ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Logic
Philosophy

It's been stated at many places on this site that logical philosophical argument has the unique ability to garner universal recognition of its validity, whereas appeals to emotions, faith or the like presumably do not. If this is the case, why wouldn't a philosopher exercise his right to free speech in this country and make a serious political difference? Say a Professor of Logic doesn't like President George Bush. It would seem not such a time-consuming or difficult task for him to point out, perhaps in a NY Times Editorial article, the lack of logical connections in claims the President has made. Philosophers seem to me to be rather withdrawn by nature. They have the ability to refute prominent arguments out there in the world, but are too reclusive and anti-outspoken to do this. Perhaps this is to blame, more than anything else, for the low level of discourse, in terms of logical content, out there?

I agree that philosophers -- and not just professors of logic but especially also moral and political philosophers -- ought to play a much greater role in public political debate in the US. Our country contrasts here with many European countries where -- thanks to extensive media access -- the name recognition of the leading philosophers (e.g., Juergen Habermas) is vastly higher than that of our leading philosophers (e.g., John Rawls) is in the US. The reasons are complex. I don't think it's merely a matter of getting academics to submit OpEds to the New York Times and similar outlets. Another important factor is that the US media will simply decline to print academic comentary outside the mainstream. Here again the contrast to Europe is interesting. I have tried on numerous occasions to get important comments published in the media. I have found this to be difficult in Europe (including the UK) and vastly more difficult in the US. The reason given for rejection is typically that, while the point...
Logic

How can an exception ever prove a rule?

A rule cannot be proven by there being an exception (a case that violates this rule). So the point of the saying must be that the rule -- understood loosely as a pattern that holds generally or for the most part -- is proved by the fact that a case violating it is recognized as an exception (as exceptional). For example, you say that John is lazy. I point out that John climbed Wheeler Peak in 1982. You say that the exception proves the rule -- meaning that the exceptionality of the cited counter-instance (I had to go back 24 years to find a good one) confirms your point that John is generally and for the most part lazy.

Here is a third answer focusing on the actual history of the expression: www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm
Literature
Logic

To which philosopher it may concern, I recently been perplexed by the following logical puzzle (or what seems to be, anyway): Working at a used bookstore, I and the rest of the staff are constantly asked about where to find books. One of my co-workers had the following exchange with a customer and couldn't make anything of it: Customer: "I am looking for a particular book." Co-worker: "Well is it fiction or non-fiction?" Customer: "Neither." So far, this is what I've come up with: (1) The customer is looking for a book that is neither fiction nor non-fiction, which would mean that it can't be both fiction and non fiction (which is quite common, e.g., historical fiction). (2) If non-fiction is the opposite of fiction (and not considered as a separate entity), then was the customer contradicting himself and as a result saying absolutely nothing? (3) If fiction is defined as something that isn't true, and non-fiction defined as something that IS true, then the...

Your definition of fiction and non-fiction (your point (3)) seems flawed. For one thing, a lot of what commonly goes under the non-fiction heading is false, at least in part. Think of an book about the bombing of Pearl Harbor which, although marketed as an accurate historical account, is full of errors. So, what's characteristic of a work of non-fiction is that it presents its content to be a true account of something in the real world. Correspondingly, fiction might then be defined as a work that does not present its content to be a true account of something in the real world. Not presenting its content as true, such a work thus cannot be false (in relation to the real world) either. Someone who claims that Mark Twain's book is incorrect in some of what it says about Huckleberry Finn hasn't understood that this was meant to be a work of fiction. Works of fiction are neither true nor false much like -- to use a favorite example of Sidney Morgenbesser's -- the number 3 is neither married nor...

Pages