Online research in philosophy

D. Z. Phillips holds that we cannot ask a general philosophical question about the existence of God because we discover what it means for God to exist only from within particular linguistic contexts, especially those of prayer and worship. This raises the suspicion that God’s existence therefore depends on a particular language-use, as does the existence of cultural objects like prices or the equator. The article suggests that Phillips’s position overlooks the peculiar status of other persons in our discourse, and the part they play in establishing a basic sense of “existence.” Closer consideration of this aspect of our language-use can take us beyond the limits of Phillips’s approach, and reopen the question of God’s existence in a strong sense.

Essays from the political website CounterPunch. - Requiem: Dies Non, Not Dies Irae (September 18, 2001) - Mouth Wide Shut (April 8, 2002) - So Long Frank O. Gehry? (April 28, 2002) - Bête Noire (May 22, 2002) - “All politics is local?”: The Unbearable Lightness of NGOs (May 24, 2002) - Bush and Mies van der Rohe: Architecture and Ideology (June 1, 2002) - The Adventures of Mademoiselle M.: Or Getting Screwed in Paris (June 8-9, 2002) - Loose Lips: Liberty, Democracy and Bush (July 6, 2002) - Go Tell Karl Rove!: The Anti-Republican Party (July 13, 2002) - Be Still My Beating Heart (July 15, 2002) - Grave New Urbanism: The World Trade Center Burlesque (July 20, 2002) - Roamin’ in the Gloamin’: Van Morrison: In September (July 25, 2002) - Sublime Žižek: Guarding Lenin’s Tomb (July 27, 2002) - Vox Populi: Everyone’s a Critic (August 3, 2002) - Auteur-Driven Vehicles: The New New Laocoon (August 19, 2002) - Beaux Rêves, Citoyens!!! (September 5, 2002) - Immortality: The Quest for Fire (August 31, 2002) Parting Shots: A Refracted History (Summary) Of The Twentieth Century (November 2, 2002) - New Books Christmas 2002: Livres Deluxe (December 23, 2002) - The Drunken Flower (July 26, 2003) - The Infernal Machine: “Architectures” in Service to Nothing (August 23, 2003).

In "Reply To Smith: On The Finitude Of The Past" [1], Professor William Craig writes: I reiterate that Smith has yet to deal with my strongest arguments in favour of the impossibility of the existence of an actual infinite, those based on inverse operations performed with transfinite numbers. [2] I think that this claim is mistaken; for: (i) there is no problem about allowing the inverse operations in question--subtraction, division, extracting roots, etc.--into transfinite ordinal arithmetic[3]; and (ii) there is no problem about the exclusion of these operations from transfinite cardinal arithmetic. I shall take up these points in turn.

It has become somewhat ontologically fashionable for theists to embrace anti-realist views of abstract objects. On pain of consistency, however, I will argue that any theist who accepts the S5 ontological argument for the existence of God should also accept a parallel S5 ontological argument for the existence of abstract objects. This is because the same ontological and modal inferences thought to demonstrate the existence of God can also be used to demonstrate the existence of numbers. I further argue that being ontologically consistent here might come at the price of being theologically unacceptable, as the argument for numbers would seem to vindicate a platonistic view of abstracta—but platonism is incompatible with the traditional concept of God. I conclude by suggesting what I see as the only way out of this dilemma, which is to embrace a view akin Augustine’s where abstracta exist “nowhere but in the very mind of the Creator.” Something like the Augustinian view of abstracta, therefore, can be seen as an indirect theological consequence of the S5 ontological argument for the existence of God.

We examine the arguments on both sides of the recent debate (Hale and Wright v. Field) on the existence, and modal status, of the natural numbers. We formulate precisely, with proper attention to denotational commitments, the analytic conditionals that link talk of numbers with talk of numerosity and with counting. These provide conceptual controls on the concept of number. We argue, against Field, that there is a serious disanalogy between the existence of God and the existence of numbers. We give stronger reasons than those advanced by Wright for resisting Field's analogy. We argue that the rules governing the basic numerical notions commit us to the natural numbers as necessary existents. We also show that the latest twist in the debate involving 'surdons' leaves both sides in a stalemate.

The notion of existence is a central philosophical notion and at the heart of discussions about ontological commitment. The linguistic form of statements of ontological commitment or existence plays a not unimportant role in that discussion as well, and the semantics of statements of existence or nonexistence has often been taken as revealing as to the ontological issues themselves. While there are also views according to which questions of ontological commitment can and perhaps should be pursued independently of the linguistic form of the relevant sentences, it is a worthwhile project in itself to see what the actual semantics of sentences expressing ontological commitment and existence in fact is. The verb exist is of course a central expression for making statements about existence, and while many philosophers have expressed particular views concerning that expression (or occurrences of it), exist has hardly been a subject of study in linguistic semantics, possibly because of its apparent ‘technical’, and thus marginal status. In this paper, I will take a closer and systematic look at statements of existence from the point of view of natural language semantics. I will focus on the verb exist when it occurs predicatively, as in (1) and (2).

Noise appears to critique the prevailing cognitive and social habits of modernity by providing concrete and particular art objects that demand attention and jar us from one-dimensional life. Noise sounds, for a moment, like a true alternative not only to contemporary music but to a whole way of thinking through abstract generalisation and living through commercial mediation. Understood in this way, noise makes sense. Once noise is no longer inscrutable, however, it is assimilated into popular culture and becomes a commercial novelty. The blatant contradiction of the commodification of noise gives rise to a second order of critique wherein noise parades its uselessness and occasions reflection on the tortured existence of art in modernity, the ubiquity of identity thinking, and the relation between use and exchange value. This ironic endgame for noise, however, is itself absorbed by consumer culture and noise lives on as but another cool, extreme product. The cultural reception of noise thereby demonstrates the mechanism by which modernity absorbs artistic attempts to critique it, and noise is ultimately understood as a desperate but spectacular failure.

In "The Nature and Meaning of Numbers," Dedekind produces an original, quite remarkable proof for the holy grail in the foundations of elementary arithmetic, that there are an infinite number of things. It goes like this. [p, 64 in the Dover edition.] Consider the set S of things which can be objects of my thought. Define the function phi(s), which maps an element s of S to the thought that s can be an object of my thought. Then phi is evidently one-to-one, and the image of phi is contained in S. Indeed, it is properly contained in S, because I myself can be an object of my thoughts and so belong to S, but I myself am not a mere thought. Thus S is infinite.

As it is currently used, "foundations of arithmetic" can be a misleading expression. It is not always, as the name might indicate, being used as a plural term meaning X = {x : x is a foundation of arithmetic}. Instead it has come to stand for a philosophico-logical domain of knowledge, concerned with axiom systems, structures, and analyses of arithmetic concepts. It is a bit as if "rock" had come to mean "geology." The conflation of subject matter and its study is a serious one, because in the end, one can lose sight of what one should be doing in the first place. Perhaps it is taking matters too literally, but it seems that there is something to be said for taking the term to represent X. Doing so and accepting the term to have some kind of significance, it is then natural to focus on the question of what a foundation of arithmetic should be; and, if one exists, what one is. Whatever the case, that is what shall be done in this paper.

On the one hand, first-order theories are able to assert the existence of objects. For instance, ZF set theory asserts the existence of objects called the power set, while Peano Arithmetic asserts the existence of zero. On the other hand, a first-order theory may or not be consistent: it is if and only if no contradiction is a theorem. Let us ask, What is the connection between consistency and existence?