Skip to main content
17 votes

Is there a category even more general than "thing"?

What you regard as the most general category depends on your preferred understanding of epistemology and metaphysics. For Berkeley and Hume, 'idea' is the most general category. For Leibniz it is '...
Bumble's user avatar
  • 27.1k
15 votes
Accepted

Is philosophy science or humanities?

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities philosophy is generally considered to belong to humanities and not to science. Each demarcation of this type is to a certain degree arbitrary. In ...
Jo Wehler's user avatar
  • 34.3k
11 votes

Why is the Newcomb problem confusing?

The confusing part is that we don't know how that predictor works, because that defies our expectation as to how reality works. Like it's a fact that the truth value of the prediction is determined by ...
haxor789's user avatar
  • 6,762
8 votes

Why is the Newcomb problem confusing?

Newcomb's paradox is confusing because different answers to it highlight different ways of understanding what it means to make a rational decision. Evidential decision theory does not distinguish ...
Bumble's user avatar
  • 27.1k
7 votes

Is intuitionistic mathematics situated in time?

This seems to have little to do with intuitionism: you happened to pick a statement of the form A ∨ ¬A, but you could instead replace it with the statement of the Riemann hypothesis and conclude that ...
Naïm Favier's user avatar
6 votes

Why is the Newcomb problem confusing?

In addition to Bumble's answer, I'd posit the following two reasons for confusion: As explained on the Wikipedia page, it makes a difference whether the "reliable predictor" is 100% totally ...
AnoE's user avatar
  • 3,025
6 votes

Is there a category even more general than "thing"?

There isn't really a standard terminology although the word tends to be used that way. Philosophers typically use "object", "individual" or "particular" as the base sort ...
David Gudeman's user avatar
6 votes

Recommend an essay, article, entry, author, or branch of philosophy that addresses the futility of arguing for or against free will

If I understand your question, you are asking specifically about philosophers who were inclined to dismiss questions about freedom, rather than to argue about whether there is freedom or not. One such ...
Bumble's user avatar
  • 27.1k
5 votes

Recommend an essay, article, entry, author, or branch of philosophy that addresses the futility of arguing for or against free will

Pertti gives some good advice about definitions. What is the exact type of freedom we are arguing for? However, this challenge is not unique to free will but philosophy in general, hence I do not ...
Annika's user avatar
  • 2,062
5 votes

Is there a category even more general than "thing"?

For "thing" to be used in a maximally general way requires that "thing" have a functional meaning like "whatever is referred to by a noun, no matter if it's abstract or ...
Kristian Berry's user avatar
4 votes

Why is the Newcomb problem confusing?

I think there is a psychological issue here that is important. While expected gain/loss is certainly a rational criterion, there are some who would be distraught if they found out that their choice ...
Dikran Marsupial's user avatar
4 votes

Is there a category even more general than "thing"?

“Thing” includes everything physical or abstract. But it doesn’t give true picture of reality. From Buddhist point of view “phenomena” would be a more appropriate and all inclusive term. It is ...
SacrificialEquation's user avatar
3 votes

Recommend an essay, article, entry, author, or branch of philosophy that addresses the futility of arguing for or against free will

IMO the problem of free-will is: How to reconcile our general experience to be the agent of our actions with the causal determinism which is the basic heuristics of science? Approaching this problem ...
Jo Wehler's user avatar
  • 34.3k
3 votes

Recommend an essay, article, entry, author, or branch of philosophy that addresses the futility of arguing for or against free will

One such author that I'm surprised no one in this thread mentioned is Immanuel Kant. In the 'Critique of Pure Reason' he states that everything in nature (meaning taking place in space and time) is ...
Dennis Kozevnikoff's user avatar
3 votes

Is there a difference between "true" and "real"?

Typically, "truth" is used to describe propositions, while "real" is used to describe the existence of a thing. If X is "real" then the proposition "X exists" ...
Lowri's user avatar
  • 1,140
3 votes

Is philosophy science or humanities?

Probably depends on the time, the place and the sub-domain of philosophy. Apparently the medieval canon of academic disciplines often just included: medicine, theology, legal systems and some "...
haxor789's user avatar
  • 6,762
3 votes

Is philosophy science or humanities?

Science was originally called natural philosophy. For Greek, Roman and pre-Enlightenment philosophers, there was no conceptual difference between speculation about the physical makeup of the universe ...
Graham's user avatar
  • 2,377
2 votes

Is there a category even more general than "thing"?

'Thing' isn't a proper category. 'Thing' is more like a gesture: a 'thing' is whatever one happens to (literally or metaphorically) point at. It's the same reason that 'he' is not a category. 'Male' ...
Ted Wrigley's user avatar
  • 21.1k
2 votes

Why is the Newcomb problem confusing?

The one-boxer position is intuitively straightforward and has been explained in other answers in some depth (but in short: the one boxer asserts that the outcome in which you choose both boxes, but ...
Kevin's user avatar
  • 2,217
2 votes

Why is the Newcomb problem confusing?

One important driver of controversy in Newcomb's Problem is the concept of causation. Intuitively, causation has many features. It's perfectly objective, not a matter of perspective. It's an ...
Paul Torek's user avatar
2 votes

Why is the Newcomb problem confusing?

Why is the Newcomb problem confusing? It isn't confusing. It asserts a contradiction: that future information can reach the past. But it can't. The reason involves 4-dimensional geometry. But if you ...
Miss_Understands's user avatar
2 votes

Are there sources in daoistic philosophy regarding the concept of the specifically human?

Taoist philosophy does not specifically discuss human nature, nor does it attempt to distinguish humans from animals or nature. All the work of Taoist philosophy is aimed at convincing people to ...
Mike Song's user avatar
  • 159
2 votes
Accepted

If nothing existed, would even the fact that nothing exists not exist either?

The Eleatic school of pre-Socratic philosophy (Parmenides, Zeno, etc.) were staunch believers that not only is non-being impossible, we can't even speak about it; Essentially, being cannot come from ...
Aibaahl's user avatar
  • 316
2 votes

Has any philosopher written about how our reasoning relies on subtly incompatible assumptions depending on the kind of question we are asking?

(1) Doesn't all of philosophy consist of or, at least, involve trying to answer conceptual riddles, by trying to resolve paradoxes, trying to disentangle the conceptual knots? Are there philosophers ...
mudskipper's user avatar
2 votes
Accepted

Is intuitionistic mathematics situated in time?

This blog post argues that Intuitionistic / constructivist logic indeed involves time: I am reaching the conclusion that it is not the non-canonicity of the law of excluded middle that is the locus ...
Alexis's user avatar
  • 613
2 votes
Accepted

Emergent Behavior: Observer-Constructed or Observer-Independent behavior of systems

You ask: Are there theoretical perspectives that support this observer-centric interpretation of emergent phenomena? If so, which authors should I research to learn more? Undoubtedly yes. In ...
J D's user avatar
  • 29k
2 votes

Emergent Behavior: Observer-Constructed or Observer-Independent behavior of systems

This answer will be a criticism of your premise rather than references endorsing it. When you state: The emergent behaviors claimed to be observed in certain phenomena are not inherent to the ...
Dcleve's user avatar
  • 14.5k
2 votes

Emergent Behavior: Observer-Constructed or Observer-Independent behavior of systems

The emergent behaviors claimed to be observed in certain phenomena are not inherent to the phenomena themselves but are artifacts of the mental representations and interpretations of researchers, who ...
causative's user avatar
  • 14.7k
2 votes
Accepted

How can we describe intellect in a way that relates to philosophical knowledge?

Welcome! Arguing a theory of intelligence is philosophically controversial in the same way arguing a theory of mind. The question of what intelligence is is a very contentious issue with both ...
J D's user avatar
  • 29k

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