Online research in philosophy

Some people report that they argue for play. We question whether and how often such arguments are mutually entertaining for both participants. Play is a frame for arguing, and the framing may not always be successful in laminating the eristic nature of interpersonal argumentation. Previous research and theory suggest that playfulness may be associated with <

The question of how to reason well is an important normative question,one which ultimately motivates some of our interest in the more abstracttopic of the principles of practical reason. It is this normative questionthat I propose to address by arguing that given the goal of an importantkind of deliberation, we will deliberate better if we develop certainvirtues. I give an account of the virtue of stability and I argue thatstability makes reasoners (of a certain sort) reason better. Further,I suggest at the end of the paper that an account of virtues thatconduce to good reasoning might go a long way toward answering someof the traditional questions about the principles ofpractical reason.

King, C. R. Touching the earth.--Tracol, H. Thus spake Beelzebub.--Nicoll, M. On the formation of a psychological body.--Fullerson, M. C. Discovery of intimate order.--Halevi, Z. ben S. Order.--Dürckheim, K. G. von. On the double origin of man.--Guenther, H. V. Towards spiritual order.--Eracle, J. The Buddhist way to deliverance.--Blofeld, J. Return to the source.--Werner, K. Spiritual personality and its formation according to Indian tradition..

In this second of two essays responding to critical discussion of my "Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason," I show how an 'accommodationist' strategy can be used to defuse objections that were not exposed as irrelevant by the first essay. This strategy involves showing that the dominant concern of reasons for divine withdrawal can be met

Arguments Against Theism in Philosophy of Religion

Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  

 

My bibliography  |

 

Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...

As we enter the new millennium, it has become more important to review and discover ancient wisdom. The project to build a harmonious society requires us to know our own "culture." The biggest conflicts we human beings face are the conflicts between man and nature, man and man (man and society), and body and mind. The

Roderick Chisholm appears to agree with <span class='Hi'>Kant</span> on the question of the existence of synthetic a priori knowledge. But Chisholm’s conception of the a priori is a traditional Aristotelian conception and differs markedly from <span class='Hi'>Kant</span>’s. Closer scrutiny reveals that their agreement on the question of the synthetic a priori is merely verbal: what <span class='Hi'>Kant</span> meant to affirm, Chisholm denies. Curiously, it looks as if Chisholm agreed on all substantive issues with the empiricist rejection of <span class='Hi'>Kant</span>’s synthetic a priori. In the end, it turns out that Chisholm disagrees with empiricism and Kantianism over a fundamental question: whether mere understanding of the contents of our thoughts must always remain within the circle of our own ideas or can provide us with genuine knowledge of matters of fact.

It is commonly agreed that the well-known Lucas-Penrose arguments and even Penrose's 'new argument' in [Penrose, R. (1994): Shadows of the Mind, Oxford University Press] are inconclusive. It is, perhaps, less clear exactly why at least the latter is inconclusive. This note continues the discussion in [Lindström, P. (2001): Penrose's new

No categories

Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  

 

My bibliography  |

 

Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...

arbitrary flowchart programs by introducing a new recursive function for each tag point. In the above example, one obtains: int(x) = int1(x,0), p(n,¤| ,... .ur. ¢(¤.vH(¤.¤,.~¤,) ..... 1 h(n.c¤| ..... ¤r)), w(n.y2l(n.¤l ,.... ul,) ...., y2r(n,a|,_,,¤l_))_..

In his recent article 'Speech and Sensibility: Levinas and Habermas on the Constitution of the Moral Point of View', Steven Hendley argues that Levinas's preoccupation with language as 'exposure' to the 'other' provides an important corrective to Habermas's focus on the 'procedural' aspects of communication. Specifically, what concerns Hendley is the question of moral motivation, and how Levinas, unlike Habermas, responds to this question by stressing the dialogical relation as one of coming 'into proximity to the face of the other' who possesses 'the authority to command my consideration'. Hendley's thesis is bold and provocative. However, it relies on too partial a reading of Levinas's work. In this paper I argue that the sense in which Levinas thinks of 'justifying oneself' cannot be adequately understood in terms of an 'outstretched field of questions and answers'. Rather, Levinas's primary concern is to show how, prior to dialogue, the 'I' is constituted in existential guilt: the violence of simply being-there.

  The idea that intuition plays a basic role in moral knowledge and moral philosophy probably began in the eighteenth century. British philosophers such as Anthony Shaftsbury, Francis Hutcheson, Thomas Reid, and later David Hume talk about a “moral sense” that they place in John Locke’s theory of knowledge in terms of Lockean reflexive perceptions, while Richard Price seeks a faculty by which we obtain our ideas of right and wrong. In the twentieth century intuitionism in moral philosophy was revived by the works of G. E. Moore, H. A. Prichard, and W. D. Ross. These philosophers reject Kantian deontological ethics and utilitarianism insisting that intuition is the only source of moral knowledge. Recently, there is a renewed interest in intuition by philosophers doing meta-philosophy by reflecting on what philosophers do, and why they disagree. In this essay we plan to take some of this recent literature on intuition and apply it to moral philosophy. We will proceed by (1) defining a conception of intuition, (2) answering some skeptical challenges, (3) delimiting its target, and (4) arguing that intuition is often a source of moral knowledge.