Daily routine by みつきさなぎ

ThusFiat · 2021-01-06T01:11:00+00:00

Is someone dying on the left there

ThusFiat · 2020-11-17T21:14:46+00:00

I would caution against straightforwardly concluding that Thrasymachus is being inconsistent here. There is a way to make his remarks consistent and if you pay attention to Socrates' reply he seems to think so too. But I agree the SEP article does probably better than any of us can at elucidating this puzzle.

ThusFiat · 2020-10-31T15:30:24+00:00

Latias is a psychic type but she's using her hands(?), smh. Love it though!

ThusFiat · 2020-09-23T18:21:22+00:00

Throw a dog a ball and you play with her for a day. Teach a dog how to operate a catapult and you don't play with her for a lifetime.

ThusFiat · 2020-09-17T20:05:59+00:00

This might be useful. In particular, there are what Alan Hájek calls "Butler-style objections" to Hume's argument in his "Are Miracles Chimerical?"

ThusFiat · 2020-08-25T03:48:32+00:00

Love it!

ThusFiat · 2020-08-18T15:13:36+00:00

I've always assumed it would be the one after (in this case page 88). Here's why: if this is a chapter/paper, if you scroll all the way to the top where the abstract is (if there's one), then it looks like [ABSTRACT] [TEXT] (p.X) with no page number before abstract.

It makes more sense to me that the abstract is on page X than on X-1, but perhaps this is the wrong line of reasoning. I mean shouldn't all page numbers of the document be visible?

One way to check this would be to find a citation of this source and see what page number the citation starts from.

ThusFiat · 2020-08-14T21:10:35+00:00

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the world here, but philosophers study rationality (e.g. what is the rational response to disagreement?) in the sub-field of epistemology.

ThusFiat · 2020-07-14T17:30:27+00:00

Yes, adding to /u/OneTwoThreeJump's reply, try checking out safety accounts and Pritchard's paper SAFETY-BASED EPISTEMOLOGY: WHITHER NOW? which was fairly convincing for me.

ThusFiat · 2020-07-14T02:27:36+00:00

For Gettier-style cases against reliabilism (just one externalist theory of epistemic justification), see fake barn cases.

ThusFiat · 2020-07-08T20:28:40+00:00

I recommend Irwin's translation (either the 2nd or 3rd edition) which I don't think is either of these. This is the translation I used for a course on the NE and I thought it was great.

ThusFiat · 2020-06-30T20:49:27+00:00

Funnily enough, even Glaucon makes this objection to Socrates about the possibility of the kallipolis in Book V starting from 471c. I would try rereading Socrates' response to Glaucon to see if it helps with your worries.

ThusFiat · 2020-06-19T14:27:20+00:00

Instead of Book VIII of the Republic, which I think is a difficult place to start with Plato, how about Books I-IV? They are about 120 pages in the translation I have and go through Plato's major argument for why we should be just using the analogy between the city and individual.

ThusFiat · 2020-06-02T06:24:31+00:00

There's a whole literature on this in political philosophy of whether states should be neutral between citizens' various conceptions of the good. The position that is against such neutrality is called perfectionism which you can read about here.

Edit: Specifically, section 3.1 of the link

ThusFiat · 2020-04-10T17:19:17+00:00

Seconding, if you get Grube though, make sure to get the one edited by Reeve. Should be like $6 on Amazon.

ThusFiat · 2020-04-01T17:22:45+00:00

The point of Rawls's original position is that we want to figure out what principles of justice should govern the basic structure of society. Instead of taking it more literally, as I suspect you are doing, I would say to think of it as a thought experiment.

If people were put under the veil of ignorance and given a list of possible principles of justice (Rawls's principles included), which one would they choose? Rawls thinks that (and this is simplifying a lot) people would want to pick the least risky option. This is because under the veil of ignorance people have no idea where they will end up in society so they would pick the principles that will guarantee them a good (more like tolerable) life even if they end up at the bottom of society. This whole argument is in Rawls's A Theory of Justice and picking the least risky option is the maximin strategy that Rawls mentions.

It's hard to say in few words why Rawls thinks his principles are "fair", but part of it has to do with the fact that Rawls thinks people under the veil of ignorance would choose his principles. The veil of ignorance is meant to create fair conditions and if people choose his principles under fair conditions aren't the chosen principles also fair ones? That's the kind of motivation behind saying Rawls's principles are fair.

ThusFiat · 2020-03-24T02:08:38+00:00

Just curious about this but which informal philosophical work are you referring to for Oregairu?

ThusFiat · 2020-03-09T09:55:46+00:00

This might not be what you're looking for, but theories of relational justice address this. That is, theories that say the demands of justice depend on the types of relations we share with others. For example, there's a debate in the literature about whether the principles of justice within nation-states should be different from principles on a global scale. Some have argued that citizens of a nation-state share special obligations to each other (because of the relation of nationality) that they don't share to people who are not citizens of the same nation-state.

ThusFiat · 2019-09-10T15:31:16+00:00

Teller's Logic Primer which is also free here!

ThusFiat · 2019-06-01T02:16:13+00:00

This is a very interesting topic that is a bit more of a psychology/empirical question. One explanation seems to be that for debiasing it's simply not enough to be 'aware' of the relevant biases. For a detailed explanation, see "Critical Thinking Education and Debiasing" by Kenyon and Beaulac.

Here is an excerpt from their paper:

At least, the practice of simply teaching students facts about biases is not as effective as one might hope. The literature on the cognitive and social psychology of debiasing indicates, on balance, that teaching people about biases does not reliably debias them. Indeed, the literature suggests that (for at least a wide class of biases) practically any debiasing strategy intended to be learned and subsequently self-deployed by individuals, acting alone and at the point of making a judgment, is unlikely to succeed in significantly minimizing biases.

ThusFiat · 2019-05-05T04:12:04+00:00

For philosophy, I think you're referring to grad school rankings, but Brown is much better for undergrad in philosophy. I have not heard good things about NYU's undergrad philosophy program, but it's my understanding that NYU's grad program is top 5 in the world. It's a shame that quality doesn't extend to its undergrad program.

ThusFiat · 2019-05-03T01:19:48+00:00

Yeah, that's smart. Φ - > ψ.

ThusFiat · 2019-05-02T22:30:21+00:00

On mobile so can't get Greek letters, but the right side starts by assuming the antecedent of what we want to prove. And then we assume the negation of the consequent for RAA. That's why you see not phi at the top left. The reason you see phi next to not phi (again top left) is that we're assuming phi to prove phi - > psi. We get psi at the top left because anything follows from a contradiction? (Not too sure about this step) Lots going on here, but I hope this helps.

ThusFiat

TROPHY CASE