Justin Snedegar

This issue came up after our perception seminar yesterday. I think (P) is true:

(P) If I perceive o, then o exists.

But, there was some resistance. Since we don't usually use 'perceive' in ordinary discourse, I'll use 'see' (and 'saw') in discussing this potential counterexample to (P).

Imagine an ordinary case of hallucination. I hallucinate toasters flying around all over my living room. I realize I must be hallucinating, and go to the doctor. It seems like I can truly report:

(i) I saw toasters flying around all over the living room!

But, if (i) is true, then (P) can't be true (assuming 'perceive' and 'see' (or 'saw') work the same way), since it is true that I saw toasters, but these toasters don't exist.

I am inclined to say that (i) is just a loose way of speaking. So, I think the doctor could (if he was being picky) correct me with:

(ii) Well, you didn't see them; you seemed to see them.

Here's another potential counterexample. Suppose I take some hallucinogenic drug for a lab experiment. The researchers who are observing me instruct me as follows:

(iii) Report what you see.

This instruction seems perfectly appropriate, and it would seem perfectly appropriate for me to report the things I hallucinate here (this is what they want me to report, after all).

Again, I think this is a loose way of speaking. I think (if I was being picky), I could report:

(iv) I didn't really see anything (except maybe the lab, depending on how the hallucination worked). I seemed to see frogs, spiders, etc.

What do you guys think?

Justin Snedegar

I'm curious to know how many of you find yourselves having this problem. As graduate students in philosophy, it is in our interest to publish (let's suppose; there's some controversy here). So, if we get a bright new idea, we feel like we should try to develop it into a paper. A blog should be a good place to try to develop these ideas, and to get feedback on them. But, at the same time, you worry that someone may "borrow" your bright idea for their own paper if you make it public on a blog.

So, you may think, a blog is a good place for half-baked ideas that may or may not be worth developing. You can get feedback, give someone something fun to read, maybe start an interesting comment thread; but you don't need to worry as much about someone stealing the idea. But then, you're attaching your name to something half-baked, and putting it out there for everyone to read. That also seems bad.

Of course, not every bright idea that you have is worth trying to publish. A blog seems like a good place for that sort of thing as well: maybe you've read something and you have a quick objection to an argument, but aren't interested in really developing it further.

But, again, at our stage, we may feel a bit protective about any good idea we have, in case we can develop it sometime.

Hypothesis: this is partly what has been contributing to the lack of posting here, and (partly) what causes philosophy graduate student blogs to fail more often than those run by philosophers with a better-established reputation. Of course, the big thing, if I can generalize from my situation, is that we simply don't have much time to work on blog posts.

Justin Snedegar

Here are the remaining colloquia at USC for this fall. All of them are at 4pm, in MHP 102.

October 23 - Imogen Dickie (University of Toronto)

November 6 - Dana Nelkin (UC-San Diego)

November 13 - Robin Jeshion (UC-Riverside)

November 20 - Alexis Burgess (Stanford), "A Revisionary, Representational Metaontology"

December 4 - Jenann Ismael (University of Arizona)