So having posted the Philpapers survey results, the biggest ever survey of philosophers conducted in 2009, several readers were not aware of…
I was posting on Randal Rauser’s blog recently and made a throw away comment about the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) and libertarian free will. It is an argument which have meant to spell out for some time and so I guess this is as good a time as any.
Due to the fact that wiki has some great starter articles, and I don’t necessarily have the time to write some of my own, but feel that there are some people who deserve greater notoriety. As a result, once in a while, I will randomly copy over an interesting wiki article and perhaps promote discussion on these people.
The first subject is someone important to our network here at SIN. Hypatia of Alexandria is our figurehead and is incorporated into our logos. She is an iconic role model for secular female intellects, and for all humanity. Here is a little more about her:
I came across these on my journey through You Tube today. I love them. They are great little chunks of fun, covering all the philosophical greats, including some very early Greek ones.
So a recent Skepticule podcast has become available. In episode 42 I give a segment on doxastic voluntarism, something…
In doing the philpapers inspired Philosophy 101 series (found here and here, so far), touching on the questions asked in the largest ever…
The new kid on the counter-apologetic blogging block, the aptly named Counter Apologist, is continuing to produce some great videos. They are really good because they are clean, clear and concise; easy to digest and a good introduction to interesting topics. Here, I/ will embed this particular offering on the meaning of life. Check out his website, which embeds the YT videos alongside a useful transcript of the videos.
I’ve been thinking. In doing the philpapers inspired Philosophy 101 series (found here and here, so far), touching on the questions asked in the largest ever survey of philosophers, i thought i would give some nice, basic factfiles explaining what some of the key philosophers have brought to the philosophical table. We hear so much about Aristotle, Plato, Hume and Descartes, but who the hell are they and what did they think (in a really short, easy-to digest manner)?
So having posted the Philpapers survey results, the biggest ever survey of philosophers conducted in 2009, several readers were not aware of it (the reason for re-communicating it) and were unsure as to what some of the questions meant. I offered to do a series on them, so here it is – Philosophy 101 (Philpapers induced). I will go down the questions in order. I will explain the terms and the question, whilst also giving some context within the discipline of Philosophy of Religion.
This is a hilarious post from Less Wrong. Zombies, the Movie (philosophical zombies, of course). For those who are not familiar with philosophical zombies, here is wiki’s definition:
So you might well have caught this on various science websites, but the thoughts of a fish, a zebrafish, have been caught on camera. As Gizmodo report:
A team of Japanese researchers has achieved something incredible: they’ve captured, for the first time ever, a movie which shows how thoughts form in the brain.
So having posted the Philpapers survey results, the biggest ever survey of philosophers conducted in 2009, several readers were not aware of it (the reason for re-communicating it) and were unsure as to what some of the questions were. I offered to do a series on them, so here it is – Philosophy 101 (Philpapers induced). I will go down the questions in order. I will explain the terms and the question, whilst also giving some context within the discipline of Philosophy of Religion.
The first question is “a priori knowledge: yes or no?”
So the philpapers survey of philosophers is somewhere I often go to see what the general trend is for modern philosophers. Not so much as an argumentum ad populum – quite a number of the results are evenly split – but to get an idea of which positions are deemed most tenable by those in the know. It really is fascinating reading. I might start doing a series on what each question means. Yes, that’s a good idea. Done. Aah, these good ole streams of consciousness out of which good ideas spout forth.
This is a very amusing philosophical take on the phenomenon of twitter, by James Anderson. on his blog Analogical Thoughts The…
This is an interesting book review as found in a Hume Society release. I really want to read this book – a defence of Hume on his work on miracles. Hume often gets criticised for his work in this area. Fogelin, by all accounts, takes a different approach in his defence. And it is a short book, which gets the thumbs up from me.
So there has been some debate on my meaning of life essay with JohnM, a YEC. He seems to think the…
Here is an essay that is a few years old now, on the meaning and purpose of life. I’m sorry, setting out the html codes for footnotes is an incredible ball-ache. Hope it does not put you off! As ever, let me know what you think.
Growing up in heathen headquarters (aka central Europe), I never met anyone in meatspace who thinks that a fertilized human egg is a “fully human person”. I’ve met many Catholics in my life so far, but none of them would agree with the notion of a zygote having full personhood (disagreeing with the majority of official Church doctrines is quite common for Catholics in first world countries). Since this view is virtually non-existent where I live, I never had to debate it with anyone and, to be honest, I never really thought about this issue until recently. The first time I participated in a discussion on this issue was on JW Wartick´s blog (Jonathan already mentioned the discussion that ensued on his blog in this post). While Jonathan was mostly raising philosophical issues in this discussion, I was focused on whether the personhood-starts-at-conception position is defensible based on a 21st century understanding of Biology, especially Embryology. I think that this position is necessarily incoherent, and I want to summarize my argument for that here.
I was wondering today, as I lay there with one of my twins in my arms, as to whether oughts can be derived from a natural pre-programmed’ behaviour. For example, if an evolved characteristic, such as aggressiveness in males (I am generalising here, of course) or to want to eat meat, or, if it could be proven, that it were ‘natural’ to be heterosexual was inherent in a human, are we then obliged in some way to act in accordance with that ‘natural’ inclination?