Comments on: David Lewis

By: james w. sperman

james w. sperman — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 05:04:50 +0000

so, since i only (completely) believe what i know to be true, and since i have skeptical leanings, i should apparently avoid publishing like dubbya avoids critical thinking ;) …though maybe jj would cut me some slack if i include a big fat asterisk denoting my lack of belief (faith?) in the conclusion of the given argument.

By: Peter J. King

Peter J. King — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:58:13 +0000

Sorry about the double posting; the first attempt received an error message, hence the second. PJK

By: Peter J. King

Peter J. King — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:55:28 +0000

To jj: I’d agree that there’s a lot wrong with modern philosophy, but I’m not sure that you’ve picked on either the worst or even a major problem. Are you saying this because you know a lot of philosophers who confide in you that they don’t hold the views for which they publish arguments (it isn’t my experience), or what? (David Lewis certainly couldn’t be accused of any such thing—and although I have little time for Berkeley, I don’t see why you accuse him of it either.) Your comment on Lewis’ modal realism was also perplexing. What exactly do you take to be wrong with either the claim or the argument that other possible worlds exist in just the way that our does? I wonder if your belief that philosophers publish arguments for positions that they don’t hold is based purely on the fact that they publish arguments for positions that you don’t hold?

By: Peter J. King

Peter J. King — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:52:35 +0000

By: jj

jj — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:34:46 +0000

To Peter King: Yes, I agree that good arguments lead to truth. The problem is that people often publish clever arguments and present the conclusion as true though they dont believe the conclusion. A good philosopher will call this a puzzle or a paradox and dig deeper to try to solve it. A less than good philosopher will be content with presenting the argument as sound, get published and advance his career. I dont see how anyone can deny this as a pervasive feature of present day philosophy. And I dont see how anyone can claim that this is an optimal situation. By the way, I think Berkeley is guilty of the same charge, so maybe its not just contemporary philosophy.

By: Peter J. King

Peter J. King — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:56:56 +0000

Interesting to see the discussion generated by the original comment (and, incidentally, I’m glad that Brian liked the comments on Lews). Wittgenstein is a good example of a philosopher who, only twenty years ago, would have been considered one of the permanent greats, but whose work has in fact been very much eclipsed (I’d say that that was warranted; others might disagree). He certainly wasn’t of Lewis’ generation, though. Rawls has enormous influence but, first, influence isn’t the same as quality, and secondly, he worked in a very narrow area. As for “jj”—I’m not quite sure what his or her access to the truth is, but most of us have to make do with arguments and (where relevant) evidence. It’s a concern for truth that makes argument essential; if you only want personal, psychological certainty, I suppose there’s always faith…

By: jj

jj — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 03:21:55 +0000

“What mattered to him – what he loved – were the ideas, the arguments, the philosophy, not winning or being right. He was the ideal, the model philosopher; he’s also (and this is a very different matter) widely regarded as being the best philosopher of his generation – perhaps of the twentieth century. (Emphasis added.)” I’m surprised “truth” wasn’t mentioned as “what matters” to philosophers. It doesn’t take a genius to note that many contemporary analytic philosophers value clever arguments over truth. This is not good and I fear that Lewis propagated this bad habit. For those who are not familiar with his work. he argued that merely possible worlds exist in exactly the same sense that our world exists.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:49:43 +0000

Daniel- McGinn wrote a book on Wittgenstein and taught regularly on him for some time. At one point he said some of his work was influenced by W., though how far and to what degree is surely debatable.

By: roger

roger — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:45:56 +0000

The idea of disputing over the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century is a little like that old Saturday Night Live skit about who would win if Jesus Christ battled Superman. It is very unphilosophisch. Oh, and of course the answer is—Superman. But then Spiderman would beat him.

By: David

David — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:19:09 +0000

“The model philosopher indeed.” You left out a word. “The model railway philosopher indeed.” See this obituary for the explanation: http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,579258,00.html

By: Enzo Rossi

Enzo Rossi — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:11:04 +0000

Anybody arguing over whether Lewis was really the ‘best’ has clearly missed the point of Brian’s original post. That’s right. Sorry, my fault I guess. It’s just that it was very difficult to resist the temptation to start arguing about this sort of thing :-P

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:05:17 +0000

Matt— How’d Colin McGinn sneak into your list? And how can we forget Habermas or Heidegger?

By: George

George — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:46:45 +0000

Anybody arguing over whether Lewis was really the ‘best’ has clearly missed the point of Brian’s original post.

By: Enzo Rossi

Enzo Rossi — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:41:05 +0000

These guys are not in Lewis’s generation. Quine was born in 1910 and was David’s adviser. Rawls was born in 1921 I think. David was born in 1941. Right, but what I had in mind was an academic sense of ‘generation’: think about the period in which Lewis’ major works appeared, and you’ll agree that he and Rawls have exercised their influence on the same generation of philosophers. As for Quine, it’s true that he published very influential stuff in the fifties, but then you’d have to deny that he and Rawls are from the same generation, which is what I take you to be saying :)

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:38:43 +0000

To follow up on Brian’s post- It’s my understanding the Lewis’s Convention had a strong influence on people working in game theory, though now more as an important start than as the position most people actually hold. (This impression comes from talking to people, not working in the field, though, so it may well be off.)