I just wanted to see if anyone is planning on going to the Pacific APA in March and if so, if anyone would be up for splitting a hotel room. Just let me know, either by commenting on this post or by emailing me: kmccain@mail.rochester.edu
Archive for October, 2007
Anyone going to the Pacific APA?
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007Wertheimer and Homophobes
Monday, October 29th, 2007Wertheimer argues that if some action X by A generates intense distress in B, and B’s feeling of distress is “legitimate,” then A’s action is harmful and can justifiably be prohibited. (97-100). He compares the distress experienced by (1) a person who is the target of hate speech, and (2) the homophobe who observes a homosexual couple embracing. He agrees that the distress experienced by (1) and (2) may be equivalent in intensity. But the distress experienced by (1) is arguably more legitimate, and so hate speech can be justifiably prohibited, while public homosexual behavior cannot. What makes distress legitimate? He says that he cannot offer an adequate account.
However, at the end of the chapter (5), he suggests that when the “basis of distress is principally cultural or belief-mediated,” it is more difficult to justify than distress that is “hard-wired” into our psyche, presumably by natural selection. He again mentions the homophobe, and implies that his distress is of the former sort. But couldn’t we tell a plausible story about how natural selection might favor an aversion to public displays of homosexual behavior? Perhaps females who were averse to witnessing homosexual acts were more likely to avoid homosexuals as mates. Similarly, perhaps males who were averse to homosexual behavior were more likely to spend their time copulating with females, and thus passed on more of their genes. Furthermore, perhaps communities that were averse to homosexual behavior and restricted such activity were more likely to maintain or increase their population.
If such a story is at least as plausible as W.’s story about the female aversion to rape, then perhaps W.’s view legitimizes homophobia, and thus justifies the prohibition of public homosexual behavior. Is this a problem for Wertheimer?
Will an analysis of knowledge tell us if infallibilism is true?
Saturday, October 27th, 2007Let ‘warrant’ denote whatever it is that turns a true belief into knowledge. Let ‘infallibilism’ be the view that “a belief is warranted only if it is true.” I wonder if the following proposition is true:
(II) If we were to successfully analyze knowledge, then we would have a successful argument that infallibilism is true.
Here’s my argument for (II). Suppose we had a successful analysis of knowledge. Then we would have a successful analysis of warranted belief. If we had a successful analysis of warranted belief, then we could know whether infallibilism is true. All this could constitute a successful argument for infallibilism. QED.
55th Philosopher’s Carnival
Friday, October 26th, 2007Descartes, God, and Skepticism
Wednesday, October 24th, 2007I need some help from Descartes buffs. As I understand him, Descartes’ main strategy is to prove that he exists, then prove that God exists, then point out that God would not deceive him about the external world, and from this, infer that the external world exists. (more…)
Does an author’s declaration a character’s sexuality make?
Wednesday, October 24th, 2007For those who do not know, recently J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books revealed that Dumbledore (the school headmaster) was gay. Here’s a quote from Time, the details of which will be relevant later:
The big revelation of the night came when she was asked if Dumbledore had ever found love. With a sigh, she seemed on the verge of saying no, but then revealed, “my truthful answer to you… I always thought of Dumbledore as gay.” After a collective gasp, the audience roared with applause. Rowling was clearly astonished by the positive reaction and exclaimed, “if I’d known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!”
Justin brought this up at lunch on Tuesday, and the question came up as to whether Rowling’s revelation changed the truth of the matter or the text stood alone as a sole authority. For those who accept textual authority, something like the following conditional is affirmed:
(TA) A proposition p about a story S (revealed by a text T) is true only if (1) p is explicitly stated in T or (2) p is entailed by other propositions explicitly stated in T.
(I say “something like” TA because, as presented, TA may not be a precise formulation of the view. But I think the general point is made.)
Those who would affirm TA deny that Rowling has any more authority on the matter than your average reader. I was persuaded by this initially; now I don’t think so. My argument is below the fold. (more…)
Philosophy of Time Blog
Monday, October 15th, 2007Hey all, I wanted to make known a relatively new blog devoted to the philosophy of time:
Species Demarcation, Reproduction, and Sterility
Monday, October 15th, 2007There has been a few times when I’ve come across the impossibility of reproduction being used as a method of distinguishing one species from another. Whether this is a necessary or sufficient condition is never clear to me, so I will put it aside. What the claim does seem to entail is that X is a member of species S if X can successfully reproduce with another member of S. There are a few problems with this formulation. (more…)