I am inclined to think that if we accept certain physical laws as foundational beliefs that are necessarily true, then the argument for unsupported objects falling towards the Earth does seem to become more deductive in nature. The issue then is how you justify your foundational belief in gravity without relying on inductive reasoning.
Hume would say that just because we have always in the past witnessed unsupported objects falling down, it does not necessarily follow that they will in future. We assume that they will, through habit, as this is useful to going through every-day life.
Perhaps the solution is to reclassify the law of gravity from a "matter of fact" to a "relation of ideas". To some extent this is what Kant seems to do with his metaphysics. Space and time, for Kant, are not matters of fact but are a priori ideas which give the structure to our experiences.
Could the law of gravity be regarded as inherent in our idea of space? I personally think this is doubtful, but I still want to be able to say that the law of gravity is somehow "necessarily true".
Is the law of gravity falsifiable, in a Karl Popper sense? My initial response answer is "yes, obviously it is" and as such it is a scientific fact. But could we really find evidence to falsify the law? I think the answer may in fact be "no". If we were to find circumstances where objects did not obey the law of gravity we would not abandon the law but would modify it for those unique circumstances. An example I have in mind is quantum mechanics, where some quantum objects do not in fact obey the law of gravity.
So in one sense I don't think the law of gravity is falsifiable, at least in the world that we live in on a non-quantum scale. Anybody who claimed to witness an apple which didn't fall towards the Earth when they dropped it would not be taken as having found evidence against gravity, we would have to assume that they were under a misapprehension, or there were some other physical conditions preventing the apple from falling of which we were not aware. Evidence for absence of gravity must take on the nature of Hume's idea of a miracle, where the natural order is temporarily suspended. Hume rejects miracles as being, by definition, virually impossible.
In conclusion, I personally think there are some physical laws which are 'necessarily true' because they are how we make sense of the world. This is not to say that they cannot be modified or extended in certain unique circumstances, but for "regular" circumstances they must apply.
Could we then have a third form of argument which sits somewhere between induction and deduction? What would it be called?
Lawrence
Showing posts with label Kant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kant. Show all posts
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Truth, belief in God and Kant
Could you argue that the fact that 97% of people believe something is true makes it true? What if those 97% of people do not understand why their belief is wrong?
Pre-Copernicus, 97% of people believed that the the Sun revolves around the Earth. Was the geocentric view true and then became false or was it always false?
With regards the existence of God, using coherentism as justification fails because there needs to be some evidence if you are making a scientific claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them.
The following link sets out some of Plantinga's arguments for the existence of God:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alvin_plantinga/conflict.html
Evolutionary biologists would not contest the view that we are hard-wired to believe in God, it is indeed quite common at our current state of evolutionary development. But this does not make it true, in fact it supports the explanation for why so many of us believe in something which is untrue. Personally, I don't agree with Plantinga's arguments.
Kant has a different take on epistemology, which when you read it is very original and convinving.
Kant's argument for synthetic a priori truths is summarised well in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Kant’s answer to the question is complicated, but his conclusion is that a number of synthetic a priori claims, like those from geometry and the natural sciences, are true because of the structure of the mind that knows them. “Every event must have a cause” cannot be proven by experience, but experience is impossible without it because it describes the way the mind must necessarily order its representations. We can understand Kant’s argument again by considering his predecessors. According to the Rationalist and Empiricist traditions, the mind is passive either because it finds itself possessing innate, well-formed ideas ready for analysis, or because it receives ideas of objects into a kind of empty theater, or blank slate. Kant’s crucial insight here is to argue that experience of a world as we have it is only possible if the mind provides a systematic structuring of its representations."
Pre-Copernicus, 97% of people believed that the the Sun revolves around the Earth. Was the geocentric view true and then became false or was it always false?
With regards the existence of God, using coherentism as justification fails because there needs to be some evidence if you are making a scientific claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them.
The following link sets out some of Plantinga's arguments for the existence of God:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alvin_plantinga/conflict.html
Evolutionary biologists would not contest the view that we are hard-wired to believe in God, it is indeed quite common at our current state of evolutionary development. But this does not make it true, in fact it supports the explanation for why so many of us believe in something which is untrue. Personally, I don't agree with Plantinga's arguments.
Kant has a different take on epistemology, which when you read it is very original and convinving.
Kant's argument for synthetic a priori truths is summarised well in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Kant’s answer to the question is complicated, but his conclusion is that a number of synthetic a priori claims, like those from geometry and the natural sciences, are true because of the structure of the mind that knows them. “Every event must have a cause” cannot be proven by experience, but experience is impossible without it because it describes the way the mind must necessarily order its representations. We can understand Kant’s argument again by considering his predecessors. According to the Rationalist and Empiricist traditions, the mind is passive either because it finds itself possessing innate, well-formed ideas ready for analysis, or because it receives ideas of objects into a kind of empty theater, or blank slate. Kant’s crucial insight here is to argue that experience of a world as we have it is only possible if the mind provides a systematic structuring of its representations."
Sunday, April 29, 2012
What is philosophy?
Today I was posed the following question, following my contribution yesterday on the issue 'What is philosophy?'
"Lawrence is quite right about philosophy being characterized by specific questions (paying attention to logic etc. is definitely part of it, but as you say, this is not specific to philosophy). My question to you both then is, what is really specific about philosophical questions? (traditional or otherwise)"
This is my response:
"I agree that this is a very interesting - and also difficult question. I have to confess that I'm struggling to provide a good answer.
A few months ago I read an article about philosophy and theoretical physics discussing the 'philosophy is dead' argument that Simon mentions. This time the antagonist was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, Stephen Hawking. I have to confess that ever since I tried to read Hawking's unintelligible 'Brief History of Time' I have taken everything he says with a pinch of salt, but it does raise some interesting questions relevant to the current debate.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/
The topic of the article is 'What happened before the big bang?' Hawking argues that philosophy / philosophers can no longer contribute to these enquiries. He writers:
"How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Traditionally these were questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead," Hawking wrote. "Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics."
In support of Hawking's point of view I briefly discussed the interaction between philosophy and physics with Oxford's Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics Frank Close when he was in Edinburgh recently attending the Edinburgh International Science Festival. I asked Professor Close if he, as a theoretical physicist, worked alongside philosophers and believes that philosophy can contribute to his discipline. Professor Close explained that there is a joint undergraduate school of physics and philosophy at Oxford, but also agreed that to "do" theoretical physics, students have to be comfortable with high-level mathematics.
This got me thinking about the difference between theoretical physics, mathematics and philosophy. The key difference between all three is the type of questions they address, but I'm still struggling to define this difference other than by listing the questions for each discipline.
We can't simply say that philosophy is unique in addressing the 'big' questions, because theoretical physics addresses some of the biggest questions of all. Unless, of course, we say that by addressing these questions physicists are doing philosophy....which seems to be a bit circular.
Is it true that philosophers no longer tend to try and construct all-consuming theories about the way that mankind understands the world, along the lines of Descartes, Hume, Kant and Wittgenstein? If it is true then do we have to accept that philosophy is, if not dead, at least very different from how it was in previous centuries?
I'm looking forward to reading some more recent philosophy as we proceed through the course to try and provide an answer to this."
"Lawrence is quite right about philosophy being characterized by specific questions (paying attention to logic etc. is definitely part of it, but as you say, this is not specific to philosophy). My question to you both then is, what is really specific about philosophical questions? (traditional or otherwise)"
This is my response:
"I agree that this is a very interesting - and also difficult question. I have to confess that I'm struggling to provide a good answer.
A few months ago I read an article about philosophy and theoretical physics discussing the 'philosophy is dead' argument that Simon mentions. This time the antagonist was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, Stephen Hawking. I have to confess that ever since I tried to read Hawking's unintelligible 'Brief History of Time' I have taken everything he says with a pinch of salt, but it does raise some interesting questions relevant to the current debate.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/
The topic of the article is 'What happened before the big bang?' Hawking argues that philosophy / philosophers can no longer contribute to these enquiries. He writers:
"How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Traditionally these were questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead," Hawking wrote. "Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics."
In support of Hawking's point of view I briefly discussed the interaction between philosophy and physics with Oxford's Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics Frank Close when he was in Edinburgh recently attending the Edinburgh International Science Festival. I asked Professor Close if he, as a theoretical physicist, worked alongside philosophers and believes that philosophy can contribute to his discipline. Professor Close explained that there is a joint undergraduate school of physics and philosophy at Oxford, but also agreed that to "do" theoretical physics, students have to be comfortable with high-level mathematics.
This got me thinking about the difference between theoretical physics, mathematics and philosophy. The key difference between all three is the type of questions they address, but I'm still struggling to define this difference other than by listing the questions for each discipline.
We can't simply say that philosophy is unique in addressing the 'big' questions, because theoretical physics addresses some of the biggest questions of all. Unless, of course, we say that by addressing these questions physicists are doing philosophy....which seems to be a bit circular.
Is it true that philosophers no longer tend to try and construct all-consuming theories about the way that mankind understands the world, along the lines of Descartes, Hume, Kant and Wittgenstein? If it is true then do we have to accept that philosophy is, if not dead, at least very different from how it was in previous centuries?
I'm looking forward to reading some more recent philosophy as we proceed through the course to try and provide an answer to this."
Saturday, January 21, 2012
David Hume (1711-1776)
If I had to select one, and only one, philosopher to study (which fortunately I don't!) then that philosopher would be David Hume.
Hume was born in Edinburgh, Scotland and is now recognised as one of the most important figures in Western philosophy, being a key figure in the Scottish Enlightenment. He is often grouped with John Locke (1632-1704) and George Berkeley (1685-1753), all of whom promoted an empiricist approach to philosophy which is based on evidence and observation (i.e. scientific method) as opposed to a priori ('arm-chair') reasoning.
Hume wrote extensively on philosophy, history and economics. To my mind his essays are surprisingly readable considering they are 270 years old. The National Library of Scotland holds several of his manuscripts, all of which are free to request by library members.
Two of Hume's most famous philosophical works are A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40) and Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals (1777). It is mainly these two works that I will refer to for subsequent posts on Hume.
His talents were perhaps not fully appreciated by his mother, who is reported to have said of her youngest son "Our Davie 's a fine good natured crater, but uncommon wake-minded". He studied at Edinburgh University, "passing the ordinary course of education with success", leaving with at least a fair knowledge of Latin and at least an acquaintance with Greek.
Literary influences at the start of his career include Cicero and Seneca as well as works by Locke, Berkeley and Joseph Butler (1692-1752). From a relatively early age, Hume displayed a passion for literature and investigations into human nature.
The first choice of a profession, that of law, made for him by his relatives who thought it suited his "studious habits, sobriety, and industry", proved unsuccessful. In 1734 he travelled to Bristol with the intention of entering into a "more active" mercantile life. Fortunately for us, he quickly "found the scene wholly unsuitable" and in the same year left for France. He visited Paris, Rheims and settled in La Flèche, famous in the history of philosophy as the school of René Descartes (1596,1650). It was while resident in France that he wrote Treatise.
Treastise comprises three books (i) Of the Understanding, (ii) Of the Passions, and (iii) Of Morals. The first two volumes were published in 1739 with the third following the next year. Their reception was somewhat underwhelming, as Hume vividly describes "Never literary attempt was more unfortunate; it fell dead-born from the press, without reaching such distinction as even to excite a mumur among the zealots". "But, being naturally of a cheerful and sanguine temper, I very soon recovered the blow, and prosecuted with great ardour my studies in the country".
The disclaimer of the Treatise in the preface to the Inquiry is famous, but has more to do with his disappointment at the reception of the Treatise than its shortcomings as a work of philosophy. The Advertisement, which is printed at the beginning of the 1777 posthumous reprint of Hume's Collected Essays in 1777 (i.e. the Enquiry), declares the author's desire that "the following pieces may alone be regarded as containing his philosophical sentiments and principles"
I will return to Hume's Treatise in my next post.
To finish, I will just underline the philosophical influence Hume has had by referring to some quotes from other philosophers (from Wikipedia):
Hume was born in Edinburgh, Scotland and is now recognised as one of the most important figures in Western philosophy, being a key figure in the Scottish Enlightenment. He is often grouped with John Locke (1632-1704) and George Berkeley (1685-1753), all of whom promoted an empiricist approach to philosophy which is based on evidence and observation (i.e. scientific method) as opposed to a priori ('arm-chair') reasoning.
Hume wrote extensively on philosophy, history and economics. To my mind his essays are surprisingly readable considering they are 270 years old. The National Library of Scotland holds several of his manuscripts, all of which are free to request by library members.
Two of Hume's most famous philosophical works are A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40) and Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals (1777). It is mainly these two works that I will refer to for subsequent posts on Hume.
His talents were perhaps not fully appreciated by his mother, who is reported to have said of her youngest son "Our Davie 's a fine good natured crater, but uncommon wake-minded". He studied at Edinburgh University, "passing the ordinary course of education with success", leaving with at least a fair knowledge of Latin and at least an acquaintance with Greek.
Literary influences at the start of his career include Cicero and Seneca as well as works by Locke, Berkeley and Joseph Butler (1692-1752). From a relatively early age, Hume displayed a passion for literature and investigations into human nature.
The first choice of a profession, that of law, made for him by his relatives who thought it suited his "studious habits, sobriety, and industry", proved unsuccessful. In 1734 he travelled to Bristol with the intention of entering into a "more active" mercantile life. Fortunately for us, he quickly "found the scene wholly unsuitable" and in the same year left for France. He visited Paris, Rheims and settled in La Flèche, famous in the history of philosophy as the school of René Descartes (1596,1650). It was while resident in France that he wrote Treatise.
Treastise comprises three books (i) Of the Understanding, (ii) Of the Passions, and (iii) Of Morals. The first two volumes were published in 1739 with the third following the next year. Their reception was somewhat underwhelming, as Hume vividly describes "Never literary attempt was more unfortunate; it fell dead-born from the press, without reaching such distinction as even to excite a mumur among the zealots". "But, being naturally of a cheerful and sanguine temper, I very soon recovered the blow, and prosecuted with great ardour my studies in the country".
The disclaimer of the Treatise in the preface to the Inquiry is famous, but has more to do with his disappointment at the reception of the Treatise than its shortcomings as a work of philosophy. The Advertisement, which is printed at the beginning of the 1777 posthumous reprint of Hume's Collected Essays in 1777 (i.e. the Enquiry), declares the author's desire that "the following pieces may alone be regarded as containing his philosophical sentiments and principles"
I will return to Hume's Treatise in my next post.
To finish, I will just underline the philosophical influence Hume has had by referring to some quotes from other philosophers (from Wikipedia):
- Kant credited Hume with awakening him from "dogmatic slumbers".
- According to Schopenhauer, "there is more to be learned from each page of David Hume than from the collected philosophical works of Hegel, Herbart and Schleiermacher taken together".
- A. J. Ayer, introducing his classic exposition of logical positivism (Language, Truth and Logic), claimed: "The views which are put forward in this treatise derive from the logical outcome of the empiricism of Berkeley and Hume."
- Albert Einstein wrote that he was inspired by Hume's positivism when formulating his Special Theory of Relativity.
- Hume was called "the prophet of the Wittgensteinian revolution" by N. Phillipson, referring to his view that mathematics and logic are closed systems, disguised tautologies, and have no relation to the world of experience.
- David Fate Norton asserted that Hume was "the first post-sceptical philosopher of the early modern period".
- Hume's Problem of Induction was also of fundamental importance to the philosophy of Karl Popper. In his autobiography, Unended Quest, he wrote: "'Knowledge' ... is objective; and it is hypothetical or conjectural. This way of looking at the problem made it possible for me to reformulate Hume's problem of induction". This insight resulted in Popper's major work The Logic of Scientific Discovery. In his Conjectures and Refutations, he writes: "I approached the problem of induction through Hume. Hume, I felt, was perfectly right in pointing out that induction cannot be logically justified".
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
epistemology and æsthetics
Before proceeding with further considerations on the meaning of 'philosophy', I need to define epistemology, which is a term that appears frequently in philosophical writing.
Given that Wikipedia is down today, in protest at the United States' 'Stop Online Piracy' and 'Protect Intellectual Property' Bills, I turn to the Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry."
Andrew Seth argues in Britannica that there is frequently confusion between psychology and the theory of knowledge. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is credited with first clearly making the distinction between the two, repeatedly insisting that his Critique of Pure Reason was not to be taken as a psychological enquiry. He defined his problem as the quid juris or the question of the validity of knowledge, not its quid facti, or the laws of the empirical genesis and evolution of intellection.
Britannica has a wonderful paragraph which brings this all together as follows:
"Appearing thus, first, as the problem of perception (in Locke and his English successors), widening its scope and becoming, in Kant's hands, the question of the possibility of experience in general, epistemology may be said to have passed with Hegel into a completely articulated "logic," that claimed to be at the same time a metaphysic, or an ultimate expression of the nature of the real. This introduces us to the second part of the question we are seeking to determine, namely, the relation of epistemology to metaphysics".
"These are ultimately two sides of the same enquiry. But it is not every thinker that can see his way with Hegel to assert in set terms the identity of thought and being. Hence the theory of knowledge becomes with some a theory of human ignorance."
I think this brings us neatly back to Wittgenstein.
Now I move on to æsthetics, which, according to Britannica may be treated as a department of psychology or physiology, which is the most frequent mode of treatment in England.
To what peculiar excitation of our bodily or mental organism, it is asked, are the emotions due which make us declare an object beautiful or sublime?
From Britannica:
The remaining sections of the Britannica article which I have not commented on relate to ethics, or moral philosophy as it tends to be referred to in modern times. There is clearly a huge amount of thinking to be done on moral questions such as what is good, the principle of duty, the issue of free will and ultimately the laws of morality. I am very much looking forward to exploring these questions.
You may want to check out the excellent video series 'Justice' recorded at Harvard University with Michael Sandel for an introduction to some of the questions addressed by moral philosophy.
Given that Wikipedia is down today, in protest at the United States' 'Stop Online Piracy' and 'Protect Intellectual Property' Bills, I turn to the Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry."
Andrew Seth argues in Britannica that there is frequently confusion between psychology and the theory of knowledge. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is credited with first clearly making the distinction between the two, repeatedly insisting that his Critique of Pure Reason was not to be taken as a psychological enquiry. He defined his problem as the quid juris or the question of the validity of knowledge, not its quid facti, or the laws of the empirical genesis and evolution of intellection.
Britannica has a wonderful paragraph which brings this all together as follows:
"Appearing thus, first, as the problem of perception (in Locke and his English successors), widening its scope and becoming, in Kant's hands, the question of the possibility of experience in general, epistemology may be said to have passed with Hegel into a completely articulated "logic," that claimed to be at the same time a metaphysic, or an ultimate expression of the nature of the real. This introduces us to the second part of the question we are seeking to determine, namely, the relation of epistemology to metaphysics".
"These are ultimately two sides of the same enquiry. But it is not every thinker that can see his way with Hegel to assert in set terms the identity of thought and being. Hence the theory of knowledge becomes with some a theory of human ignorance."
I think this brings us neatly back to Wittgenstein.
Now I move on to æsthetics, which, according to Britannica may be treated as a department of psychology or physiology, which is the most frequent mode of treatment in England.
To what peculiar excitation of our bodily or mental organism, it is asked, are the emotions due which make us declare an object beautiful or sublime?
From Britannica:
- A mere reference of these emotions to the mechanism and interactive play of our faculties cannot be regarded as an account of the nature of the beautiful
- In the case of a beautiful object, the resultant pleasure borrows its specific quality from the presence of determinations essentially intellectual in their nature, though not reducible to the categories of science
- We have a prima facie right, therefore, to treat beauty as an objective determination of things
- The question of æsthetics would then be formulated - What is it in things that make them beautiful, and what is the relation of this aspect of the universe to its ultimate nature, as that is expounded in metaphysics
The remaining sections of the Britannica article which I have not commented on relate to ethics, or moral philosophy as it tends to be referred to in modern times. There is clearly a huge amount of thinking to be done on moral questions such as what is good, the principle of duty, the issue of free will and ultimately the laws of morality. I am very much looking forward to exploring these questions.
You may want to check out the excellent video series 'Justice' recorded at Harvard University with Michael Sandel for an introduction to some of the questions addressed by moral philosophy.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Inaugural post
Philosophy Explained will share my progress undertaking an online study course 'Introduction to Philosophy' from the Oxford Department for Continuing Education.
Starting in April 2012 and lasting for ten weeks, the objective of the course is described as follows:
"Even as our knowledge continually expands, philosophical questions asked since the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers continue to perplex us. This course offers students the opportunity to explore four topics in philosophy - knowledge, reality, free will and morality. Through a series of guided readings, and participation in discussions and other online events, you will not only learn how philosophers have tackled these topics, but learn how to tackle them for yourselves."
Prior to the official kick-off in April, I'm going to have a look at the reading list and share some thoughts on general philosophical matters. If all goes to plan, I aim to update my blog daily.
As an undergraduate I studies PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) at Oxford. To misquote George Bernard Shaw, education is wasted on the young (I probably spent a little too much time on the river) so I'm hoping that a bit of life experience will help me get the most from the course. Who knows, maybe it will lead to something more.
It will also be interesting to me to see how the Internet adds to the experience of studying an academic subject - perhaps this can be topic for a future blog post.
For my degree I took five philosophy papers:
I hope you enjoy reading my blog and would welcome questions, comments and feedback.
Starting in April 2012 and lasting for ten weeks, the objective of the course is described as follows:
"Even as our knowledge continually expands, philosophical questions asked since the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers continue to perplex us. This course offers students the opportunity to explore four topics in philosophy - knowledge, reality, free will and morality. Through a series of guided readings, and participation in discussions and other online events, you will not only learn how philosophers have tackled these topics, but learn how to tackle them for yourselves."
Prior to the official kick-off in April, I'm going to have a look at the reading list and share some thoughts on general philosophical matters. If all goes to plan, I aim to update my blog daily.
As an undergraduate I studies PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) at Oxford. To misquote George Bernard Shaw, education is wasted on the young (I probably spent a little too much time on the river) so I'm hoping that a bit of life experience will help me get the most from the course. Who knows, maybe it will lead to something more.
It will also be interesting to me to see how the Internet adds to the experience of studying an academic subject - perhaps this can be topic for a future blog post.
For my degree I took five philosophy papers:
- general philosophy
- moral and political philosophy
- continental philosophy
- the philosophy of Kant
- Russell and Wittgenstein
I hope you enjoy reading my blog and would welcome questions, comments and feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)