Robert Wallace

@philosobobby.bsky.social

534 Followers 471 Following

Philosophy Prof. @ Cal Poly, Free Will + Moral Responsibility but interested in everything. https://www.roberthwallace.com/ Views my own etc. (he/him)

Flynn and Rapunzel meeting Anna at Elsa’s coronation in *Frozen*.
An orange cat in front of a Christmas tree
ST ANNE'S COLLEGE OXFORD Telephone 57417 June 15 1960 Mr David Lewis has worked with me on moral philosophy for the best part of three terms during his stay in Oxford. About half of this time was spent on studying traditional philosophers (Hume, Kant, also Mill, Moore and others) and the other half on looking at contemporary theories, especially in relation to freedom, and in discussing versions of Mr Lewis' own ideas on the latter subject. There is no doubt that Mr Lewis is a very gifted young man indeed and has a true talent for philosophy. Were he to remain in that subject (which unfortunately appears to be unlikely) I should advise him to forget about his own theories for a while and spend time grappling with difficult and unfamiliar ideas in the great philosophers of the past. This however is to say no more than that Mr Lewis is young and (naturally) still in need of education. His own ideas in fact are both interesting and original. His work has been excellent, certainly "alpha" throughout. Iris Murdoch Fellow and Tutor (Reprinted by kind permission of Iris Murdoch.) And here is a remark she made in a letter to him, about graduate school letters of reference she had been doing for him (reprinted by kind permission of the Estate of Iris Murdoch): St Anne's College Oxford Nov 23 1961 Dear David, Thanks for your letter [there is no copy of this letter in David's files]. I've sent off the two forms. (How is your emotional maturity nowadays? I found it hard to think of a mark for that.) I will do the other two testimonials very soon. I think I could commend Black & Malcolm for my (indirect) knowledge of them. Mrs Foot lately has had a very lively & profitable sojourn at Cornell. Anyway, best of wishes. I see you don't list Yale, rightly, I'm sure. Bulldog, bulldog etc. Yours, Iris (Reprinted by kind permission of Iris Murdoch.)
There are many traditional objections to phenomenalism, but in my view the most important objection to strong metaphysical phenomenalism is the explanatory objection: the truths about possible experiences demand explanation, and this view gives them none. For example, it is true that the table looks a certain way to me, and that from a different angle it will looking a certain related but different way to me, and if I come back tomorrow it will once again look a related way to me, and so on. There is an order and coherence among these possible experiences that calls out for explanation. Standard non-phenomenalist views of the external world explain this by invoking a single physical table that causes the relevant experiences. A classical phenomenalist cannot do this, since the physical table is grounded in the possible experiences Rather, each truth about possible experience is taken as fundamental. So we have an enormous array of related fundamental truths, with no explanation for the relations. In effect, strong metaphysical phenomenalism gives a extraordinarily complex theory of fundamental reality, and should be rejected for the same reasons that we usually favor simple theories of fundamental reality.
The NYT election meter but with “no schism” and “schism” as the two ends.
Freedom of speech by Norman Rockwell
An orange cat sleeping in front of a Christmas tree.