use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
詳しくは検索FAQを参照
高度な検索: 投稿者や、subredditで……
~73 人のユーザーが現在閲覧しています
First time here? Welcome! You ask questions; we provide answers. A great resource to check before you ask a question is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Don't be afraid if you think your question is too simple. AskPhilosophy defines itself less by the sort of questions that are accepted than by the sort of answers they can expect to receive. Feel free to ask about topics you're studying in school, but please read about how to avoid plagiarism first.
Want to be a panelist? Have questions about what that means? Start here.
If you plan to comment regularly, you must request flair. Comments (not questions) posted by users without flair will be looked on with suspicion.
We actively moderate the quality of comments to this subreddit. We require that especially top-level responses to questions show familiarity with the question, and ideally that they make reference to the existing literature on that topic.
Level of involvement: (indicated by color)
Professional Graduate Undergraduate Autodidact
For more on how we use flair, see this thread.
Ask: AskReddit | AskAcademia | AskComputerScience | AskCulinary | AskElectronics | AskEngineers | AskHistorians | AskLiteraryStudies | AskReligion | AskScience | AskSciTech | AskStatistics
Philosophy: Philosophy | AcademicPhilosophy | Aesthetics | Bioethics | ContinentalTheory | PhilosophyOfMath | Neurophilosophy | PoliticalPhilosophy | PhilosophyOfReligion | PhilosophyOfScience | TheAgora
Why isn't Sam Harris a philosopher? (self.askphilosophy)
LickitySplit939 が 2年 前 投稿
残りのコメントをみる →
[–]chamaelleon -13ポイント-12ポイント-11ポイント 2年 前 (24子コメント)
Everyone who loves learning is a philosopher.
[–]ADefiniteDescriptionlogic, truth, moral phil. 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 2年 前 (23子コメント)
That's just patently false.
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント 2年 前 (22子コメント)
look up the etymology of the word 'philosophy.'
You will find it is you who are wrong.
A philosopher is a lover of widom. Thus, anyone who loves to learn is a philosopher.
[–]ADefiniteDescriptionlogic, truth, moral phil. 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 2年 前 (20子コメント)
Etymology is not the sole component of meaning. For a brief explanation and some examples, see here.
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 2年 前 (0子コメント)
Then how do you define philosophy?
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-13ポイント-12ポイント-11ポイント 2年 前 (18子コメント)
Also, you're assertion makes the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.
You have assumed that a philosopher is not 'anyone who loves learning,' because it is not always true that a current definition is the same as it's original meaning. However, simply because it is not always true that current defenitions are the same as original ones, does not mean it is true that current definitions are never the same as original ones.
Which is why I asked you to define philosophy. Whether or not I am correct (to you) depends on how you define philosophy. And no fair trying to define it in a way that makes me incorrect. Just define it how you normally would, and we'll see if my assertion still fits your defintion. It fits mine, so my statement is not false to me, but I'm happy to ackowledge that your subjective point of view may make my assertion incorrect to you.
[–]MaceWumpusgeneralist, history of philosophy after Kant 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 2年 前 (1子コメント)
You: A
ADD: ~A
You: B, therefore A
ADD: ~B, still ~A
ADD didn't commit a logical fallacy. He simply negated the evidence you used to assert A in the first place. He had already negated A with the previous comment "~A." Or, in other words, his claim about etymology was not a defense of ~A but a demonstration of why you could not use B to get A.
[–]rainman002 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 2年 前 (0子コメント)
This fallacy is called 'denying the antagonist'.
[–]ReallyNicoleethics, metaethics, decision theory 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 2年 前 (15子コメント)
OK, now that's patently false. You stated that everyone who loves learning is a philosopher. ADD said that this is false. What would it take for your statement to be false? Well, only that there be at least one person who loves learning, but is not a philosopher. OK, well there are tons of people who fit that description; almost every academic outside of philosophy (biologists, economists, musicologists) is probably someone who loves learning, but is not a philosopher. ADD is committing no fallacy. You are.
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-11ポイント-10ポイント-9ポイント 2年 前* (14子コメント)
Actually it's verifiably true.
Denying the antecedent is when you assume the following:
If A, then B. Not A, therefore not B
If A, then B.
Not A, therefore not B
In this case, I made the fallacy of assuming that the because the original meaning of philosophy was 'love of wisdom' (A), that therefore the current definition was the same (B). ADD made the fallacy of assuming that because A is false, therefore B must be false.
We both made an error in our assertions. What argument do you have to demonstrate that the given logical fallacy - denying the antecedent - did not occur? It clearly did.
Also, your assertion that biologists, economists, musicologists, etc are not philosophers is one with which I disagree. By my definition, anyone who wonders about and pursues knowledge is a philosopher. One does not have to have the job title 'philosopher' to be a philosopher. One does not need a college degree labeling them a philosopher to be a philosopher. One needs only to philosophize to be a philosopher. And Sam Harris most definitely philosophizes. As do you, and as do I.
[–]ADefiniteDescriptionlogic, truth, moral phil. 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 2年 前 (1子コメント)
I've made no fallacious move - my reasoning for claiming that philosophy isn't just the etymological definition has nothing to do with my denial that it's equivalent to 'lover of wisdom'. One can (and indeed, I do) have independent reasons for thinking that philosophy isn't a fucking catch all for any dumbass with a thought about the universe.
Well then, by all means, elucidate. Define philosophy. We'll see if my assertion fits with your definition or not. But...you can't...can you?
[–]ReallyNicoleethics, metaethics, decision theory 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 2年 前 (0子コメント)
Huh? No. ADD said that because there are people who love learning, but aren't philosophers, not everyone who loves learning is a philosopher. There's no fallacy in that.
By my definition, anyone who wonders about and pursues knowledge is a philosopher.
Yes, and you're wrong. See this entire thread for details.
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント 2年 前 (10子コメント)
Just a downvote? Not a counter argument? I'll take that as a 'check' and a 'mate' then. Thank you :-)
I understand, being wrong necessitates a downvote. I've been there. I'm not there this time, you are, but I understand.
[–]drunkentunephil. of science, epistemology, nonfoundationalism[M] 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 2年 前 (9子コメント)
You are wrong.
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 2年 前 (8子コメント)
no, I'm not :-)
π Rendered by PID 29326 on app-56 at 2015-06-24 15:14:06.732345+00:00 running bc329da country code: JP.
残りのコメントをみる →
[–]chamaelleon -13ポイント-12ポイント-11ポイント (24子コメント)
[–]ADefiniteDescriptionlogic, truth, moral phil. 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント (23子コメント)
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント (22子コメント)
[–]ADefiniteDescriptionlogic, truth, moral phil. 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント (20子コメント)
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント (0子コメント)
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-13ポイント-12ポイント-11ポイント (18子コメント)
[–]MaceWumpusgeneralist, history of philosophy after Kant 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]rainman002 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]ReallyNicoleethics, metaethics, decision theory 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント (15子コメント)
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-11ポイント-10ポイント-9ポイント (14子コメント)
[–]ADefiniteDescriptionlogic, truth, moral phil. 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント (1子コメント)
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]ReallyNicoleethics, metaethics, decision theory 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント (0子コメント)
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント (10子コメント)
[–]drunkentunephil. of science, epistemology, nonfoundationalism[M] 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント (9子コメント)
[+]chamaelleon スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント (8子コメント)