New answers tagged metaphilosophy
0
As the other answers have indicated, aporia and beginner's mind are not equivalent concepts. However, I don't think it would be a grossly implausible stretch to make a connection, perhaps, between the pedagogical force of Plato's aporetic dialogues and the pedagogical force of the beginner's mind concept. For Socrates the worst epistemic state was thinking ...
1
[I]s there some discipline in philosophy that tries to express the content of the each concept in some basic notions, is there discipline of the philosophy that tries to uncover such basic notions and types (be they the already known mathematical notions and types or something other)? What are the names of such disciplines of philosophy? What are common ...
1
Welcome, Sam Wheel.
In philosophy aporia retains, at least standardly, its Aristotelian sense. This has no commonality with zen so far as I can see if by 'beginner's mind' we mean what Suzuki does:
So the most difficult thing is always to keep your beginner's mind... Even though
you read much Zen literature, you must read each sentence with a ...
0
The two things are unconnected. A dictionary will make this clear. Beginner's mind is an attitude and approach, a recognition of our own ignorance and an opening of our mind. It has nothing to do with aporia, defined as 'an irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a text, argument, or theory.'
2
It depends on whether or not the opinion is held by an expert or not. Many people and institutions recognize the idea that there is a property called expertise, and that includes jurisprudential reckoning which include expert witnesses. In philosophy the venues tend to be philosophical journals and commercial publishers. Obviously, were Willard V.O. Quine to ...
2
It depends on how they are used. Their role may be to avoid, quite properly in some cases, the appearance of uncivil dogmatism. Another possibility is that given how in philosophy there are so many legitimately different lines to take - ideas and arguments which are neither uncontroversially obviously true or false, valid or invalid - that a phrase such as '...
2
I think the distinction is actually between being a Philosopher and simply philosophizing.
I would say an illiterate may be able to philosophize, however they may find extensive challenges in reaching insight due to a lacking foundational exposure to the long history of philosophical perspectives and methodologies of philosophy.
Alternatively, a scholar ...
0
Philosophers that belong to a school and have absolutely all ideas coherent with the rest of the school group are either dictators or bad philosophers. Therefore, belonging to a school implies to act and to predicate some set of ideas that are not coherent with those belonging to oneself.
So, the main difference is self-contradiction. A philosopher has ...
0
tl;dr- Things are equal in some sense when they're functionally interchangeable in that sense, and they're the same when they're equal in all appreciated senses.
Consider the sets A and B:
A = [ 0, 1 ]
B = [ 1, 0 ]
They're equal in some respects:
They're the same basic logical sort of thing, i.e. they're sets of integers.
They're of the same length.
...
0
First, I will simply get out of the way that this is entirely driven by semantics. Some people will consider "same" and "equal" to be synonyms while others will insist there is a difference. What is important is that you understand what someone means when they say something. In all things, there is a responsibility of the communicatee to ensure they properly ...
1
As you can probably glean from all these answers, there is no philosophical "the answer" to your question. From a more practical view, as some answers are pointing out, it depends on which definitions of "same" and "equal" you mean to use, because there is also no "one definition" of each, even in logic. Arguing from linguistics, one could say that they must ...
3
Like almost all linguistic conventions, all forms of equality are relative. It is convenient to have numerous synonyms for the different kinds of equality. But they are really interchangeable at some level. What each means is determined by context.
Within the domain of mathematics, one constantly contrives 'equivalence relations' which assign groups of ...
0
Intuitions are answers that come from nowhere and play a role in inference, such as abduction, and can even be modeled mathematically as in non-deterministic finite automata. Intuitions are nothing more than a label for the scientific observation that most neural computation happens beneath conscious philosophizing. Philosophy has historically been primarily ...
2
To Start:
Q1 "What city has the Tower of London?"
A: "London"
Q2 "What city has Big Ben?"
A: "London"
...having the same answer does not always imply equality, or even identity or sameness.
Same/Sameness is related to identity. The inability to distinguish one from the other.
Equal/Equality is about the relationship between elements, and is a ...
1
I'm assuming that by "equality," you mean the mathematical concept of equality, since that's the only kind of equality denoted by the equals sign in standard writing.
What is the logical distinction between “the same” and “equal to?”
No distinction. They're the same concept. Sameness = equality.
We can say both A and B = C, and this relationship is ...
6
To approach this from a slightly different angle, this concept is important in computer programming.
In a lot of languages, the programmer can decide what attributes make an object "equal to" another object.
For example, if you have two "People" objects represented by "first name", "last name" and "address"; you could choose to say that if the first and ...
4
I do believe you've missed the point of 'duplicate' here. 'Sameness' in this context is a fairly loose and utilitarian construct. Consider: if the temple priestess says she needs a statue of Zeus for entryway, and everyone in the village steps up to sculpt a statue of Zeus, well... the priestess still only needs (and will only use) one of those statues. The ...
9
Non sequitur
I'll go off of the example in the comments, namely
“One dollar” = “money” : “Nickel” = “money.” Therefore, “one dollar” = “nickel.”
This is non sequitur - there's no logical reason to assume that Therefore.
Or, alternatively, this could be ambiguity fallacy as this seems to be caused by (intentional?) misapplication of the symbol "=" with ...
1
This answer assumes the question is about logic and not about the closing of another question. If that is the case, then the equality sign (=) is used in first-order logic with identity, but not in propositional logic. If it isn't I will delete this answer.
In first-order logic there is a domain and one may select from that domain a member giving it the ...
0
"Intuition is like instinct because you cannot do anything about it.
It is part of your consciousness, just as instinct is part of your
body. You cannot do anything about your instinct and you cannot do
anything about your intuition. But just as you can allow your
instincts to be fulfilled, you can allow and give total freedom to
your intuition to ...
6
This is a question in philosophy that deals with the metaphysics of identity. A classic problem in philosophy is the Ship of Theseus and goes back to the pre-Socratics, particularly Heraclitus and his proposition that one cannot stand in the same river twice.
In logic, one often draws a distinction between a name (symbol) and the thing it represents (...
1
Ontology made easy - Amie Thomasson:
It is considered a great book and a friendly guide to ontology. An important issue treated in it is related to the quantifier approach of ontology.
Top 50 recent answers are included
