Alex asked:

‘Temporary Epiphany’ is what I call it when it happens, as I am unsure if there is a word for it. Sometimes when I am puzzling over the vast expanse of the universe or the amazing probability of human existence, I will be overcome with a sudden extraordinary understanding of the subject, unable to translate the feeling into words, it quickly subsides and I can no longer remember what it was I had just ‘seen’ in any great detail.

Has this ‘phenomenon’ ever come up in your studies? I wish to understand more about this subject but I have searched without prevail.

Answer by Shaun Williamson

It is wrong to call this a temporary epiphany. There is a great difference between ‘understanding something’ and ‘feeling that you understand something’. You shouldn’t confuse these two things.

Intense feelings of understanding life and the universe are quite familiar to people who take recreational drugs or to people who consume large amounts of alcohol. They may be interesting as feelings but they should be compared with dreams and fantasies and not confused with reality or real understanding.

Shaun Williamson developed the Ask a Philosopher cgi script question.pl. He did his postgraduate studies on the philosophy of Wittgenstein.

James asked:

A friend proposed the following argument (which he asserts is a syllogism) as evidence for Theism.

Please note, we’re not arguing whether or not it is reasonable to believe in God. Only about the validity and soundness of this argument.

Answer by Jürgen Lawrenz

In order to qualify as a syllogism, your 3 points would have to put at least one proposition that is universally accepted. Point 1 in this argument is merely a negative and consequently does not qualify unless you wish to prove a negative as the outcome. Further it is inadmissible since it is incomplete – for the negative to hold you would have include all possible arguments of what ‘time is not’.

Next, Point 2 is already questionable: Not everyone, neither scientists nor philosophers, are agreed that the universe had to come into existence. It is entirely possible that the universe is just a brute fact and eternal in the sense of cycling infinitely through various states of existence. The steady state conception of the universe is a case in point.

Further: It cannot be demonstrated scientifically that the universe as we understand it is ‘all there is’. What we know of it may well be just a little corner of activity and heat. You should consider in this context that being able to detect energy is our sole means of establishing the existence of something. If there is no energy, then we are reduced to guessing – in other words to intellectual games.

It follows that Point 3 is an untenable conclusion from the incomplete negativity of Point 1. Whether time does possess any qualities at all is merely a debating point and wholly dependent on the cosmological paradigm that one or the other speculant espouses. Hence it cannot be said to share any qualities whatever with ‘God’ – and I note here that your ‘syllogism’ makes no effort to define what the term ‘God’ represents – as if it was self-understood. The Christian conception itself is not a single one, but a variety and depends on the theological particulars of the various creeds.

Philosophers have warned us repeatedly: Logic can prove things that exist, but not confer existence on matters that exist in logic alone. But your proposition is neither a logical chain nor even a plausible succession of propositions. Hence your syllogism fails on every count.

Jürgen Lawrenz at PhiloSophos.com

Answer by Stuart Burns

The easiest way to critique this argument is to address each clause in turn.

1) I think get your point — you are listing all of the known possibilities that you think time might be categorized as. But your premise is flawed because you left out ‘plasma’, and also ‘geometric property of space-time’. There may be other ‘obvious’ categories that should be included, but I can’t think of them off the top.

2) I do not agree that it is necessary that the world came into existence. To assume such is to preclude the possibility that the world has always existed (ie. is infinitely old). And I cannot figure out what role the clause ‘and its continued existence as we know it’ plays in this premise. It is, at the very least ungrammatical. Perhaps you might expand on the thought? I might make a guess, and guess that you are trying to capture the thought that the continued existence of the world (‘as we know it’) requires time. With that, I have no problem.

3) This step contains a whole plethora of debatable assumptions, and unsupported assertions.

(a) You have not provided any support for the assertion that ‘time possesses qualities unlike any other phenomena’. Nor have you provided any support for the assertion that time is in fact a phenomena (possessing qualities). A ‘phenomenon’ is any observable occurrence [Macmillan Dictionary Online]. You have ignored the possibility that time is but a manifestation of the geometry of the 4 (or is it 11) dimensional space-time manifold. And you have ignored the possibility that time might be an ‘artificial construct’ like a center of gravity. In neither of these cases would time be a ‘phenomenon’ in the sense you need here.

(b) You have not provided any support for the assertion that time ‘shares qualities with the Christian conception of a deity’. Given that the qualities customarily associated with the ‘Christian conception of a deity’ are both highly debatable and mutually contradictory, many of which are unproblematically not qualities normally associated with time, it behooves you to provide some support for this assertion.

(c) What ‘positive evidence’? No evidence (positive or negative) has been provided. You have provided no evidence, assumptions, or even claims for what time is, or of what properties it might have. You have provided no evidence, assumptions, or even claims for what ‘such a God’ is, or of what properties she might have.

(d) You have not provided any criteria for what would count as being a ‘reasonable proposition’ to believe, or what factors would motivate a belief in such a ‘reasonable proposition’.

Now, admittedly, some of the missing elements of this argument may be treated as ‘standardly acknowledged background’ depending on the rest of the argument. But given the fact that the argument is being advanced to prove such a contentious conclusion, it demands more than simply unsubstantiated assertions to back it up. Which is more likely – that the author has discovered an argument that has eluded the brightest philosophers for many millennia, or that the author has made a factual or logical error? The overwhelming likelihood of the latter possibility demands a more detailed specification of the argument than you have provided here. If the author is in fact right, and the fully detailed argument is both valid and sound, he will have to prove it.

The author you mention may be an expert in science (although you provide no evidence of that), but he is certainly not an expert in logic or philosophy. If he had any familiarity with either, he would recognize that the argument as stated here is neither valid nor sound, nor an example of any of the 24 valid syllogism types. The argument is invalid because the conclusion is a non sequitur – the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premises and the conclusion. The argument is unsound because at least one of the premises is not true. (In fact, I think all of them are false. But all that is required to render the argument unsound is that only one of them is not true.)

http://www3.sympatico.ca/saburns/pg00cv.htm

Reply by Helier Robinson

First of all there are two kinds of time: time as a dimension, and passage of time. The first is static, like a line, and the second our sensation of time passing, as if we are travelling along that temporal dimension. Many believe that passage of time is an illusion because of the difficulties that arise with it, but no one has been able to explain why we have such an illusion. It is fairly safe to say that problems with time give scientists and philosophers more trouble than any other problem. Which kind of time is your opponent talking about?

The nearest we can get to saying what time is, is to say that it is relational. Before and after are terms of temporal relations, and duration is a relation having earlier and later as its terms. So there’s no dispute that time is not a solid, liquid, or gas, a form of radiation or energy.

Are you sure that it is absolutely necessary for the world to have come into existence and its continued existence as we know it? The evidence for the big bang is very good, but ‘absolutely necessary’?

Concerning point three, what are the qualities that time possesses unlike any other phenomena, and what are the qualities that time shares with the Christian conception of a deity? Without more detail, this third paragraph does not make much sense.

Concerning the validity and soundness of the argument, it certainly is not a syllogism, which is an argument consisting of two categorical propositions and a categorical conclusion, with just three terms in the three propositions: the major term (the predicate of the conclusion), the minor term (the subject of the conclusion), and the middle term(which occurs in each premise). The argument you give has two propositions and a conclusion, but otherwise it is not a syllogism. In fact it has so little logical structure that it is hardly an argument at all. Perhaps you have done an injustice to your opponent by presenting it badly; if he feels so, ask him to rephrase it and send it back to us.

Helier Robinson is Emeritus Professor in Philosophy, University of Guelph. His books are available from http://SharebooksPublishing.com.

Answer by Shaun Williamson

James don’t worry about us being blatantly honest. Your friend doesn’t know what a syllogism is.

1. Is certainly true but who would ever think that time was a gas or a solid. Time is an abstract concept, it is not a physical thing.

2. Is nonsense but if it were true then we would not need the concept of a god who created the world. It the existence of the world is necessary then we don’t need a god to create it.

3. Time doesn’t share any qualities with the Christian concept of god. Time is an abstract concept, god refers to an individual being who may or may not exist.

Shaun Williamson developed the Ask a Philosopher cgi script question.pl. He did his postgraduate studies on the philosophy of Wittgenstein.

Paul asked:

What makes someone a philosopher?

Answer by Shaun Williamson

The word ‘philosophy’ can have many different uses. So we can talk about the philosophy of animal husbandry or the philosophy of hair dressing. Philosophy can just mean the most fundamental ideas about something.

However there is a much narrower definition of philosophy. Philosophy is the study of truth, the scope of human knowledge and logic that first started in ancient Greece. This philosophy was always an academic subject and Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were all teachers and founded schools.

The people who answer questions here are qualified in this sort of philosophy. Of course many people have the idea that philosophy is really just having deep ideas about life and they protest that surely you don’t need to study academic philosophy to do this. All you need to do is sit down in your armchair and think really deep thoughts. Well if you can do this, good luck but don’t expect other philosophers to be interested in your deep thoughts. Academic philosophers are far too busy with their own thoughts and are not looking out for wonderful untrained geniuses.

If you want to be a philosopher then, if you can, study philosophy and logic at a recognised university. If you can’t do this then you can still become a philosopher by reading all the books and reading them again until you understand them. You need to know all of the history of philosophy, there are no short cuts.

If you want to be a doctor then study medicine, if you want to be a philosopher then study philosophy. Philosophy is hard work and will make your brain hurt. Don’t do it unless you are dedicated and can stand the pain!

Shaun Williamson developed the Ask a Philosopher cgi script question.pl. He did his postgraduate studies on the philosophy of Wittgenstein.

Tamooo asked:

I was wondering, do you only answer questions about philosophy? or can anyone submit some questions about religion as well.

Answer by Shaun Williamson

You can submit questions about anything. The people who answer questions here have qualifications in philosophy, they may not be religious or have any interest in religion. However philosophers often have wide ranging interests in other subjects. It all depends upon the question. If no-one feels qualified to answer your question then you won’t get an answer.

Martin Jenkins received the ISFP Fellowship for his dissertation ‘Aristocratic Radicalism or Anarchy? An Examination of Nietzsche’s Doctrine of Will to Power’. He is a Pathways Mentor.

Answer by Geoffrey Klempner

Questions about anything under the sun can also be questions about philosophy. It depends on how you pose the question. Questions about physics, art, sport, the media, politics have all appeared in these pages. As have many questions about religion.

But when is a question about religion philosophical? It’s not enough to say that some question about religion has aspects which could be debated by philosophers. Most do, in some way or other. But that doesn’t make them philosophical. A question can have a religious or philosophical interest or point. I maintain that this point or interest can never really coincide in the case of religion and philosophy.

I don’t care for religion. As an atheist, I am expressing a personal taste. But there are plenty of religious people (including some who contribute to these pages) who are gripped by philosophy, sufficiently to ask questions in a philosophical rather than a religious spirit. About religion, we can agree to disagree, while finding plenty to discuss concerning the mind-body problem, or the nature of truth, or the basis of ethics, or the nature of knowledge, etc.

To ask a religious question, or to ask a question in a religious spirit, is always something more than merely seeking the truth. Contemporary theologians will argue that they have got past the ‘naive’ literal belief in a Heaven or Hell, but there remains an interest in eschatology in the widest sense. By conducting certain practices, or living your life in a particular way, or holding certain beliefs, there is the chance, the hope, of ‘salvation’.

You will find this religious element in other areas too, like psychology (e.g. Freudian psychoanalysis) or political thought (e.g. revolutionary Marxism).

Philosophers don’t seek salvation. There is no reward for knowing the truth, other than the pleasure of a successful hunt. Curiosity and wonder are the motivations of the true philosopher. And as the story of the deceased cat reminds us, there is no telling where curiosity will lead.

http://www.philosophypathways.com/vita.html

Ricky asked:

Explain how Hegel’s historical materialism tries to further the idea that the world is constantly perfecting itself. Be sure to explain how the Hegelian dialectic works in full detail. Use parliamentary democracy or the institution of science to show how Hegel’s philosophy of reality works.

Answer by Martin Jenkins

Ricky, I would connect Karl Marx rather than Hegel with Historical Materialism. He developed this theory upon the influence (this is a controversial area) of Hegel. Marx however, inverted Hegel’s Dialectic ‘the right side up’ to uncover the ‘rational kernel inside the mystical shell’. (Afterword to the 2nd German Edition of Capital.) This was based on the argument that Hegel had gone about things in the wrong way. Hegel had viewed human history as primarily the development of human consciousness, of the human mind moving towards the full realisation of itself in the Absolute Idea. In other words, the unity of subjective human consciousness with the objective consciousness of the Universe/God.

The dynamic behind this movement is Dialectic. It is comprised of three moments.

 • The Abstract or that of the Understanding.

 • The Dialectic or that of Negative Reason.

 • The Speculative or that of Positive Reason. (Encyclopaedia Logic #79)

Understanding cognises things as either/or. As traditional logic, it cannot deal with Contradiction. This had been the problem confronting previous philosophy-overcoming contradictions such as those between Infinite and Finite, One and Many, Freedom and Necessity and the like. This is announced most explicitly in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. In the part entitled Transcendental Dialectic, Kant describes such contradictions or Antinomies, Paralogisms and Ideals that confront Understanding. He believed Reason could not proceed beyond them.

Hegel however, maintained that his application of Dialectic can overcome them. Negative Reason brings forward the tensions in phenomena but Speculative or Positive Reason overcomes them. The negative is synthesised with the insights of positive Reason in the process of Aufgehoben: the superseding of the existing and its opposite and their preservation on a higher, cumulatively progressive outcome. For example, in the Logic, Doctrine of Being, Hegel begins to examine the concept of Being. This is examined and found to be almost indeterminate as it is so abstract. So much so that Negative Reason finds it to be Nothing. Nothing would traditionally be viewed as the irreconcilable opposite of something, of Being. As there are two moments – Being and Nothing – there is a movement of thought between the two. This movement is Becoming. So the negative dialectic between the two terms is solved by Positive or Speculative Reason in a third term – Becoming.

In the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences, a similar pattern is found between the three books (and the content of the Books themselves). The first-Logic, provides the very structure of Universal Thought. This provides the ‘framework’ for the content of Nature which is the concern of the second Book. The two combine -Form and Content if you like-in the Third Book, Mind or Spirit: the dialectical unity of the previous two subjects on a higher, more comprehensive level. Thus the development of human consciousness as Reason appears before itself, is ‘For-Itself’.

This process is both linear and cumulative. It is, teleological. Like the Final Cause of Aristotle, the final end is the fruition of ‘seeds’ found in the beginning. In fact, some scholars find a lot of Aristotle in Hegel. (See ‘The Concept’ by Mike Marchetti http://www.GWFHegel.com )

Philosophy of History

This pattern is also found in Hegel’s account of the Philosophy of History. History is nothing but the progress of the consciousness of Freedom. Reason is not only the fabric of the Universe (, when physicists read Mathematics in the universe, this would be Reason for Hegel. In so doing, we connect with the Mind of the Universe or God); Reason is also its energising power or dynamic. Historically, Reason has facilitated Freedom. There are distinct periods of World History: Oriental, Greek, Roman and the Germanic. In the oriental stage, only one person -the despot – is free. In the Greek and Roman, only some were free as both were slave societies. Finally, in the Germanic Nations, the influence of Christianity (Protestantism) brings with it the consciousness that humanity is free, so all should be and are free.

Hegel maintained that Freedom-as he viewed it-could only arise through the State. The State is not just a political entity, it is both historically cumulative and organic as it enshrines the culture of a people, its history, its religion. Reason as the Divine Idea on Earth, manifests itself in the Constitution of the State. Freedom is the synthesis of the individual, subjective Will with the Rational Will of the State. Parliamentary democracy proffers divisive groups, factions above the State. Hence Hegel favoured a Constitutional, ‘enlightened monarchy’ who would be guided by state officials. These in turn would oversee the various sections of society or ‘corporations’ as Hegel termed them. For the State wills what is good for the Whole and not just for a part or parts.

Reason, as elsewhere with Hegel, is the supreme end of things and Political society is no exception. Reason brings Freedom but Freedom has responsibilities to the State that provides it:

"In a Constitution, the main feature of interest is the self-development of the Rational. That is, the political condition of the people, the setting free of successive elements of the Idea, so that the several powers in the State manifest themselves as…and yet, in this independent condition, work together for one object and are held together by it. I.e. form an organic whole. The State is thus the embodiment of Rational Freedom, realising and recognising itself in an objective form."
GWF Hegel Introduction to the Philosophy of History

I hope this is of use Ricky.

Martin Jenkins received the ISFP Fellowship for his dissertation ‘Aristocratic Radicalism or Anarchy? An Examination of Nietzsche’s Doctrine of Will to Power’. He is a Pathways Mentor.

Charles asked:

My logic professor says that our logic textbook is wrong when it says that invalid arguments are also unsound. My logic professor says that it is a category mistake to call invalid arguments unsound. Instead, he says that invalid arguments are neither sound nor unsound, since the terms ‘sound’ and ‘unsound’ are only used to describe arguments that have already cleared the validity hurdle, so to speak. (Sound and unsound are species of the genus valid, he said, so there are three types of deductive arguments: invalid, valid and sound, and valid but unsound.)

Who should I trust, my logic textbook or my logic professor?

Answer by Craig Skinner

Truly a storm in a teacup, the sort of nit-picking that can give philosophy a bad name.

‘A sound argument is defined as a valid argument which has true premises’ (Guttenplan: The Languages of Logic, 2nd edition, p 26, Blackwell, 1997). All agree about this.

We could therefore say that all other arguments are not sound ( are unsound), including invalid ones. This is the stance of your logic textbook, also of the online Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy which says:

‘A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, an argument is unsound’.

Alternatively, we could hold, with your professor, that soundness/unsoundness apply only to valid arguments.

It’s not a question of right or wrong, but of convention as to how we use a word. It makes little difference one way or another – there are still three types of deductive arguments: invalid (and unsound); valid and sound; valid and unsound. None of the textbooks on my shelf (Hodges; Newton-Smith; Guttenplan; Priest; plus two advanced texts) takes a stance on this (trivial) matter. Which textbook are you referring to in your question?

Craig Skinner at PhiloSophos.com

Answer by Shaun Williamson

I don’t think it really matters. Although your professor has a point. An invalid argument isn’t really an argument. So it seems strange to say that it is sound or unsound. When you are going to accept or reject arguments you start with valid or invalid then you can move onto sound or unsound as a further classification of the valid ones.

However don’t trust me either, what do you think?

Shaun Williamson developed the Ask a Philosopher cgi script question.pl. He did his postgraduate studies on the philosophy of Wittgenstein.