Two Truths

1. Fish don't know they're in water.
2. People aren't fish.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Impossibility of Illogical Thought

Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically. It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is that we could not say what an 'illogical' world would look like. It is as impossible to represent in language anything that 'contradicts logic' as it is in geometry to represent by its a coordinates a figure that contradicts the laws of space, or to give the coordinates of a point that does not exist.... In a certain sense, we cannot make mistakes in logic.... Self-evidence, which [Bertrand] Russell talked about so much, can be dispensable in logic, only because language itself prevents every logical mistake.--What makes logic a priori is the impossibility of illogical thought. --Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus   3.03, 3.031, 3.032, 5.473, 5.4731 (H/T: Roderick T. Long )      
Read more

Is He Having a Laugh?

According to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, the government is God's appointed agent on earth, and each of us owes it allegiance and obedience. If that's so--and I for one don't believe either part of that statement--I'd like some believer to explain what God had in mind when he arranged things so that one of the two major-party clowns running for president will be elected in November. Is He having a laugh?
Read more

If We Don't Have Free Will, What Should We Do?

The question is obviously ironic. What does should  or ought  mean if our actions are determined?  Should  presupposes the ability to deliberate and decide. But without a will -- the term free will  is redundant -- how could we make decisions? I've heard social scientists say something like this: since there is no free will, we ought to rethink the criminal justice system. We ought ? What does that mean if the premise is that the will is a delusion?  The reason I bring this up is that many atheists seem wary about free will. I think I can explain this wariness. Since atheists properly deny the existence of soul, or spirit, they think they're committed to what seems the only remaining alternative: materialist reductionism. They reject "the ghost in the machine" and embrace the machine alone. But they've thrown the will/mind baby out with the soul/spirit bathwater. I wrote this post, and you are reading it. Think of what those facts imply. How can they b...
Read more