Philosophy Now Forum

hello Ethan and welcome to the forum
hope to have great discussions
nice news also for philosophy's antichrist: an engineer who is interested in philosophy

<<Everybody is certain of her ideas and argumentations, everybody defends them as though they are the most evident and clear “ fact ” in the world, nevertheless, there’s little agreement in any single point and it doesn’t seem a prospect of a general universal determining solution. Not only that but...

So? Philosophy is still worthless. I'm writing on a computer that exists due to science and engineering, not philosophy. What if you’ve defined philosophy in such a way that nothing can change the situation for you? Then you’ve made “use” and “usefulness” meaningless. And as a matter of fact its be...

philosophy in a broad sense is equivalent to what we call "belief", "view"or "conviction". in other words the use of the term philosophy is in a broad sense similar to that of those concepts. so philosophy per se neither has a negative nor a positive sense. hence it is as nonsense to say that philo...

philosophy in a broad sense is equivalent to what we call "belief", "view"or "conviction". in other words the use of the term philosophy is in a broad sense similar to that of those concepts. so philosophy per se neither has a negative nor a positive sense. hence it is as nonsense to say that philos...

Thanks so much for the explanation Aequitas

thank u very much Aequitas; I think the fact that i don't know whether the consequent of a conditional is the case should not necessarily count as the negation of that conditional's antecedent and hence construct a modus tollens. i.e. if we have "if p then q" and also have "~Kq", this cannot give us...

In science and mathematics, one may discover truths, and answers, but in philosophy, all one encounters are arguments. In more than 3,000 years of argument, no philosopher has ever explained what is moral, what is immoral, or even if morality exists. If there is a problem that cannot be answered by...

what is this thing "epistemic closure principle" exactly (which is sometimes mentioned as the rule of transmission) and why has it become so important in contemporary epistemology? what is its implications in basic topics of epistemology?
thank u so much for your attention every body!

Hi Marty and welcome to the philosophy forum
hope to have great discussions!

Thank you so much for your comprehensive response Veritas! I saw that article, but you know, at the first sight its very hard for me to see why this argument should be classified as a paradox, since none of its constituents are something commonsense would necessarily disagree; too soft to be called ...

Hi Thundril and thank you for your rersponse I think there's something about that paradox in Stanford encyclopedia under the entry of externalism-inrenalism debate which I've read it Thundril, but the explanation I found at stanford was too short too general and too vague. I mean, when I hear the na...

In Epistemology and specifically in internalism-externalism debate, there's a paradox called "McKinsey paradox". is there anyone who has heard anything about this paradox? what are the premises of it, what is the importance of this paradox and which theory does it specifically threaten? thank you ve...

Hello WHYMASTER47 and thank you very much for your nice welcome! "proofs are empty vessels of thought". this is what schopenhauer says and H completely agree with it. without intuition and content, logic is nothing but mere playing with empty symbols; a game, at the best. sometimes I think logic ser...

Hi there! I'm Hossein from Iran and I'm very glad to have entered in this philosophical forum, I'm interested in philosophy, I've got M.A. degree in logic. my main interests are analytic Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Epistemology (specifically: Scepticism) and ... you name it! between great ph...