Paper discussions


Search forums
feed for this page

 1 - 20 / 130 
If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!

If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!

If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!

If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

My alarm bells went off seeing mention of Al Qaeda and 9/11 in an abstract from 1999. Turns out the DOI and abstract here are not for Keeley's 1999 paper, but for an SSRN working paper by Sunstein and Vermeule from 2008 (which doesn't seem to have a separate philpapers entry). I can delete the abstract from this entry, but I can't find a way to edit the DOI.

What's the best thing for a user like me to do? I could create another entry with the correct DOI (which is 10.2307/2564659)&copy over the information from this one, then edit this one to describe the Sunstein and Vermeule paper, but I feel like there's got to be a better way--especially since that would distort the download stats for the two papers.
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

For your review, discussion, and to provide feedback on this paper I have submitted. Thank you. Tim

Most, if not all the early Church Fathers were schooled in Greek Philosophy. What principles and practices of Christianity would have clashed with their worldviews in general?

Christianity did not emerge from a vacuum. The Hebrews were the first Christians. Before Christianity it was likely that they practiced or were familiar with Judaism. Some adherents of Judaism during the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD totally rejected Greek philosophy which is known as Hellenism. Others embraced Hellenism in different degrees. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the language of Judaism. The New Testament, which espoused Christianity was transmitted in Koine Greek, the language of the Hellenists.  The descendants of the Hebrews are called Jews in the New Testament. Why did the Jews en bloc (or for the most part) reject Jesus Christ, the central figure of Christianity, upon whose teaching the religion was founded? For these Jews, the Messiah had not yet come. Most Jews today still believe that the promised Messiah of the Old Testament has not yet come. If you were a Jew in the 1st century, would you have accepted Jesus Christ?
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

In Mark Cherry’s article “Non-consensual Treatment is (nearly always) Morally Adherent” he takes a Socratic approach to the issue of involuntary hospitalization and forced treatment of psychiatric patients. Cherry believes that non-consensual treatment does not reserve the patient’s best interest, fails to respect autonomy, and uses the idea of the mentally ill being a threat to others to violate their human rights. I will challenge these ideas by exploring the “thank you theory” as it is related to a wide range of mental illnesses and respect to patient best interest, pondering how the informed consent process can ever be seen as valid with a patient having no true sense of reality, and how never considering someone a threat until they already show violent behavior can result in tragedies occurring that could have been easily prevented.

Though it is true that non-consensual treatment of the mentally ill usually does not result in a “thank you” from the patients, addicts seem to be the ... (read more)

I have written a short paper on an issue that I have not come across before. In it I attempt to argue that light waves are an opaque barrier between the eye of the observer and the objective world. And, that light waves prevent direct knowledge of objects in the world. I would be grateful for criticism and responses. Bert

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

What kind of academic inquiry can best help humanity make progress towards as good a world as possible?  Why are philosophers apparently so uninterested in this question?  Is it because most believe the kind of academic inquiry we have today, devoted primarily to the pursuit of knoweldge and technological know-how, is the best that we can have, judged from the perspective of helping humanity make progress towards a better world?  Why are philosophers apparently so uninterested in arguments which seem to show decisively that inquiry restricted to the pursuit of knowledge is both profoundly irrational, and a menace?  The successful pursuit of knowledge and technological know-how, dissociated from a more fundamental concern to help humanity resolve conflicts and problems of living in increasingly cooperatively rational ways, is almost bound to lead to trouble.  Scientific knowledge and technological know-how enormously increase our power to act - for some of us at ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

If you come across this paper while researching philosophy of love, you should watch this:
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Latest replies:
  • Kane Tran, 2015-07-27 : I argue that the received conception of the aim and results of Kant’s Paralogisms must be revised in light of a proper u... (read more)
Permanent link: Reply


Tarski’s convention T: condition beta. South American Journal of Logic. 1, 3–32.

John Corcoran and Leonardo Weber


HISTORICAL NOTE: This paper is the culmination of a years-long joint effort by the two authors. A preliminary report appeared in 2013: Corcoran-Weber, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 19 (2013) 510–11. Their co-operative work was conducted by email dialogue in which each author’s work was developed and corrected by the other. Each section went through several iterations. The final version was the result of dozens of reciprocal exchanges; it is impossible to allocate credit. Each author learned from and taught the other. During this time they consulted several other scholars including the Tarski experts David Hitchcock, James Smith, and Albert Visser.

The senior author expresses his deep gratitude to the junior author. Moreover the senior author acknowledges publicly what he has already said privately, viz. that without the junior author’s help and mastery of ... (read more)

If you have any questions or comments on "The Zygote Argument is Invalid", I would enjoy discussing them on this thread!

REQUEST: Please send errors, omissions, and suggestions. I am especially interested in citations made in non-English publications.

I have noticed a small literature on Okin's objection to libertarianism. But I question whether this should be discussed under the heading of "Okin's objection". A very similar objection has been around for centuries by Robert Filmer, which the author briefly mentions but does not present. Filmer's objection is now discussed under the heading of the paradox of self-ownership.

It says that, given common knowledge, we cannot endorse both these propositions, which are essential to (standard?) libertarianism:
(1) Each person owns themselves.
(2) Each person owns the products of their labour.

According to Filmer, a person is the product of their parents' labour so they do not own themselves by (2).

Okin's version says that a person is the product of their mother's labour so they do not own themselves. (It seems she does not give a male parent even 0.000001% labour contribution.)

If the focus is mainly on whether a libertarian can say that individuals are self-owners, I feel it is unfair to discus ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Some of the entries have already been found to be flawed. For example, Tarski’s expression ‘materially adequate’ was misinterpreted in at least one article and it was misused in another where ‘materially correct’ should have been used. This “session” provides an opportunity to bring more flaws to light.


Acknowledgements: Each of these entries was presented at meetings of The Buffalo Logic Dictionary Project sponsored by The Buffalo Logic Colloquium. The members of the colloquium read drafts before the meetings and were generous with corrections, objections, and suggestions. Usually one 90-minute meeting was devoted to one entry although in some cases, for example, “axiomatic method”, took more than one meeting. Moreover, about half of the entries are rewrites of similarly named entries in the 1995 first edition.

I am trying to start a discussion for teaching INSEPARABILITY OF LOGIC AND ETHICS. A COLLEAGUE WROTE: I'm going to be teaching your "Inseparability of Logic and Ethics" in a couple weeks. I was wondering if you had any tips on doing so or thoughts about points to emphasize. I've always loved the paper and found your pedagogical techniques quite helpful.
MY ADVICE TO MY COLLEAGUE: First, before assigning the paper to be read, ask the students to look up “ethics” and “logic” in a dictionary or other reference work and then to write a paragraph on what the two have to do with each other. Second, after the students were supposed to have read the paper, ask them what they got out of it. Just let them talk and prompt them where necessary. No contentiousness. Third, read the first page aloud to them and see what happens. As you go read chunks aloud and ask questions—just like I did teaching you Tarski’s truth-definition paper. Fourth, go around the clas ... (read more)

 1 - 20 / 130