Bruno Marchal writes:
> > In any case, it is telling that even Parfit's philosophical
> > adversaries do not focus on lack of scientific plausibility as an
> > argument against *philosophical* validity. For the most part, he could
> > have made the same points had he been writing a century ago, drawing
> > on religious mythology rather than science fiction for his thought
> > experiments.
> > Perhaps a philosopher on the list could comment?
> Oops, sorry. But perhaps I am a philosopher too? After all Pythagoras
> invented the term :)
> In any case I agree with you. Thought experiment on soul and identity,
> including what happens in case of duplication appears already
> implicitly in Plotinus, and explicitly in Augustine.
I feel I can intuitively recognise the difference between scientific statements and
philosophical statements, but I don't think I've done a good job articulating this
difference in recent posts. It's not just empirical versus theoretical, because I
would say maths is more like what physicists or chemists do than what
epistemologists or ethicists do, for example. Logic is an exception, claimed by
both philosophers and mathematicians, but I understand that even here there
is a difference in emphasis depending on the logician's background. Of course,
"philosophy" was a generic term for multiple scholarly fields not so long ago,
but I am talking about current usage. Can anyone pin down the distinction I'm
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
- Re: Reasons and Persons Stathis Papaioannou
- Re: Reasons and Persons Brent Meeker