[Bups-dis] On the nature of philosophical problems

[L Chan]

Dear Ronald (if I may),

Cheers for your response.

I was merely raising a question regarding philosophical
methodology/style, rather than a philosophical problem in itself. But
I have also noticed on various occasions the formulation of
philosophical problems in terms of paradox- for example,

The shirt is brown.
What I see is not brown.
Therefore, what I see is not the shirt.

This puzzle concerning the nature of perceptual experience appears to
lead us to the conclusion that I am seeing something other than the
shirt, when it may in fact be due to a change in observation
conditions, such as less than optimum lighting for instance.

There are many other similarly structured 'puzzles', that I am sure
you are aware of.

So to clarify, my question isn't so much whether or not paradoxes in
general are philosophical problems, but whether or not philosophical
problems must inherently be cast in terms of paradoxes, to indicate
the problematic nature of the philosophical problem.

I'd be grateful to hear your views...

Best Regards,
Lishan


On 4/1/07, Ronald King <ron_king at tesco.net> wrote:
> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS at bups.org
> -
>
> Hello Lishan,
> Chesterton said that a paradox is truth standing on its head to demand attention. Chambers dictionary says that a paradox is a statement that seems to contradict itself. A good example would be the Gilbertian paradox from Pirates of Penzance when a man is twenty years old on his fifth birthday. He was of course born on 29th February in leap year.
>
> It looks to me as if all paradoxes are philosophical problems. How about the problem you have set us? Must all philosophical puzzles take the form of a paradox? This has no contdadictory content therefor it is not a paradox.
> Therefor ................
>
> Highest Regards,
>
> Ron King


-- 
'In logic, there are no morals.' -Rudolf Carnap