Comments for Philosopher's Digest

Comment on “Well-Being and Virtue” Daniel Haybron by Philosopher’s Digest » “Happiness, the Self, and Human Flourishing,” Daniel Haybron

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:39:40 +0000

[...] in Haybron’s sense (I address this issue in my review of his “Well-Being and Virtue”reviewed here). Lastly, a very crucial idea here is one that he never discusses directly, viz. the thesis of [...]

Comment on “Truth and Public Reason” Joshua Cohen by Dr.Priganica mirsad

Dr.Priganica mirsad — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:21:56 +0000

truth is quite unnecessary for “public reason”. but at the same time “truth talk” may enrich the discussion.

Comment on Protected: Reviews in Progress by Dan Russell

Dan Russell — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:41:38 +0000

Comment on Protected: Reviews in Progress by Dan Russell

Dan Russell — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:38:25 +0000

Comment on Protected: Reviews in Progress by R. Zachary Manis

R. Zachary Manis — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:00:28 +0000

Comment on Protected: Reviews in Progress by R. Zachary Manis

R. Zachary Manis — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:10:49 +0000

Comment on Protected: Reviews in Progress by Heath White

Heath White — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:17:44 +0000

Comment on “Epistemic Bootstrapping” Jonathan Vogel by Trent Dougherty

Trent Dougherty — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:10:26 +0000

Andy, thanks for this: I’m at home today and don’t have the paper with me here (and for some reason it’s not in my electronic library).

Have you shared these concerns with Jonathan? You really should, I’d be interested in what he has to say.

I would have expected him to point to the following plausible asymmetry. Peter’s premise 2 is *intrinsically* a reason for 1. 2. is a pro tanto reason for 1 in every possible world. This is not so with Roxanne’s premises 2. and 1. Whether her 2. supports her 1. is entirely contingent.

The Milk case is like the Peter case not the Roxanne case.

Comment on “Single Premise Deduction and Risk” Maria Lasonen-Aarnio by walker

walker — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:37:43 +0000

But isn’t the “luck” which applies to MPC’s simply different than the “deductive luck” you refer to as presenting a problem for SPCs? And further, it doesn’t seem that there can be some kind of error in deductive logic. This kind of claim strikes me as similar to saying:

“2+2=4, but the possibility of you saying 2+2=3 [you thought of one instead of two] means that deducing that two two’s is four is vulnerable to the objection that some error must have occurred in our deduction. If the best thing we can conceive of as a possible “lucky” deductive event is a quantum occurrence in the deducer’s brain, couldn’t you just make a deduction twice or three times in order to discredit such arguments?

Comment on Protected: Reviews in Progress by Daw-Nay Evans

Daw-Nay Evans — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:49:04 +0000