Episode #125 of the Stack Overflow podcast is here. We talk Tilde Club and mechanical keyboards. Listen now
12

Yes and no. They both criticize a certain approach to semantic theory that can be called realism about meaning. Roughly, realists see meanings as some kind of entities, although there is a wide range of opinions as to their nature. For Plato and Frege they are ideal forms occupying a separate realm, for Aristotle and Russell they are invariances of sensible ...


8

This question arises in the context of the traditional philosophical enquiry into the nature of knowledge. We might summarise that enquiry as: under what conditions is it correct to say that a person X knows that a proposition P is true? To emphasise the point: the analysis is not concerned with the conditions under which P is true or accurate, but the ...


7

Experiments are an excellent way to determine what works, and what does not. A great deal of scientific research is concerned with pragmatic matters and determining what does and what does not work: an obvious example would be medical research, but people also examine whether certain activities lead to certain results, such as whether writing an essay ...


6

In a very literal sense, this is not true. Discussions of the ethics of sex go back to Cynicism, (with Diogenes the Cynic masturbating in public on purpose) and forward to at least Schopenhauer and to psychoanalytic branches like Lacan. (Though still, much of this is about what is normal, and dispelling unconsidered condemnation, rather than about actual ...


6

The unit of knowledge-that is proposition, expressed linguistically in declarative sentences, the unit of knowledge-how is skill. The use of "knowledge" here refers to non-propositional uses like "know how to ride a bike", which are often passed over in the traditional position, which Ryle called intellectualism when he introduced the distinction between ...


6

There are two different dichotomies at play here, ontology (realism/anti-realism), and methodology (foundationalism/anti-foundationalism). Kant was a foundationalist but (almost) an anti-realist, and Peirce, the founder of pragmatism, was a realist but an anti-foundationalist. The idea of foundation, from Plato to Kant, was that we need some basic/self-...


5

If religious experiences are reducible to neurological events, can a pragmatist argue against their value? Answer: No. William James defends a right to let your “passional nature” decide between belief and unbelief in cases where the evidence is inconclusive. Certain beliefs meet your deepest-felt needs supplies the justification we need to adopt a ...


5

Is that actually what he said? From William James' "The Meaning of Truth: A Sequel to 'Pragmatism'" (1909 - page 104, boldface and italics my own): This subjectivist interpretation of our position seems to follow from my having happened to write (without supposing it necessary to explain that I was treating of cognition solely on its subjective side) ...


4

Peirce (note spelling) is not arguing for anything there. Rather, others are presenting an interpretation of Peirce's project. They are suggesting that while Peirce discusses "truth," he does not do what many other philosophers do who discuss truth. They try to define it, for instance as "correspondence to the way things are." This paragraph suggests that ...


4

The diminishing comes far earlier--once you accept a physical account of mind. This is what raises the question: why bother with religion when even our minds are just non-supernatural processes? However, if you decide that physical implementation is a cool thing for your deity or other extraordinary power to do, then of course religious experience is going ...


4

This isn't an answer, because it's a difficult question; but there is some interesting qualifications which might posited as part of a genealogical perspective - in the sense that Foucault, and earlier Nietzsche make use of it - on the question that might throw further light on it. I recall reading it was a Belgian priest Lemaitre that posited the Big Bang ...


4

See Hawley's paper Applied Metaphysics for a recent survey. She gives three application areas outside of philosophy: applied ontology in computer science and biology, social ontology, and metaphysics of natural kind terms in psychiatry and medicine. Modal metaphysics of natural kinds is also prominent in the causal theory of reference in linguistics ...


4

An empiricist should treat string theory as they do any other theory. They should study the theoretical framework as well as the experimental evidence and if either (1) There is no ability to ever test the predictions (2) An irreconcilable contradiction is found in the data are proven to be true then they should abandon the theory. As of now, neither of ...


4

Not exactly. Peirce himself considered it a distillation of "common sense", but he offered it as an alternative to the then dominant Cartesian foundationalism. Many disputed the pragmatic maxim, and its supporters concede that while it is "morally right" in the form given by Peirce it is difficult to interpret. The reason for disputing the maxim is that ...


4

I do not think that there is any issue with viewing signification as an activity, in fact this is how pragmatists view it since Peirce. In modern terms, pragmatism asserts semantic and epistemological priority of knowledge how over knowledge that, so representation is viewed as a special kind of performance. The problem begins when we look into the status of ...


3

The current trends in mainstream academic philosophy in the English-language portion of the world are definitely in the direction of the more quantitative, mathematical, analytic, scientific and experimental. So if this does not interest you, your options are to leave the mainstream, leave academia, leave the English-speaking world, or change the trends. ...


3

The problem of induction: Induction, would it work, makes it possible to infer from finite "true" observations to a sentence that ranges over infinite cases. P1: Oh look, a white swan! P2: Oh, another one! P3: And even a third white swan! C1: All swans are white. Deductive reasoning for the principle of induction It is not possible to show deductively ...


3

In context, pragmatism can mean different things. One would be related to the philosophical school of Pragmatism, the other would be closer to "practical". In the context of the two quotes above, I would read the first one as being closer to "practical", Empiricists see themselves as occupying a useful middle ground between two idealistic schools of thought....


3

From Wikipedia: Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition centered on the linking of practice and theory. It describes a process where theory is extracted from practice, and applied back to practice to form what is called intelligent practice. In other words: pragmatism refers to the study of the practice, the formation of a practice theory, and the use of ...


3

I would point to a specific example that says it is possible to be by one's self and practicing philosophy: consider the philosopher Boethius, who did his work in the early 6th century. His most famous work, Consolation of Philosophy, was likely written alone in a room while he waited his execution, yet few philosophers or historians of philosophy would ...


3

There is, in fact, much more evidence that people have various subjective religious experiences than for any ideas about the big bang singularity. The difficulty is in establishing the connection between these experiences and what most people mean by "god". If you define "god" as only related to these internal effects then you are on pretty safe ground ...


3

Our communication in comments frames my answer, so it is reproduced here (emphasis mine): I would like to know how you would like us to treat the phrase "evidence is superior." For example, if we were to choose to do it mathematically, we could declare there is a poset of such events, ordered by the quality of the evidence. Then we could spend time ...


3

I am afraid such review/book does not exist if only because philosophy of science is mostly examined inside the analytic tradition and because science as we know it is a relatively new activity in human history, thus being of course less discussed by eastern philosophy. Moreover, as one comment to the question pointed out, the constraint that the review/book ...


3

The issues you list -- altruism, reciprocation, etc... -- are not specifically sexual, but are general ethical issues and therefore would be discussed outside of sex. Philosophers prefer general principles to specifics, so instead of studying sexual selfishness, they would study selfishness in general. Which probably makes philosophers lousy lovers :) This ...


3

Richard Field writes at the beginning of his article on Dewey: John Dewey was a leading proponent of the American school of thought known as pragmatism, a view that rejected the dualistic epistemology and metaphysics of modern philosophy in favor of a naturalistic approach that viewed knowledge as arising from an active adaptation of the human organism to ...


3

By ideas that 'help us to get into satisfactory relations' James means ideas that are useful to believe. James is therefore an instrumentalist about truth. A few sentences later in the work you cited he says: Any idea that will carry us prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other ... is ... true instrumentally. In what sense is a ...


3

I believe that the key inference is:"If what is required in any legislation is an act of reciprocity and recognition, what is involved in any such recognition is a recognition of an object". Whether or not this is true (and I suspect that most pragmatists would see it as a non-sequitur, if intelligible at all) this is certainly not Kant's position. In the ...


3

Philosophy has not advanced very far since Ancient Greece and Rome Why on earth do you think that? What about contemporary metaphysics, logic, political philosophy? and every philosophical point of view, when extended, becomes absurd. Isn't that a philosophical point itself? In all seriousness though, it might not be a good idea to posit this in general ...


3

In my understanding the exercise is about modal logic, where entails is "It’s necessary that (if A, then B)". Having said that, I think that it is not relevant that the two premises faithfully reflects Pragmatism. See e.g. James on truth : We can best summarize his view through his own words: The true is the name of whatever proves itself to ...


2

James and Dewey were students of Peirce. Peirce opposed their pragmatism to such a degree that he thought it necessary to term his original pragmatism "pragmaticism," distinguishing it from their simple positivist pragmatism, which is compatible with nominalism, as superior to it in three ways: …first, its retention of a purified philosophy; secondly, its ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible