with the data we have, but you gotta have a minimal amount of ability to actually understand what you are looking at and what conclusions are supported. A 2% swing, given the above numbers, is how many actual people in the departments? Like 10? So 10 people answering a certain way in a voluntary survey is enough to declare that theism is dying in the profession. Come on.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 04/02/2025 at 19:55 UTC
2 upvotes
At this point, I'll just reiterate that more would be gained by working through the material and, ideally, first spelling out the argument in a logically valid way.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 04/02/2025 at 19:50 UTC
2 upvotes
That's if we look at "comparable departments." If we look at "same people" we get a different result. More generally, the point was more that the survey results don't indicate that theism is dying in the profession -- the evidence in the survey results just isn't there for that.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 04/02/2025 at 19:12 UTC
6 upvotes
Here are the 2020 results: https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4842
Here are the 2009 results: https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
What do you see?
Comment by drinka40tonight at 04/02/2025 at 19:02 UTC
6 upvotes
No, it doesn't indicate that. If anything, the 2020 survey results for theism are larger than the 2009 results.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 04/02/2025 at 17:54 UTC*
6 upvotes
So, this is a good example of why you want to actually spend a bit more time with the argument and sources before leaping to critique. Part of what you are saying above just misunderstands Plantinga's argument, the terms involved, and the responses involved. Like, an interview in NYT is probably not where you are going to see the argument spelled out in sufficient detail to craft a critique. If you are interested, then you need to take more time, and more importantly, read charitably. Here's a book review for *Nautralism Defeated?* --a compilation of essays that goes over a number of criticisms to Plantinga and has his brief response.
(And again, the above is just a book review -- we haven't actually gone through any primary sources yet!)
None of this is to say that Plantinga is right, but you want to move more carefully through an argument. A good exercise is to first spell out the argument in a premise and conclusion form, that is logically valid (in the technical sense of validity). Then, and usually only then, is it worthwhile to engage in critique.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 02/02/2025 at 01:49 UTC
4 upvotes
What do you have in mind by logic?
You might look at: For All X or the Open Logic Project.
Three other suggestions:
1.
2.
3.
Or, if you mean something like just "critical thinking" you might try:
or
Comment by drinka40tonight at 31/01/2025 at 00:12 UTC
15 upvotes
I think some people are also sometimes surprised to learn that "hate speech" (in the way it's understood in many other countries) is not illegal in the US, insofar as many such instances of "hate speech" don't actually meet the relevant legal standard set out by the courts to qualify as unprotected speech.
None of this is to say Glasser is right, but I just wanted to highlight a couple of relevant points.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 30/01/2025 at 22:55 UTC
35 upvotes
There's been lots written here. The SEP is a good place to look: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/[1] and previous version: https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/win2023/entries/freedom-speech/[2]
1: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/
2: https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/win2023/entries/freedom-speech/
There's also an SEP on hate speech: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hate-speech/
Here's a Philosophy Compass paper that provides a look at some of the issues and recent thought: "Freedom of expression":
This article surveys the classic and contemporary literature on the nature and limits of freedom of expression (or free speech). It begins by surveying the main philosophical justifications for free speech, before moving to consider the two most discussed topics in the free speech literature: hate speech and pornography. The article offers some brief reflections on the large number of arguments which have been offered on these topics. Three newer battlegrounds for free speech are examined at the end: no platforming, fake news and online shaming.
https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12759
Comment by drinka40tonight at 28/01/2025 at 20:18 UTC
13 upvotes
Comment by drinka40tonight at 27/01/2025 at 22:40 UTC*
2 upvotes
Perhaps it's easier to see if we just use a tautology. So,
1. q
2. Therefore, p v ~p.
The argument is valid, and indeed the conclusion cannot be false. Depending on our natural deduction system, the conclusion will be easily derivable from the particular rules we are using.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 27/01/2025 at 22:22 UTC
4 upvotes
Yeah, pretty much. Like:
1. The moon is made of cheese.
2. Bananas are yummy.
3. Therefore, dragons can fly.
The argument is invalid: it's possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 27/01/2025 at 22:16 UTC
27 upvotes
You pretty much got it. An argument is valid if and only if it's not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Read that several times and really try to understand it.
Take this example:
1. 2+2=5
2. Therefore the moon is made of cheese.
Now, consult the above definition. Is it possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false? No, because it's not possible for the premise to be true. 2+2=5 is necessarily false, it cannot be true, it's not possible for it to be true.
1. The moon is made of cheese.
2. Therefore 2+2=4.
It's not possible for the conclusion to be false. So, "it's not possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion to be false." And so it's valid.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 27/01/2025 at 14:28 UTC
10 upvotes
There is an SEP article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
And an IEP article that is a bit more beginner friendly: https://iep.utm.edu/truth/
It's a bit different than some of the "underlying definitions" that you mention in your post, but that's mostly because those candidate understandings of "truth" are bad.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 27/01/2025 at 11:17 UTC
6 upvotes
That might be generally true, but it doesn't really get to the substance of the matter. It might be worthwhile to pause for a second and ask yourself "what, if anything, turns on this issue of terminology?"
Comment by drinka40tonight at 26/01/2025 at 21:58 UTC*
13 upvotes
Some people when they hear "philosopher" think it just means anyone who has thoughts about things or makes points about living, or gives their observations of the passing show, or says interesting things. And so, with this understanding, lots of people are philosophers: George Carlin, Bill Burr, Joe Rogan, etc-- essentially anyone who you hear speak or anyone who you regard as insightful.
On a different understanding of "philosophy" -- the one employed in, say, universities, the term refers more to the work and arguments and conversation that have been going for hundreds of years. And in that conversation are people like Plato, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Scanlon, Korsgaard, MacIntyre, McDowell, and lots and lots of other folks pursuing various issues in an academic way. Notably absent from this list would be people like Carlin, Burr, Rogan, etc: these people are not making contributions to the arguments and issues going on among these philosophers. They may have studied it in some capacity, but their work, for the most part, is not really relevant to academic philosophers anymore than a Jim Cramer is relevant to what's going on in economics.
Imagine if we applied this kind of distinction to other fields: is a "mathematican" someone who adds at the cashier, or is it better to reserve the term for folks working in the mathematics tradition? Am I "chemist" because I baked bread, or should that term be more appropriately applied to people with a background in chemistry? Do you get to be an "epidemiologist" because you made a facebook post about covid, or should that be applied to folks who studied medicine? So, in short, if your idea of "philosophy" is just general thoughts about important things, then yes, just about anyone can be a philosopher, but I'm not sure what is gained by using the term in this way.
Most of the big historical names in philosophy taught philosophy, or published works, or engaged with the philosophical community of the time. Depending on the era, this will mean different things for different times. But it's essentially the same sort of shift that happens for all similarly placed terms: scientist, economist, historian, artist, doctor, etc. So, would some layperson today have been considered a philosopher 1000 years ago? I don't know, maybe. I mean, 1000 years ago I would be the greatest mathematician of the day with my college-level knowledge of calculus, real analysis, combinatorics, group theory, etc (to say nothing of the amazing medical advances I could provide to such people!). But I'm not a mathematician. So, the historically famous philosophers were working on philosophical issues of the day, they are important to understand the history of the field as it is today, they often published, they often lectured, they interacted with others in the relevant community-- these things are rather similar to how we might understand the field today, even if the particular details differ.
So, being a philosopher in the above sense is about being part of the academic field, engaging with the literature, teaching the literature, having the relevant expertise with the tradition, publishing papers in the academic venues, being recognized by one's peers in the academic tradition, knowing the relevant history and issues and conceptual space of the discipline--- these are the sorts of things that typically pick out if one is a philosopher, when that term is understood as other academic fields are.
So, do you *need* a degree to be a philosopher? No. Not anymore than you need a degree to be a mathematician or chemist or physicist or economist or historian. But, typically, people who are in these fields today have that degree, or, perhaps a closely related one.
It's a little odd at this point. I usually get inundated with replies that the above is some kind of worrying "gatekeeping" or "elitist" or some such criticism. And I just can only reiterate what I say above: if you want to use the term is such an expansive way that doesn't exclude much of anyone, then you are fine to do so (there's no philosophy-police coming to arrest you!), it's just that doing so doesn't seem to pick out a useful category. And similarly, if you have a different understanding of the term, or want to propose something else, fine: nothing of much significance turns on this.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 26/01/2025 at 13:49 UTC
1 upvotes
Comment by drinka40tonight at 25/01/2025 at 12:33 UTC
4 upvotes
Here's an SEP article you may find relevant: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/
Comment by drinka40tonight at 25/01/2025 at 12:22 UTC
3 upvotes
You can try Sarah Bakewell's At the Existentialist Café.
Here's the first chapter to get a sense: https://cdn.waterstones.com/special/pdf/9780701186586.pdf
For general advice:
For some secondary recommendations: A good choice for an introduction for a general reader might be Julian Baggini's *The Pig that Wants to be Eaten*. Another one might be something like Simon Blackburn's *Think*.
I'd say the most important thing is to find the thing you will actually *do*. If that means reading Plato, then do that. If it means reading something like The Norton Introduction to Philosophy[1], then do that.
1: https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393624427
There are also some youtube courses that one can start with:
E.g. Shelly Kagan has a course on death: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEA18FAF1AD9047B0
Sandel has a course on justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
Gregory Sadler has an often recommended series: https://www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler
Another good option is just to jump into a podcast. If you are history inclined, you can check out History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, https://historyofphilosophy.net/[2] If you want something more "bite sized," you can check out Philosophy Bites.
2: https://historyofphilosophy.net/
Or browse some philosophy podcasts and see what looks interesting to you:
https://dailynous.com/2020/11/23/big-list-philosophy-podcasts/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4i0faz/what_are_some_good_philosophy_podcasts
Comment by drinka40tonight at 23/01/2025 at 14:14 UTC
1 upvotes
For general advice:
For some secondary recommendations: A good choice for an introduction for a general reader might be Julian Baggini's The Pig that Wants to be Eaten. Another one might be something like Simon Blackburn's Think.
I'd say the most important thing is to find the thing you will actually do. If that means reading Plato, then do that. If it means reading something like The Norton Introduction to Philosophy, then do that.
There are also some youtube courses that one can start with:
E.g. Shelly Kagan has a course on death: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEA18FAF1AD9047B0
Sandel has a course on justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
Gregory Sadler has an often recommended series: https://www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler
Another good option is just to jump into a podcast. If you are history inclined, you can check out History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, https://historyofphilosophy.net/[1] If you want something more "bite sized," you can check out Philosophy Bites.
1: https://historyofphilosophy.net/
Or browse some philosophy podcasts and see what looks interesting to you:
https://dailynous.com/2020/11/23/big-list-philosophy-podcasts/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4i0faz/what_are_some_good_philosophy_podcasts
Comment by drinka40tonight at 22/01/2025 at 21:58 UTC
3 upvotes
You might look at Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. It's a novel that provides a bit of an introduction to philosophy. It's sort of aimed at your age group.
For general advice:
For some secondary recommendations: A good choice for an introduction for a general reader might be Julian Baggini's The Pig that Wants to be Eaten. Another one might be something like Simon Blackburn's Think.
I'd say the most important thing is to find the thing you will actually do. If that means reading Plato, then do that. If it means reading something like The Norton Introduction to Philosophy, then do that.
There are also some youtube courses that one can start with:
E.g. Shelly Kagan has a course on death: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEA18FAF1AD9047B0
Sandel has a course on justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
Gregory Sadler has an often recommended series: https://www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler
Another good option is just to jump into a podcast. If you are history inclined, you can check out History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, https://historyofphilosophy.net/[1] If you want something more "bite sized," you can check out Philosophy Bites.
1: https://historyofphilosophy.net/
Or browse some philosophy podcasts and see what looks interesting to you:
https://dailynous.com/2020/11/23/big-list-philosophy-podcasts/
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4i0faz/what_are_some_good_philosophy_podcasts
Comment by drinka40tonight at 22/01/2025 at 21:49 UTC
31 upvotes
For what it's worth, I don't find the piece particularly persuasive. That said, it's in a popular venue, *Boston Review*, so it gets more leeway.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 22/01/2025 at 17:20 UTC
148 upvotes
There is some (somewhat) recent literature on this:
Christine Overall has "Transexualism and 'Transracialism'": https://philpapers.org/rec/OVETAT-2
This paper explores, from a feminist perspective, the justification of major surgical reshaping of the body. I define “transracialism” as the use of surgery to assist individuals to “cross” from being a member of one race to being a member of another. If transsexualism, involving the use of surgery to assist individuals to “cross” from female to male or from male to female, is morally acceptable, and if providing the medical and social resources to enable sex crossing is not morally problematic, then transracialism should be morally acceptable, and providing medical and social resources to facilitate race crossing is not necessarily morallyproblematic. To explore this idea, I present and evaluate eight possible arguments that might be given against accepting transracialism, and I show that each of them is unsuccessful.
And Rebecca Tuvel has "In Defense of Transracialism" : https://philpapers.org/rec/TUVIDO
Former NAACP chapter head Rachel Dolezal's attempted transition from the white to the black race occasioned heated controversy. Her story gained notoriety at the same time that Caitlyn Jenner graced the cover of Vanity Fair, signaling a growing acceptance of transgender identity. Yet criticisms of Dolezal for misrepresenting her birth race indicate a widespread social perception that it is neither possible nor acceptable to change one's race in the way it might be to change one's sex. Considerations that support transgenderism seem to apply equally to transracialism. Although Dolezal herself may or may not represent a genuine case of a transracial person, her story and the public reaction to it serve helpful illustrative purposes.
Comment by drinka40tonight at 22/01/2025 at 12:24 UTC
12 upvotes
There are lots of relevant arguments and reading here.
Here are some previous threads you can look at that get into some of things you may be interested in:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2vezod/eli5_why_are_most_philosphers_moral_realists/
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2p076d/what_is_your_best_argument_for_moral_realism/
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/3dppd9/partners_in_crime_arguments_moral_error_theory/
And here's the SEP on moral realism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/