This free online encyclopedia has achieved what Wikipedia can only dream of

What's your favourite article? — Banno

Mine is "The reason why limp social questions without philosophical content or argument pass for thought-provoking opening posts which would normally be required to have a philosophical content, inviting debate."

You should read it, Banno.

I does kind remind me of the adage about how to make a small fortune in agriculture - start with a large one. But aside from having a super-wealthy institution to pay the expenses and and attracting tenured professors to write for you free for the kudos, and starting out with an enviable reputation, it's a common sense model that anyone can apply.

Oh, favourite article? I forget. But I like Hume, and though he is not a contributor, his influence is strong in this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/

This free online encyclopedia has achieved what Wikipedia can only dream of

What's your favourite article?
— Banno

Mine is "The reason why limp social questions without philosophical content or argument pass for thought-provoking opening posts which would normally be required to have a philosophical content, inviting debate."

You should read it, Banno. — god must be atheist

ROFL!

What's your favourite article? — Banno

Today, my favorite is the article on Nothingness. It's my current favorite because it was relevant to a debate I was having in another forum: is nothingness metaphysically possible.

A past favorite was the article The Epistemology of Modality, a good intro to modal logic.

I also like the article on Ontological Arguments, written by well-known atheist philosopher, Graham Oppy.

BTW, another worthy source is the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The articles are generally more concise, so it's a bit more accessible and sometimes easier to understand - although It's a bit less comprehensive.

Today, my favorite is the article on Nothingness — Relativist

Personally, I am highly disappointed in it. I find it to be a deep mystery as to why there is something rather than nothing. And given that there is this something, why this something, rather than some other something.

The article, instead of providing anything that might actually give me some insight into the answer, just provides a lot of history. Okay, history can be interesting. But I'd prefer actual insight to a long exposition on many failed attempts. Today I'm finding it better to just say, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

And silence is a form of nothingness.

|>ouglas

Bear in mind that very few issue in Philosophy are settled, and the article is consistent with that. Nevertheless, the article shows that there are good reasons to think nothingness is impossible, or at least very improbable.

Why THIS something rather than some OTHER something? Why expect there to be a reason? Are you a theist and wonder what God had in mind? If not, then the answer is: there's no reason. Adolf Grubaum wrote a good paper on this, so consider reading it (Grunbaum: Why is there a World At All Rather than Nothing?).

Bear in mind that very few issue in Philosophy are settled — Relativist

Having a degree in Philosophy, I am all too aware!

Nevertheless, the article shows that there are good reasons to think nothingness is impossible, or at least very improbable. — Relativist

I didn't get that from the article. What I got out of it is that a lot of philosophers throughout history had a lot more hot air in them than insight to these kinds of questions.

Why THIS something rather than some OTHER something? Why expect there to be a reason? — Relativist

Why expect there not to be a reason?

If I want to spout hot air devoid of any true insight, I assert that nothing is contingent. Everything is necessary, and we just don't know why it's necessary. (Unless by "contingent" we mean it in the sense that modal realism means it, in which case, mystery solved! I guess.....)

The mystery is almost enough to get me to buy into Tegmark's MUH, because I understand why mathematical necessary truths exist. On the other hand, I can't buy into MUH explaining phenomenal consciousness, so woe is me!

Are you a theist and wonder what God had in mind? — Relativist

Please don't speak sacrilege to me. There is NO god! And so, no, I never wonder what either he or Santa Claus had in mind.

Adolf Grubaum wrote a good paper on this, so consider reading it — Relativist

I will read it. Thanks!

|>ouglas

I love SEP, and I certainly wouldn't mind more of a good thing, but is it really a model for what Internet ought to be? It is a pretty small step from a print academic encyclopedia, basically conforming to the Internet ideal circa early 90s (when SEP was conceived). Plus what said.

My favorite article? I can't be bothered reviewing and comparing the articles that I have read so far, but here is some random hotness: Chance versus Randomness. Comprehensive, comprehensible, authoritative, authorial, and up-to-date: "First published Wed Aug 18, 2010; substantive revision Thu Feb 8, 2018" (just as the OP article states, revisions are done in four-year cycles).

The article, instead of providing anything that might actually give me some insight into the answer, just provides a lot of history. Okay, history can be interesting. But I'd prefer actual insight to a long exposition on many failed attempts. — Douglas Alan

I don't think you understand the concept of a modern encyclopedia. Encyclopedia is not for publishing original research or stating one's own opinions (though opinion cannot - and should not - be completely eschewed even when attempting an objective survey). The objective of an encyclopedia like the SEP is to give you the lay of the land - both in its historical and its contemporary dimensions. Where to go from there is your choice. Drill down the references that seem most promising - or set out on your own if none of them are. With the background knowledge, at least you will not work in ignorance and isolation.

I don't think you understand the concept of a modern encyclopedia. — SophistiCat

I understand the purpose of an encyclopedia perfectly well. I just expressed a personal preference about the value to me in particular of what I read. I understand that I am not the Supreme Leader of the world.

|>ouglas

Adolf Grubaum wrote a good paper on this, so consider reading it (Grunbaum: Why is there a World At All Rather than Nothing?). — Relativist

Thanks for pointing me at this paper, but (1) I'm with Feynman that this guy was an obnoxious ass, and (2) nobody gets far in my book by dismissing Parfit.

|>ouglas

Are there any specific issues you take with his analysis?

Personally, I've always objected to the notion that contingent brute facts are impossible. It just seems an assumption that is chosen because it entails the existence of a metaphysically necessary creator. I thought Grunbaum sheds some needed light on that.

Are there any specific issues you take with his analysis? — Relativist

He's rude and mocking, for one.

He's also tilting at strawmen, other than maybe Leibnitz's work. But in this day and age, Leibnitz's philosophizing is only of historical interest.

No one is saying that they have a knockdown argument that nothingness is more probable than there being something. No one is saying that they have a knockdown argument that brute facts are impossible.

The only thing that people are doing are expressing their personal preferences and intuitions. Everybody knows that Occam's razor does not amount to proof, and yet Grubaum seems intent on pounding into our putatively inferior-to-his brains this fact that we already know. On the other hand, it's long been considered a good quality in philosophers, as far as I'm aware, to always keep asking "Why?" when there seem to be unanswered questions and to look for explanations for things that might seem at first inexplicable.

Also, sometimes philosophers just like to express what they find interesting or perplexing or confusing, and Grunbaum here is nothing more than a pompous, snarky, killjoy.

And that's no fun, because it's people with worries like mine or Parfit's who end up proposing interesting theories, like modal realism or MUH.

Now, these theories may be utterly wrong, but I'm happy that they exist.

|>ouglas

He's also tilting at strawmen, — Douglas Alan

It's a strawman that fits the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument proferred by apologist William Lane Craig:

1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause [A version of PSR].
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3) The universe exists.
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4).

it's a strawman that fits the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument proferred by apologist William Lane Craig: — Relativist

Maybe that argument isn't a strawmen against the kind of position held by certain theists, but that argument is a strawman to anything that I or Parfit are likely to believe.

I have zero interest in seeing arguments aimed at what theists believe about any interesting topic in Philosophy. (Other than ones that might help to convince people not to be theists.)

|>ouglas