Time wasting 23 Aug 2009 Sometimes I am asked why they, the questioner, should bother with philosophical questions. I am often at a loss to say why, because it is so damned obvious to me we must address the metaquestions. So I was pleased to find this post at Maverick Philosopher: People talk glibly about wasting time on this, that, and the other thing — but without reflecting on what it is to waste time. People think they know which activities are time-wasters, philosophy for example. But to know what wastes time, one would have to know what is a good, a non-wasteful, use of time. And one would presumably also have to know that one ought to use one’s time well. One uses one’s time well when one uses it in pursuit of worthy ends. But which ends are worthy? Does this question have an answer? Does it even make sense? And if it does, what sense does it make? And what is the answer? Now these are all philosophical questions. Someone who holds that philosophy is a waste of time must therefore hold that these questions are a waste of time. He must simply and dogmatically assume answers to them. He must assume that the question about choice-worthy ends makes sense and has an answer. And he must assume that he has the answer. He must assume that he knows, for example, that piling up consumer goods, or chasing after name and fame, is the purpose of human existence. Or he must assume that getting to heaven, or bringing down capitalism, or ‘helping other people,’ is the purpose of human existence. Go read the rest… Philosophy
Evolution Notes on Novelty 4: Examples – the beetle’s horns and the turtle’s shell 29 Dec 201121 Jun 2018 Notes on Novelty series: 1. Introduction 2. Historical considerations – before and after evolution 3: The meaning of evolutionary novelty 4: Examples – the beetle’s horns and the turtle’s shell 5: Evolutionary radiations and individuation 6: Levels of description 7: Surprise! 8: Conclusion – Post evo-devo The Beetle’s horns Beetles often have projections on their carapace… Read More
Epistemology Positivism about agnosticism 22 Nov 201122 Nov 2011 Following up from my last post on the logical and semantic aspects of agnosticism, I wish to make a comment regarding this ill-tempered piece by Jennifer Michael Hecht. It seems that one may not be an agnostic if one is a secularist or skeptic. Why? Because: Agnositicsm points this excellent… Read More
Epistemology A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion 6 Jun 2009 Beneath the fold, I have stolen some text that lists 12 principles that make intellectual argument possible. In turn, this list was taken from Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments by Edward T. Damer, which was recommended in comments by G. Felis. I have added in italics… Read More
Are you recommending that we read the post or the blog? The blog is, well, different than my usual reading.
Some folks never think outside the box. I have been able to do it on occasion, only to find myself in another, larger box.