What makes a question important?

This is a report of my philosophy cafe session on 16 July 2008.

Our question for the evening is "What makes a question important?"

This immediately raises the question: "What is importance?" We turn to the dictionary for help (this is a tool much neglected by philosophers). Our dictionary tells us that something is important when (a) it makes a big difference or influence in our lives; or (b) we care a lot about it.

What sort of disjunction (or function) is this? We reflect on it, and decide that it is an inclusive disjunction. This means that the two conditions may be true at the same time, but they don't have to be. So long as one condition is met, the matter at hand is important.

Do the two conditions exhaust the possibilities? Can something be important on a third criterion? How do we know we have covered the ground?

We apply the test of counterexample. That is, we try to think of something that is important, but which does not fall under either of the two criteria. We cannot. Does this mean we have indeed covered the ground? Or not? We can't be sure either way. We can go only as far as our imagination and intelligence takes us. This is the best we have so far. This is what we will work with.

What about apparent importance? Can we think something important when it is not? Intuitively, there is this distinction. But what's the difference? How do we establish true importance?

We suggest that true importance is when an event further propels one towards one's goals without the influence of any external factor. The part about an event further propelling one towards one's goals seems to fall under criteria (a) and (b) above -- it makes a big difference or influence, and we care about it. So the distinguishing feature must be that there's no influence from external factors. But we cannot be under no influence from external factors. Even Robinson Crusoe has memories of people, events and beliefs from when he was surrounded by external factors. So this third condition is nullified.

Thus, we return to the difference between apparent importance and true importance. Unable to find a difference, we can only say they are the same.

Someone suggests that what is important is up to the individual to decide. This is open to two elaborations.

The first elaboration is that each person is existentially responsible for his own beliefs and actions -- and for what he considers important. There is no dispute on this elaboration.

The second elaboration is that each person is correct in his assessment of importance. This raises two questions. Assuming this elaboration to be the case, why do we hold discussions? We can just let it be that each person is correct in his view. Also, on this elaboration, how do we make communal decisions about anything? We make such decisions on the basis of true and false, right and wrong. But if what every person says is the truth and the right, how can we decide anything?

Time forces us to end the discussion here. It has been a good session.



Readers who are interested to engage in the rational pursuit of truth and right (which is how I define philosophy) are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome. For more information, kindly visit my website at http://philocafesg.tripod.com/. The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 20 August 2008.

Anselm: Does God exist?

St. Anselm (1033-1109) put forward a fairly straightforward argument in answer to the question: Does God exist? It is one of the classical arguments in Western philosophy. Just follow the cues to discover what his argument is.

1.
Start. Go to 2, 3, 4.

2. (from 1)
When an artist plans a work, the work exists in his understanding. When the artist executes his plan, the work exists in reality.
Go to 5.

3. (from 1)
God is a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived". [conceived = thought]
Combine with 5, go to 6. Also go weakly to 8.

4. (from 1)
A being that cannot be thought not to exist is greater than a being that can be thought not to exist.
Combine with 7, go to 8.

5. (from 2)
[Therefore] There is a difference between an object being in the understanding, and an object being in existence.
Combine with 3, go to 6.

6. (from 3 & 5)
Once one hears and comprehends this, God exists in the understanding.
Go to 7.

7. (from 6)
If God exists only in the understanding, then it is possible to think of a being that exists also in reality.
Combine with 4, go to 8.

8. (from 4 & 7)
This makes God not a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived". This is impossible (by hypothesis in 3).
Go to 9.

9. (from 8)
Therefore, a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived" must exist both in the understanding and in reality. This is God. God exists.
Go to 10.

10. (from 9)
End.


Primary source:
"Saint Anselm of Canterbury: The Ontological Argument" in Nicholas Capaldi (ed) et al, Journeys Through Philosophy, Prometheus Books, 1982, pp. 369-70.
[St. Anselm was the Italian-born Archbishop of Canterbury.]


Postscript on method
Most philosophy is written in prose. While this makes for fluent reading, it also makes the argument extremely opaque in both content and flow. Presenting the argument in syllogisms is fully transparent, but is extremely tedious both to write and read. This is my compromise mode of presentation. I call it "programmed philosophy".