USUPhilosophy

Mike sent me a link to this article about “Radical Honesty,” a budding movement which urges its practitioners to tell the truth — bluntly, and in any circumstance. (Warning: there are naughty words in the article.)

I’d like to think that such radical honesty could be tempered by concern for others’ feelings — that we can still tell the truth, but in friendlier ways, with less of the blunt violence displayed in the article. But am I just being a wimp?

Kleiner and I were wondering today whether there is any way to sort out good philosophical mysteries from bad ones. Here’s an example to show what we mean.

Suppose you believe that the world is created by a divine being with a concern for the plight of human beings. Several objections can be raised — like, “How does a divine being create a world out of nothing?” and “How come there seems to be so much needless suffering?”. And you can offer some initial answers to these questions, perhaps with some interesting details, but in the end you will probably have to shrug and say, “It’s a mystery to me.”

Now contrast that case with this one. Suppose I say that the world is a pebble washed up upon the shores of eternity, and our obligation is to make everything in the world as shiny as possible. (And suppose that, no, I mean none of this merely metaphorically; I think it is literally true.) You press me for details — “Why think the world is a pebble? Why think eternity is a thing with shores?” — and though I might make a few remarks in reply, ultimately I have to shrug and say, “It’s a mystery to me.”

It seems like the first mystery is an “okay” one to have, and the second one is just silly. Is that right? If it is, then how can anyone sort out the good mysteries from the bad ones?

which is found here. Don’t feel bad if you don’t do well; I admit to scoring only 7/12 (but at least one question was not fair!). Let me know if you get a perfect score and we’ll celebrate your achievement.

This site also hosts a “vote for the best philosopher” contest (yes, of all time), and guess who won? Who should have won, do you think?

Here is a short and interesting article about the nature of philosophical dialogue and progress. The main idea is that each philosophical claim put forward advances at most a partial truth, and encourages the next person to try to get it straight. What they put forward is a partial truth, which…..