The PhilPapers forums are now closed to new posts but remain available for viewing. The forums are replaced by the PhilPeople news feed and discussion groups.

M&E, Misc

 1 - 6 / 6 
Because of Copyright, I am not yet in a position to upload this article. If you have any interest, feel free to contact me anytime.  (Author)

I am bothered with the pressures of objectivity or lack there of as it relates to knowledge, truth and perfection. I ended up re-reading this paper and realized that the primary means of achieving knowledge, truth and perfection would be for there to be a state of absoluteness; which I believe is impossible and completely inapplicable. I am now wondering what are other opinions on the relationship that exist between absolutism and objectivity and there relationship to knowledge, truth and perfection.
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Many philosophers hold that not all logical possibilities are metaphysically possible. Does anyone likewise hold that there is a space of rational possibilities such that not all rational possibilities are logically possible?

If you asked creationists whether or not they accepted physicalism in the philosophy of mind, I think the answer would be a resounding "no."  But what would happen if you asked philosophers who believe in qualia whether or not they accept evolutionary theory as a legitimate account of humanity?  Can we make any predictions here?

If you reject physicalism in the philosophy of mind, as supporters of qualia do, you should suppose that no scientific approach could account for human experience, and that humanity itself cannot be the product of purely physical causes. Shouldn't you then suppose that evolutionary biology cannot account for human experience?  That would mean you should be sympathetic to some form of creationism, wouldn't it?

So why should we be surprised that Thomas Nagel, notorious for his subjectivism in the philosophy of mind, has come out in favor of creationism?

(Or should we only be surprised by the ignorance Nagel has displayed in the way he has supported this particular book ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply


My question is pretty basic, I believe. Is there any kind of usage difference between "ontic" and "ontological"? And, similarly, between "epistemic" and "epistemological"? I get the impression that each may be swapped interchangeably with its mate, with the exception that sometimes "epistemic" is favored over "epistemological" for a subtle nuance I don't quite grasp.

Is that so, or is there no real difference in meaning/usage?

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

 1 - 6 / 6