Why do philosophers use *imaginary* examples?

I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.

This video explains the philosophical concept or tool known as a "counterexample." The central question answered in this video is why it is legitimate, when attempting to disprove a philosophical theory, to sometimes use a fictional or made-up example.

[배광한-vm]

I'm a PhD student who major in philosophy in South Korea. Your video really helpful for me. And if you post the theory of expressivism such as Blackburn's and Gibbard's, it would be really great!! Thank you Professor Kaplan

[Mystique]

Finally a philo lecture channel!!
U just earned my subs

[amampathak]

so glad to have you back, really appreciate these videos and explanations!

[matthewmilam]

Hey Jeffery! I've been watching your videos for readings in my Philosophy 101 class this semester, and I finished with an A thanks to you. You explain the concepts extremely well (much better than my prof) and the videos are always concise enough for me to get through the material quickly. Just wanted to thank you for all of your work, since without your vids I definitely would not have understood anything nearly as well as I did. Thank you!

[snehilsinghal]

Philosophers often use hypothetical or imaginary examples, known as thought experiments, to explore and clarify ideas or arguments. These examples can help philosophers to examine and understand complex concepts in a more concrete and intuitive way, and to consider different possibilities or consequences of certain assumptions or actions.

For example, a philosopher might use an imaginary scenario to illustrate the concept of free will, or to explore the ethical implications of a particular action. These examples can be useful for illustrating abstract ideas and for testing the limits or implications of certain philosophical theories.

Thought experiments can also be useful for challenging our preconceptions and for generating new insights or questions. By considering unusual or counterintuitive examples, philosophers can help to uncover hidden assumptions or biases, and to identify areas where our understanding is incomplete or inconsistent.

Overall, the use of imaginary examples is an important tool in philosophical inquiry, allowing philosophers to explore and clarify complex ideas in a more concrete and intuitive way.

Certainly! Here are a few more details about the role that hypothetical or imaginary examples play in philosophy:

Clarifying abstract concepts: By considering a specific, concrete example, philosophers can help to make abstract concepts more tangible and easier to understand. For example, a philosopher might use an imaginary scenario to illustrate the concept of personal identity, or to explore the nature of moral responsibility.

Testing the limits of theories: Thought experiments can be used to push the boundaries of existing theories, or to identify their limitations or weaknesses. For example, a philosopher might use an imaginary scenario to challenge the assumptions of a particular moral theory, or to explore the implications of a particular theory of knowledge.

Generating new insights: By considering unusual or counterintuitive examples, philosophers can help to uncover hidden assumptions or biases, and to identify areas where our understanding is incomplete or inconsistent. For example, a philosopher might use an imaginary scenario to challenge our preconceptions about the nature of consciousness, or to explore the ethical implications of emerging technologies.

Facilitating dialogue: Imaginary examples can also be used as a way of communicating complex ideas to a broader audience, or as a way of facilitating dialogue between philosophers with different perspectives. By considering a specific, concrete example, philosophers can help to make their ideas more accessible and engaging, and to spark new lines of inquiry.

[hyposlasher]

Please balance the left and right sound

[resul]

Please make a video about Spinoza ethics! I loved your video about meditations!

[johnohmoh]

Your videos are thought provoking. Can you please make a video of the case of Spelunchean Explores and explaining its underpinning legal theories.

[danwylie-sears]

Our concept of a tree is only mostly shared. If we imagine a tall bush that either almost counts as a tree or just barely counts as a tree, or if we consider a tree-fern from the Carboniferous period, and in either case, ask whether it counts as a tree, different people will draw the line somewhat differently.

In other words, I don't have anything in particular to say, but I think this video deserves an interaction to feed the algorithm.

[mackennakelly]

Could you make a video on the different judicial philosophies?

[AdvocateAsaf]

❤️ amazing lecture after long time I came here...

[stsglnt]

Hm I have some doubts about those arguments. An example of trees (they all grow on the surface of the earth) can be observed in reality. And, maybe, it’s not true but so far we’ve seen it has been true. An imaginary tree on Mars has never been observed and it remains a fiction. So do we have the right here to compare something that can actually be touched with a figment? Had tree example no tangible reality and was solely an idea then it could have an imaginary counterargument but otherwise it requires something with the same level of validity I think

[sweetysingha]

Sir can you please make a video on symbolisation.🙏

[Google_Censored_Commenter]

I get the point, but I'm not sure the example you chose was the best. The person proposing the definition, could very easily respond either that "no, that seed would not grow into a tree on Mars, because trees only grow on the surface of Earth, did you not read my definition?" He could even say "Mars doesn't have fertile soil, how could it grow?" Or he could be real cheeky and say "Yes the seed would grow into something you might call a tree, but it actually isn't. Once again, see my definition."

It seems to me you can never prove definitions true or false, really. Because definitions are a language game. And in language, we make the rules. Americans tend to view definitions incorrectly, in my view. As if they somehow aren't decided on by us. As if there's some universal "definition" out there we just have to discover. And once we've discovered it, if someone tries to use a different one, they're using the "wrong" definition. Yet that's clearly not how definitions work. We make our own, personal definition, then we share it with another person, and they either accept it or reject it. They aren't obligated to accept our definition. And likewise, we aren't obligated to change ours until they do, either. And if the other person proposes their own definition, what we could call a counterexample? Same rule applies, we can accept it, or we can decline and stick to our own definition. It simply won't do to say "According to my definition of trees, your definition is contradictory".

[TheArtWithinYou]

Thank you so much for your videos. This is very much valuable as you are to us. You are very much appreciated.

[ELPONCHOMUCHOGRANDE]

great video as always! really appreciate your stuff as a non-philosophy student. Just an FYI I think its spelled deciduous.

[Elizagross]

Hello, first off, thank you so much for your amazing content; secondly, I am losing sleep trying to figure out if you are writing backwords on this board or if you are writing into a mirror, please please please tell me your sorcery

[jamaicaigot]

Loved this video. Are you on audea? most of my audio is consumed there and would appreciate the audio version of your content on that platform

[maloublue]

Does anyone else find it fascinating that he has just mastered the art of mirrored writing?

[kinobranco]

Hi! Major major fan! Quick question: would the plastic Christmas tree in the staff coffee-room a counter-example to your claim? If so, what does that say about the way we generally approach counter-examples (and thought experiments)? I’m specifically asking about the role of imagination in philosophy.