AnalyticBlog

Change in Schedule for Readings

2010-03-14T12:28:00.000-07:00

Please note the change in the order of readings for after Spring Break at http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/analytic/schedule.html

I'll try to have a hardcopy of the revised schedule on Tuesday.

Review Questions Wanted!

2010-02-25T14:51:00.000-08:00

Any questions for Tuesday's review? Post as comments: the floor is open!

Field Guide to Philosophy of Mind

2008-04-04T10:31:00.000-07:00

Check it out at http://analyticphilosophy.blogspot.com/

Test I Key

2008-03-26T09:29:00.000-07:00

Analytic Phil: Test I Key

1 D
2 D
3 C
4 C
5 A
6 B
7 A
8 D
9 D
10 B
11 A
12 B
13 C
14 B
15 D
16 E
17 B
18 C
19 A
20 C
21 C
22 C

23 C
24 C
25 D
26 E
27 A
28 E
29 A
30 C
31 A
32 C
33 B
34 A
35 D
36 A
37 D
38 B
39 B
40 B
41 A
42 D
43 C

Questions about Frege?

2008-03-03T16:00:00.001-08:00

Frege's article, "On Sense and Reference," is pretty complex. Don't worry too much about the last part starting around p. 33 where he gives lots and lots of examples of sentences with subordinate clauses (but do read it!)

Frege is suggesting two puzzles: the Identity Puzzle and the Propositional Attitude puzzle

The Identity Puzzle: how can there be true, informative identity statements, in particular, how can it be that "The Morning Star = "The Evening Star" tells us something about the world rather than merely rehearsing the trivial logical truth that The Morning Star, like everything else, is self-identical?

The Propositional Attitude Puzzle: how come substituting expressions that name the same thing into some contexts doesn't preserve truth value? How come, for example, does substituting "Samuel Clemens" for "Mark Twain" (Samuel Clemens' pen name) in some sentences, change their truth value?

Any questions?

Ayer and Quine: Any Questions?

2008-02-25T11:56:00.000-08:00

The material now is getting a little complicated so it might be helpful to adopt a procedure the instructor of a class on (the notoriously complicated) Kant I took in grad school tried. In addition to asking questions during class discussion he suggested that we write questions as we read and submit them in advance for discussion in class.

As I was re-reading Quine I thought: what a good idea! So...if you have questions or comments, please comment on this message board and/or submit them to me in writing prior to the class at which you want to discuss them.

Even if you don't want to submit them, formulating questions as you read is also helpful in understanding what's going on!

What is Philosophy?

2008-02-21T20:56:00.000-08:00

We talked about today. Here's an interesting discussion from Brian Leiter's blog: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2008/02/what-is-philoso.html

Doing Philosophy

2008-02-20T10:17:00.000-08:00

One question on Tuesday was, "What do the discussions of the external world an the mind-body problem have to do with the current discussion of the Russell-Strawson debate?"

As I said, not much of anything. However on reflection I think this needs further elaboration because it has to do with how many analytic philosophers, including me, understand philosophy.

We don't see it as the business of developing "a philosophy" or coming up with a grand unified theory of everything. Philosophy is just a collection of puzzles. Some of the classic puzzles are: the problem of perception and the external world, the mind-body problem, the problem of what there is, and so on. There may be some connections between the solutions we adopt to these various puzzles (and we'll talk about that) but then again lots of these puzzles are just independent of one another.

In any case, as a matter of procedure, we're just looking at these puzzles independently, playing with them, assessing the arguments for various proposed solutions.

The Turing Test Page

2005-04-25T10:29:00.000-07:00

The Turing Test Page
Useful page with bibliography on the Turing Test--and fun: scroll down to "talk to them" for links to chatterbots you can talk to, including Eliza, and many, many more. This site is maintained by a UCSD grad student in cog sci. Highly recommended.

Zombies on the web

2005-04-24T19:00:00.000-07:00

Zombies on the web

Hollywood zombies, Haitian zombies and philosophical zombies with pictures and extensive links to zombie resources on the web. Check it out!

Parfit online!

2005-04-17T16:26:00.000-07:00

We have online access to the full text of all Oxford University Press books in print--including Parfit's Reasons and Persons. To take advantage of this fabulous resource go to Oxford Scholarship Online and search for "Parfit" (or any other OUP author if you're interested). Hit the link to the section of Reasons and Persons on personal identity, click on full text and when prompted login is "seirtrials" and pw is "spring05"

Enjoy!

Thought Experiments

2005-04-09T16:27:00.000-07:00

Thought Experiments
Thought experiments are "devices of the imagination used to investigate nature." They figure prominently in discussions of the problem of personal identity and other related issues: we imagine the statue and the clay, the individual whose brain hemispheres are transplanted into two different bodies, Locke's Day Man and Night Man and so on.

Lots of the scenarios that figure in philosophical thought experiments aren't, from the scientific point of view, possible. But that is not to say that philosophy is either unscientific or presents a point of view that's at odds with science. Philosophy is simply asking questions of a different sort--questions about what is "logically possible," and about how to understand concepts that figure in our ordinary way of viewing the world.

Thought experiments have also played a role in the sciences. For a discussion, hit the link.

Global Ethics

2005-03-31T13:15:00.000-08:00

Here is the class website for the Economics and Ethics of Gender in the Developing World I mentioned. And here is the table of contents for the Global Ethics Anthology I put together. Most of the readings are online and linked to this page--some would be good paper topics. (Check which!)

Gödel's Theorem

2005-03-16T18:58:00.000-08:00

Here is the link to Gödel's Theorem: On Formally Undecidable Propositions. And here is a biography of Gödel with some bibliography and links.

A very good, popular, accessible and fun book reflection on Gödel's Theorem and related matters is Doublas Hofstadter's Gödel Escher Bach. For a more concise, focused discussion see Gödel's Proof. There are reviews for both books at these links.

Gödel Escher Bach is available at the USD library and so is Gödel's Proof.

Russell "On Denoting"

2005-02-19T19:09:00.000-08:00

Here is the handout on Russell "On Denoting." And here is the handout on Strawson's response. Finally, here is another handout on the Russell/Strawson debate.

Who won? Russell (read his response to Strawson linked to the homepage) argues that Strawson is simply addressing a whole 'nother question.

Russell's original article, "On Denoting," published in 1905 is such a big deal that there is actually a 100th Anniversary celebration of it going on including a whole conference on Russell and Meinong: 100 Years After 'On Denoting'.

Time Travel at USD!

2005-02-14T11:58:00.000-08:00

The Philosophy Club will have Movie Night on Tuesday, February 15th, at 7:00 PM in Serra 315. We will be watching the short film La Jetee , that raises some interesting philosophical issues about time travel and then discussing an article by David Lewis on "The Paradoxes of Time Travel." Copies of the article are available in the philosophy office.

Pagans Online!

2005-02-10T19:24:00.000-08:00

Here is a link to a discussion, amongst the Greco-Roman pagans, of their philosophical preferences. Many of these folks are very smart and have serious scholarly interests in the history and literature of Antiquity, but don't get the difference between epistemic preferences and epistemic preferability, between being "attracted" to a philosophy and having arguments that you think support it. Aaaargh!

Philosophical Demons

2005-02-04T15:26:00.000-08:00

Here is the link to the article that I mentioned by O. K. Bouwsma, "Descartes Evil Genius." The story by Stanislaus Lem, "The Seventh Sally or How Trurl's Own Perfection Led to No Good" is in Douglas Hofstadter, ed. The Mind's Eye

Acquaintance and Description

2005-02-02T13:03:00.000-08:00

Here is a nice article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description.

How to Read Philosophy

2005-01-31T09:50:00.000-08:00

Reading philosophy is...different. There are a variety of pieces on the web, many of them handouts for classes like this one, about how to read (and write) philosophy. One I like in particular is at www. princeton.edu/~jimpryor/general/reading.html

I think the key is to see philosophy as a game and regard the papers you are reading not as statements of the Facts of Philosophy (or about a "philosophy") but as plays in defense of a position. In most cases the author will be shadow boxing an imaginary opponent so some of the claims made in the paper will not be made by the author speaking in his own voice, but rather the claims and objections of an imaginary opponent against whom the author is arguing.

Understanding a philosophy paper is like understanding a chess game or a football game. It is a matter of understanding the moves and strategies involved. You should be able to talk about a philosophy paper the way a sports fan talks about an especially interesting game: in terms of offensive and defensive plays, the tactics and the strategies that motivate these moves, and their success or failure to achieve the desired result. To do this effectively, you do need to know some nitty-gritty facts though.

The author’s thesis: Minimally you need to know what he was arguing for--and, as indicated above, this does not mean every detail of his paper, but the conclusion or conclusions of his arguments. For each of the authors we read, if nothing else, you should be able to give a one or two paragraph summary of his position.

Terminology: To understand what is going on you must understand the technical terms that are introduced along the way, e.g. "a priori," "type/token distinction," "definite description," and the deceptively non-technical terms which are given a special sense within philosophical discussions, e.g. "truth," "sense," "reference."

Tools: This is a rag-bag of principles, tactics and strategies that figure in philosophical discussions and facilitate arguments, e.g. Leibniz Law, circularity and begging-the-question objections, the either-it’s-false-or-it’s-trivial strategy, etc. These are standard plays that you learn by reading philosophy. It would be pointless to try to name, list, and memorize these plays but, if you are familiar with them it becomes easier to figure out what an author is doing and also to use them in your own arguments. Again, you pick this up the ability to recognize and make these plays by reading philosophy and asking yourself as you read, what is this guy up to, where is he going and how does this move contribute to his project.

The Standard Arguments and Objections: Have a sketch in mind of the grounds on which the authors’ main theses are supported and the sorts of objections that are put to them. This doesn’t mean memorizing arguments and objections but rather having a general notion of the line of argument that you can, if you think about it, spell out if you need to.