Hacker News Reader

Comment by skyechurch | Hacker News Reader

Alternatively: placing finger on the peak of Olympus Mons on Martian map

"I am not here now". I'm not seeing the problem.

There are a lot of philosophy 'problems' like this, which leads me to think philosophers lead blessed, problem-free lives.

View on HN

Do you think that mathematicians are drama queens because "2a = 4, solve for a" is a "math problem"? Just because something is intuitively simple doesn't mean that you don't have to account for it in a formal system. The intuitive solution for a lot of simple questions is incorrect in some cases. (How do you determine the length of a word?)

In your example, "here" is semantically different from the "here" in the answering machine case and doesn't result in a paradox.

You probably haven't thought deeply about the problems. Usually they expose some issue with our concepts or assumptions. Things we take to be obvious and simple aren't always on careful reflection.

On the one hand, these puzzles often arise as counter-examples to a theory within analytical philosophy, and unless you understand what they are a counter-example to, they seem pointless and even ridiculous. For example, when Russell posed his famous paradox to Frege, he was not trying to find out who shaves the barber.

On the other hand, perhaps we should consider whether analytical philosophy, following the linguistic turn [1], is creating problems for itself when it tries to find metaphysical truth by analyzing human language as if it were a formal system. For example, when David Chalmers says "even God could not create a male vixen", is he mistaking an accidental lexicographical fact for a metaphysical insight?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn

This may be true, but if it is the canadian journal of philosophy is doing their reputation no favors by publishing the "answering machine paradox". Paradox. Paradox. That's a funny word, isn't it? Paradox.

A paradox is just a statement that is self-contradictory. It doesn't mean a difficult or mind-bending problem as it is sometimes used colloquially.

No, that's pretty much what the word "paradox" used to mean, but logicians of the late XIX–early XX century had hijacked it.

    PARADOX, in philoſophy, a propoſition ſeemingly abſurd,
      as being contrary to to ſome received opinion, but yet true
      in fact.
        No ſcience abounds more with paradoxes than geome-
      try: thus, that a right line ſhould continually approach
      to the hyperbola, and yet never reach it, is a true para-
      dox; and in the ſame manner, a ſpiral may continually
      approach to the point, and yet not reach it, in any number
      of revolutions, however great.

                                 Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1771,
                                                  Vol. 3, p. 455

They normally expose some problem with our language, and nothing deeper than that. This is a perfect example.

I was being glib, of course. Presumably there's some legitimate technical philosophical issue, and actual philosophers are capable of using answering machines and even landline telephones without having all their assumptions about reality collapse around them like a PKD novel (those born prior to 1980, anyway). But, like Jay Z, I've got problems of a more pressing nature, and legitimately don't see how this matters.

(See also the 'Problem' of Induction, which I had to spend a great deal of time on in college, and even after reading centuries of debate about it, is the least problematic 'problem' I've ever encountered. Maybe this is a linguistic issue, and philosophers should stop calling things 'problems' when the rest of us have to make rent.)

Math problems are quite similar in this way!

... not the ones involving the rent check.

If you have problems of a more pressing nature, why are you faffing about on HN?

It smells like you are just mocking people for being interested in thinking about things. Why?

This is also why people don't like philosophers. You have no monopoly on "thinking about things" and you aren't being mocked for doing that.

The implication here seems to be that people can't think about and discuss philosophical problems and also take care of more immediate physical concerns at the same time. Do you feel that way about other intellectual endeavors without immediate applications, like "pure" science and mathematics?

Hehe, you’re replying to a comment that exposed issues with the stated assumptions behind the so-called paradox.

> leads me to think philosophers lead blessed, problem-free lives.

I agree, perhaps with the qualification of 'eventually', having been both of these people:

    1) someone born dirt poor who had to spend every waking moment to feed myself
    2) someone who can pontificate in comment sections

As my life became more blessed I could afford more philosophy.

Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach wander philosophically.

Playing with ourselves. Man plans, god laughs. Everyone has a plan until they get hit in the mouth. I could go on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com