A while ago I debated with somebody who offered a proof of the existence of god on their website. You can see that here.
That same proof was recently brought to the attention of Stephen Law, so if anybody wants to see how a professional philosopher tackles this kind of argument, go here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Why do people care about proofs for God?
Also, is it truly possible to be a professional philosopher rather than a teacher of philosophy or an author?
I don't know why people care about proofs for god. But perhaps it is no more odd than any other debate about god.
You raise an interesting point about whether it is possible to be a professional philosopher. I suppose if you regard a philosopher as a kind of writer, then being an author is part of being a philosopher. Writing is one way to do philosophy.
I'm fairly sure I once heard about 'bleeper philosophers', who were ethicists who were employed by hospital trusts and were on call in case an ethical dilemma cropped up in the hospital. So perhaps they would qualify as professional philosophers.
I think I heard about these bleeping people as well. It's such a daft idea that there was probably some truth to the story. I'm not entirely sure that I would wish to be at the mercy of a mercenary ethicist myself, mind you.
Recent experience of the medical profession makes me wonder if practitioners make their ethical judgements by reference to the PDxMD rather than to any solid sense within themselves.
I don't see writing as necessary to philosophy in that it is unnecessary to thought. I am curious as to the nature of the first thoughts of our species.
I agree that writing is not necessary, but depending on the content, it might be sufficient.
I'm sorry to hear that you have had recent experience of the medical profession. I hope it doesn't recur.
Assuming that the content was written down without understanding, intended for another to read.
Harsh...
How so?
Your comment seemed to imply that professional philosophers wrote without understanding.
If the ability to write by rote without adding any original thought is sufficient to qualify as a professional philosopher then I think my harshness if justified.
Surely, as with all professions, the standard varies?
There are standards within professional philosophy?
Alternatively your argument may not obtain.
What do you think about authors in general? There is no 'set of standards'. Does it follow that their standard doesn't vary?
You think your harshness is justified but I can't see a way to dissuade you of that.
So do you feel that philosopher is a term connate to author?
I do not think that I am being harsh about people who make a living from philosophy, only about the idea that philosophy is a career.
As I said, professional philosophers of the non bleeper variety tend to be authors, even if they only publish in academic journals.
I don't know why you want to be harsh about the idea of philosophy as a career. It is only a sub-species of academic. Unless you want to be similarly harsh about academics in general. But then why pick on philosophers?
It seems that we are reducing philosophy further with each post. Have you read Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell?
Let us say that we are philosophers, you and I. Let us say that you make your money selling papers and pressing books while I make my money pressing olives and selling their oil. Which of is the more successful professional philosopher?
I haven't read that but I'm sure it is around here somewhere.
Let us suppose that you philosophize very well and it gives you a view of the world that enables you to be a very successful olive oil producer.
Let us suppose that I philosophize very well and I write it down and make a good living from having my philosophy published.
Then I am a successful professional philosopher and you are a successful professional olive oil producer. That doesn't mean that I am a better philosopher than you though.
It's a great book and I recommend that you read it some time short of immediately.
I think the question of which of us was a more successful professional philosopher would rather depend upon our respective incomes if we are both using philosophy to make a living.
If I were going to start selling olive oil then I would buy at least one press. How many pencils and sheets of paper would you need to buy if you were to start out as a professional philosopher of a kind other than the vegetable vending variety?
Sorry the game has been so dreadfully slow to this point. I've managed to drown a few things which have been bothering me for some time so hopefully we will reach a speedy conclusion. One of us may even win, although even if this is not the case I am enjoying your play.
Almost forgot; I mentioned Norrell & Strange because there is a nice distinction made between magicians which parallels our discussion on philosophers.
I'll pop it on the reading list.
Yes, all things being equal, one might suppose that the more bankable philosopher is the more successful one. But philosophers being what they are, I dare say that some would settle for less revenue in return for more respect from their peers. Like authors, they don't all want to be J K Rowling.
Right-ho. You're an author - who are you?
Same question to philosopher. Both dead, preferably.
Although, if you are an author and/or a philosopher then I'll make an exception to the dead rule.
No I'm not an author or philosopher. Are you asking with which dead author/philosopher I most identify, or which dead ones were not popular but were respected?
The 1st, but I would be interested in your thoughts on the 2nd if your prefer, or in addition.
I'd say the philosopher who most chimes with me is David Hume. I can't think of a dead author though I'm afraid. I might say Camus when I get round to actually reading some.
Post a Comment