Tag Archives: philosophy carnival

Philosophy Carnival #141

Welcome to the one hundred forty first philosophy carnival. In my internet travels I found some really cool philosophy inspired posters by Genis Carreras, which I have paired with the links to pretty up the carnival.

Zombies, because philosophers like zombies.

An introduction to the philosophical discussion of zombies
and dualism by Tom B. over at Philosophy of… which looks like a promising new blog contributing “in some humble way to this movement of the popularizing of philosophy, and try to convince a few of you that it’s not so boring, obscure and irrelevant as many assume.”

Jason Zarri at Philosophical Pontifications
posts a more in depth post on the consciousness of a scattered zombie brain. See what happens if at first we have zombie brain, except that this brain is made of people working all over China to simulate brain activity. What happens if parts of the brain (people) are replaced by neurons, ending up with a normal (if scattered) brain?

Professional level zombie discussion!
Richard Brown vs. Dave Chalmers, with Dr. Brown discussing the use modal operators when arguing for the conceivability of shombies (a subspecies of zombie). This discussion goes from possible worlds to identities, and leads to a revised argument which concludes that non-materialism is false. Go check out the argument!


This is my favorite post of the carnival: U-Phil: Deconstructing Dynamic Dutch-Books? by Deborah G. Mayo. It is about dogmatism in Bayesian epistemology when considering Dutch Book arguments, as viewed by a frequentist. This is great stuff.

Is There a Difference Between Memory and Imagination? Ok, this has little to do with dogma, but I had nowhere else to put it. Greg argues that remembering is closer to imagination since it is a reconstruction.

Experimental Issues

Tomkow proposes
that philosophical experimenters need to take more care in separating their philosophical intuitions from biasing their results. This makes me wonder if there are further chances for a philosopher to bias their test subjects beyond psychological factors– can philosophical opinions be projected in new and unusual ways beyond what we account for?

What happens when people are placed under linguistic constraints and need to communicate? Experimental semiotics provides some insight with combinatoriality (recurrence of basic forms), but Gualtiero Piccinini argues that natural language is more complex. He says it requires potential infinite complexity, which may not occur with only combinatoriality. Still, ES leads him to hypothesize the “Gavagai Game” of language generation, which could provide insight into language.


Two different ethical views are propounded this carnival:

James Armstrong discusses a humanistic approach to the basis of certain rights, namely the right to freedom of movement. The argument is grounded in “the right of individuals to live a minimally decent life,” justifying a strong position on immigration.

Richard Chappell, however, outlines a position where acts are evaluated on utility, not the character of the person doing them. By evaluating acts and not the person’s character, individual accidents of psychology which may make one person much more (in)sensitive to certain issues than others may be separated from their moral will. He argues that this position is highly practical.

The Business of Philosophy

Gregory Wheeler has an interesting set of posts about sampling problems in our favorite school ranking system, the Philosophical Gourmet Report: The Sampling Problem and Educational Imbalance.

Secondly the smokers have posted and been discussing some cool research done in the area of tenure-track philosophy hiring by Carolyn Dicey Jennings. So you want a philosophy job? Take a gander and these numbers! [Go BU!]

Two takes on Rule Following

Murali at the Leage of Ordinary Gentlemen argues for a basis of law on a two tier system, the distinction between habit and rule following, and an internal point of view.

Dave Maier discusses semantic rule following in Wittgenstein. This is actually a really good discussion of how we get caught in a bind of wanting both definitions and revisability when it comes to identifying fundamental measures, but I’m actually posting this because I want to point out that my duckrabbit is better (and more stylish) than his duckrabbit. My duckrabbit should be the standard duckrabbit. And what if my duckrabbit were to significantly change? Would we have to revise all other duckrabbits to account for the change? Of course not. Since it is so inconceivable that my duckrabbit should become fundamentally different, if it were to change, it would signify that we had lost our minds. So there is no problem here at all.

But What is Philosophy

Another article by Dave Maier, What is philosophy, again?, but this one over at 3 Quarks Daily.

My contribution to the carnival is that I am starting a new blog, The Road to Sippy Cups. My inaugural post is I Sneeze, Therefore I Am. I say on the about page, “Philosophy’s goal is to wean us off ideas — even if they had sustained us — because those ideas no longer provide us with what we need, and, hopefully, onto better ones.” And I will be writing, “metaphysics with an eye towards values, humans and society.” So I encourage you to go check it out.

If you have made it this far…

… you might be an internet philosopher!

So go over to the philosophy carnival page and sign up to host or submit your work!

Posted in fun, internet, philosophy. Tagged with , .

63rd Philosophers’ Carnival’s a Laugh

Welcome to the 63rd Philosophers’ Carnival. The subject was Comedy and there are three sections: the first is about theories of comedy and philosophy, and second is a roundup of recently funny things with a philosophical bent. At the end I put submissions of non-comedic philosophical musings.

Part 1: Comedic Theory

Did you hear the one about the philosopher writing a book on humour? via Continental Philosophy

Philosophy Through Humor on ‘Philosophy Talk’ radio program. Listen by clicking the Listen Online link on the page (they will ask for a fee if you try to download the file):

“Why did Nietzsche cross the road? To get beyond good and evil! How is a good joke like a good philosophical argument? Are philosophical tenets at the core of much of humor? To find out, join the philosophers and their guests, Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, authors of Plato and A Platypus Walk Into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes.”

A post called Not Pure Drivel discusses comedians with comic and philosophical insight at Ideas of Imperfection. Kieran also has this post on philosophical humor. It’s old but good.

My inspiration for this Carnival: The Birth of Comedy out of the Suicide of Tragedy. It’s a theory of comedy from Nietzsche that I found picking through The Birth of Tragedy, with modern examples from Leno and Letterman.


Part 2: Comedic Practice

New Philo-Gangsta Rap on Descartes from Philosophy Sucks! (There’s some mild cussing- nothing a ten year old wouldn’t know, but I figured I ought warn you.)

Harry Frankfurt (of On Bullshit fame) on The Daily Show via Leiter Reports. Make sure you get to part 2 of the clip.

Philosophy teams on fragments of consciousness. Maybe someone can start a running battle à la The Superest.

How to tell if you suck at telling philosophical jokes at A brood comb. Check out this (submitted to carnival but not funny) post while you are there.

Kant Attack Ad on Youtube. Check out the response: Nietzsche Attack Ad.

Something for the philosopher of mathematics to ponder: Mobius Battle on xkcd. I personally wonder about the haecceity of stick figures…

The Unprovability of False Hope. Another cartoon that made me smile at ThadGuy.com

Seize this Honkus! on the Philosophy Blog. You have likely seen it a long time ago, but that doesn’t make it any less awesome.

A Philosophy Job Market Blog‘s motto is, “It’d be funny if it were happening to someone else.” Funny sad, not funny ha-ha, but funny nonetheless about the trials and tribulations finding work in philosophy. I linked the whole blog (not only a single post) to show moral support.

And lastly, classic Bugs, Daffy and Elmer Fudd Loony Toons episodes are now up on Youtube. If Wittgenstein had only lived three more weeks he would have had a good laugh at the duck-rabbit confusion (My thanks to Opiniatrety for connecting Bugs-Daffy to Wittgenstein). Rabbit Fire (19 May 1951), Rabbit Seasoning (1952) and Duck Rabbit Duck (1953). It’s gold for philosophy of language and laughs.



Part 3: The Rest

Just a few of the other submitted posts… if you aren’t here, resubmit!

Stop changing your mind!: Spinoza and Buffalo.

Gordon Baker and Wittgenstein’s Method

There are just as many F’s as G’s: Included for using the word ‘equinumerosity.’

How to find work in the United Kingdom: Thom Brooks, yay!

Hempelian Deductive and Probablity Laws

Posted in fun, philosophy. Tagged with , , , .

Philosophers’ Carnival: Call for Submissions

I’m pleased to announce that this blog will be hosting the 63rd Philosophers’ Carnival. Submissions can be made by clicking on this link.

Though I’ve written better papers, one of the few I think about regularly has to do with a philosophical theory of comedy. Since I believe we could all use a laugh, funny posts and posts having to do with comedy will take precedence.

Still, if you know of a post that is good (even if it is as dry as we all know philosophy can get) please submit it. Don’t let good philosophy go to waste.

Posted in philosophy. Tagged with , , , .

Philosopher’s Carnival to be hosted here!

I’ve agreed to host the Philosopher’s Carnival here on February 18.  So if you think you got what it takes, tough guy/gal, submit a post and I’ll tell you whether you’re up to snuff.

Posted in internet, philosophy. Tagged with , , .