Kenneth Black

Sometimes Bob Stalnaker says he doesn’t believe in possible worlds

I Dont Know Who You Are I Dont Know What You Want GIF ALT: I Dont Know Who You Are I Dont Know What You Want GIF

First thing I thought of, but was disappointed to find there’s no explicit conjunction and the questions are embedded in separate sentences. But I do feel like “who are you and what have you done with [person/thing]” is a common trope in movies?

Please make a terrible ruckus about this, if you live in Oregon

Love reading all the nostalgic comments on 1960s JPhil papers

Rock on!!

I knew it

This post can only be defeated by an observational study of Purdue philosophers

You don’t even need it to *see* stuff!

Another counterexample??? 🫨

It would be fun if journal articles had YouTube-style thumbnails so you can have your silly/eye-catching thing as well as an informative title without doing the old 15-word title+subtitle thing

Grammar=syntax? Controversial

Chinese room: pre-semantics but no semantics

Tried to tell my sister that if something isn’t accurate, it can’t be knowledge. Knowing epistemology is a burden sometimes

Your context set and my context set are like this Picture of perfect circle

A grad student put up a bunch of these MIT philosophy themed valentines. I thought this one was fantastic and told them so.

Turns out I came up with it a couple years ago and they had just parroted me. Perry’ed again

It’s called a two factor theory of content okay

If I had a nickel for every time a group of a cappella singers rickrolled my class, I’d have a nickel today.

“We’ve had semantics, yes. What about metasemantics?”

Ordinary language philosopher doing philosophy of physics

“Well they’re like regular mechanics, but really tiny”

You know I revisited it while thinking about the post but he sort of does give a thesis statement at the end of the intro

Fails the marshmallow test every time

Reviewer 2 isn’t up to date on that stuff

Ha that’s a good one

Older philosophy papers without any signposting at the start are total roller coasters, you have no idea what what you’re in for

Who knew NY/NJ metaphysicians had their own holiday

Reposting in honor of groundhog day

I don’t see how it ends up that the shorter rod is moving faster than light.

Thats exactly what I was talking about. If you want three-velocity, then it is frame variant, but then I don’t know what problems that would lead to

Alternatively you can just restrict the admissible frames (which is normal already, I think?)

In SR you can drop the “at t” thing and not think of velocity in terms of motion through space over time. Velocity is a vector quantity, so your direction will be your direction through spacetime, rather than just space. So it will be frame-invariant

I think Sider talks about this in 4Dism, but iirc an object’s velocity at t is given by the location of its t-timeslice and the locations of other timeslices before and after t. So facts about velocity boil down to facts about spatiotemporal location