Distinguishing Synthetic and Analytic Truths

If you’re like me and sometimes have trouble distinguishing synthetic propositions from analytic ones then maybe this submission from a philosophy student’s paper will help.  I quote:

“All husbands have heads” is synthetic and “all wives are are married” is analytic.  We never see a husband without a head.  However it is possible for us to imagine a husband with no head.  He may be being kept alive by a system of tubes and motors and was able to marry.  This man would still be a man like any other, but headless.

See, now that clears everything up well doesn’t it?

From here.

War! What is it good for? Absolutely…

Admittedly, I do not keep up with the War in Iraq as many people do. With that said, I have a few questions* that I would like to bounce off of anyone willing to engage them.

1) Is the War in Iraq justified? What criterion are we to use (just war, etc.)?

2) What is it that we are fighting for?

3) Are our efforts really worth it?

I ask these questions because I heard someone raise a very thought-provoking point the other day. Generally, it seems that one reason we are fighting is to protect the present and future state of our nation (there are other reasons left unsaid). But is what we have worth fighting for from a Kingdom of God perspective? Has the American Dream eclipsed our Kingdom mission? While I enjoy having the things that I am privy to as an American, are we promised them? Are they necessary? Are they worth fighting for?

*These questions by nature are over-simpifying. There are many other relevant issues to which we do not have access.

Why WordPress is Superior to Blogspot

Because anyone can post comments on a WordPress blog! There are some really terrific philosophy blogs on which I cannot comment, because they are Blogspot and you have to be logged in with some username and password to comment on Blogspot blogs. Aarrgghh! So, Andrew & Becky at Flip-the-Pig (because I especially wish to comment on your terrific blog), please consider the transition! Or, let me know if there’s a way for me to comment of which I am unaware. Thanks!

More On Why Wikipedia Cannot Be Trusted

See here and here at the (terrific) Uncommon Descent blog.

Sidenote: It’s happened again: I was grading a paper last night in which the student cited Wikipedia as a scholarly source. Unbelievable.

Attention Parents

Assembly Woman Sally Lieber (D-California) is sponsoring a bill to ban the spanking of children in California. As I understand it, violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to a year a prison and a hefty fine. During the piece on the morning news today (in which she was not the only interviewee), the word “hitting” was frequently used in place of “spanking,” which I thought was a nice use of loaded language. What do you make of this? Does Scripture speak on this issue? If so, how?

I wonder if these people have children of their own…

Calvinist Cartoon…

Good Advice

“We should love both: those whose opinion we follow and those whose opinion we reject.  For both have applied themselves to the quest for truth and both have helped us in it.”

Thomas Aquinas

A Primer on Aristotelian Logic

Are You Wise?

In his quest for the science of wisdom, Aristotle purposes to catalogue wisdom by identifying the characteristics of a wise man. In the Metaphysics, book 1, ch. 2, he identifies several (either five or six, depending on your reading) such characteristics:

(1) a wise man knows everything in its generality
(2) a wise man knows things it is difficult for a human to know
(3) a wise man has accurate, precise knowledge
(4) a wise man is able to teach the causes of things
(5) a wise man seeks wisdom for its own sake, not for the sake of some other science
(6) wisdom orders the other sciences, thus the wise man can do so, as well

My guess is that if you haven’t read a little Aristotle, then these don’t make much sense; they certainly didn’t mean much to me before I read the primary source. I say this not in a tone of condescension, but rather with a tone of encouragement! Go! See what Aristotle says, and determine whether he was correct or not.

Plato’s Divided Line

*This post is intended merely to recount Plato’s ‘Divided Line’ concisely, not to ask and (attempt to) answer all the relevant questions.

We all know that, for Plato, the highest form about which one may inquire is the good. He writes, in the Republic (VI, 504e), for example, that, “the form of the good is the most important thing to learn about…” Unfortunately, however, when his interlocutors implore him to “discuss the good as [he] discussed justice, moderation, and the rest,” Socrates declines, saying, “I’m afraid that I won’t be up to it and that I’ll disgrace myself and look ridiculous by trying” (VI, 506b-e). What he can do, however, is discuss the visible reality that is most like the good. This leads to a distinction between two orders of things: the visible and the intelligible.