Here is a philosophical problem adapted from Martin Cohen’s 101 Philosophy Problems. See if you can offer a solution to it or at least some kind of comment on what the problem suggests or implies. A king once got into an argument with his brother. The king insisted that all ravens were black, but his brother asked, “How do you know that that is the case?” The king was annoyed, so he called his royal philosopher. “Listen, philosopher,” the king said. “I need you to prove that all ravens are black. We may say we know that all ravens are black, but I have to win this argument with my brother. Get hopping."
The philosopher returned to his study and thought about the proposition. On his chalkboard, he wrote:
All ravens are black.
To prove this, he realized, he would have to find all the ravens in the world and check that they were black. This, obviously, would take a long time. Plus, he thought about all the ravens that once were and all the ravens that would be. How was he supposed to deal with that? Then he had the idea of finding all the non-black things and checking that there were no ravens among them.“Find all the non-ravens and check that they are not black,” the philosopher told his assistant. Then he realized that this wouldn’t work, either, since lots of things that are not ravens (like iron pots and coal and panthers) are black anyway.
The problem still was that, even if they did find at the time of checking that every raven in the world was indeed black, it was possible that the next raven they found might be, say, green.
But the philosopher tried to tough it out anyway and returned to the king, who was having lunch with his brother. He then proclaimed, “My lord! The way to win the argument is to say that we simply define ravens as being black. In which case, a green raven is not a raven at all, but simply a green bird with all the characteristics commonly associated with ravens except that of its color. And such a bird cannot be a raven. All ravens are really black!”
The king was overjoyed and the philosopher was delighted. But then the king’s brother left the room and returned with a cage containing a ghastly, sick-looking bird. “OK, then, philosopher,” the king’s brother asked. “But what is a raven with a disease which makes its feathers temporarily go green?”
What should the philosopher say?
14 comments:
Since the philosopher stated that all ravens are to be black then the temporarily sick raven would not be a true raven. Because the raven is temporarily green, then it is not a true raven, but a diseased one (only a “true” raven can be black). The philosopher should say that a raven could not be green so it temporarily malformed into another type of bird for the time that it was sick. The “bird” would not be a raven until the disease has fully gone away and the color has changed back to its normal state. With that, the brother would not be able to say anything to contradict this reasoning. If the philosopher were to be brave and bare the consequences (like Socrates), he could also tell the truth and say that he does not know what colors ravens can be.
How do we know that all ravens are black? How do we know anything? We don't. We use our sense of sight to see that all the ravens (that we have seen) are black. But, sometimes our senses fail us. If you have ever looked at a raven closely you would see that the feathers have a sort of shine to it. The shine makes the feather look blue. So, the raven could possibly be blue. We could never possibly know for a fact that all ravens are black. Collecting all the ravens in the world would be impossible. We would also have to look at all the ravens that have once existed and will exist on that earth and test to see if they are truely black. And that posses another point, how do we test to see if they are truely black. What is black anyways? It is many colors blended together to make black so what if one color is more dominant than the others? Then it will not truely be black. So there is no possible way to see if all the ravens in world are black.
The critical point in this vignette is that the person requesting the definition of a raven is a king, a person with the (insert egotistical self, the powers that be, randomly, deterministically, or whichever) given power to decide what a raven is. Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the philosopher, if he does not provide a satisfying explanation to his king, he may very well be put to death or will suffer some other form of cruel punishment. While it may not be the truth, that a temporarily sickly-green raven is not a raven, when in deed it is, in order to preserve his own life, the philosopher must appease the king and make the black and white (or is it black and green?) determination that all ravens are black.
well in my opinion i think the philosopher should say that a raven is a raven no matter what. a raven nature color is black no matter what.even if it is sick. and the philsopher should ask the king's brother how does he know if that is a true raven or not? since we all know that it is impossible for a raven not to be any other color but black. if the "bird" was a raven and was sick how can the king's brother prove that it is a real raven. if he had any thing else to say it would probably be towards the king's brother and tell him, if he thinks that a raven is a different color then why doesn't he go find one. but you see it is so highly impossible even for him to do that, that he just has to agree with the philosopher and his brother about the color of the raven.
According to Plato there is no way to convince the King's brother. Although the claim that all raven's are black is true and warranted, if the King's brother does not believe it, there is no way to convince him of this knowledge. It is nearly impossible to prove something so broad and with a known exception. To make the King's brother believe the claim is the same problem our class ran into when we tried to prove that Ms. Powers was in fact in the classroom at one point in time. When the King's brother produces the exception, the King's claim also is no longer "true", which takes us backwards. The implications of this scenario are frightening; we have no reason to believe anything that another person says to us. When physical proof is basically impossible (i.e. counting all the ravens in the world), an argument quickly disintegrates. The statement that all ravens are black seems common knowledge, but though it may be warranted and true to everyone, with no proof there is no way to convince the King's brother to believe the claim, and that refutes the common knowledge that all ravens are black if not everyone believes it.
The philosopher just worked himself into a sticky situation. The first definition of a raven always being black did work. The definitions has temporarily been proven wrong to everyone in the story, but to my interpretation of this story, his idea has not yet been proven wrong. Your first thought is to say simply "impossible to beat." Mine is of this. If the definition of a raven is that it must be black, then the fact that an actual raven has turned green temporarily means it is not actually green. The philosopher could argue that due to the fact that the green is temporary, could be enough to throw his brothers argument out the window. In other words, all ravens are black. A specific condition gets a bird sick and gives them green feathers. This specific condition is to the least, temporary. Being that the green feathers are temporary and not permanent, it is still a raven. Because the feathers will turn back to be their original color thus proves that the raven was a raven before and will be after. So this temporary gab in between being a raven, according to the philosopher, will not be a fault to his definition. Basically since this is temporary, the philosopher could say that this bird will be temporarily unable to be categorized as a raven.
The bird would be a raven because it is only temporarily green and will become black again, the disease of the bird is temporary were as the color of all ravens remains constant. All ravens are indeed black, a disease which makes the feathers green for a week does not change the fact the raven is black. When the bird is green it is just that a different bird not a raven, the raven is always black. The disease does not change the bird yet its identity. How do we know the raven doesn’t completely change when the disease strikes and it’s not really a raven unless it’s black. It can’t breed unless black, it cannot find company unless it fits in (its needs to be black), so is it a raven when it is sick?
The philosopher should reply that since the bird is only temporarily not-black, then the bird can still be considered a raven. All healthy ravens are black because ravens are birds defined as being black. Although the raven is not black (and thus is not technically defined as a raven), the majority of the time it is black, and therefore is considered a raven most of the time. Perhaps the illness caused the change, but if not for the sickness then ravens are defined as being black. The illness changed the appearance of the bird, but the feathers that are attached to its body are black underneath the green tinge of the illness. A person can dye their hair red, but the hair that grows from their scalp is still their natural hair color, it’s just that the appearance of their hair color has changed. The feathers of the bird are still black, and therefore the bird is still a raven, despite the fact that its wings are temporarily green from an illness.
The philosopher simply replay that a raven whose feathers are temporarily green because of disease, is a raven whose feathers are temporarily green because of disease. If they are temporarily green, then it was once black, which we could then assume that it is a raven being that they had come to the conclusion that all ravens are indeed black. On the other hand the whole issue as to wether all ravens are black, well, how do we know that they are not all purple? What one person sees as black could be what another sees as purple. So how are we sure what color the raven is in the first place? And if we are not absolutely sure of its color in the first place then we can make no assumptions as to whether the green feathered bird is truly a raven or not.
The philosopher should point out that the raven was sick at the time, and surely would turn black after recovering. As for the present state of the bird, one could argue that the bird is not a 'true raven' because it is not black in color. But since this is only a temporary condition, we should not consider it. It seems as if the king, his brother, and the philosopher all agree that the bird in the cage is a raven. Since the raven would undoubtedly become black after it has recovered the philosopher should add to his definition " All ravens are black in their natural, healthy state". That would be the best way to win the argument. Afterall, you cannot argue that the raven will stay green forever, therefore never being a 'true raven' again, the brother said it was a temporary condition.
The question, as far as I can discern, is what is a raven that is sick? Is it a raven, or should it be classified as a raven that is sick. Should we amend the statement to say "All healthy ravens are really black. Any other raven that is not black, such as a green raven, is not a raven at all, it shows some deficiencies such as the wrong color, which does not make it health nor a raven. Likewise, a raven with a disease is not a raven at all, instead, it is a "sick raven", which is different from a raven at the hand. When a raven gets sick, he changes states from a healthy to an unhealthy raven." Such a definition counters the arguments of the brother king, and also creates a rather healthy definition, such all other ravens that are different colors could simply be classed as unhealthy or "altered" ravens and not true ravens.
The philosopher’s response should be simple. He should tell the King’s brother that the bird is still a raven. If the raven’s disease only makes the feathers temporarily green, then the raven is still black otherwise. When the king’s brother says temporarily, it means it won’t stay green forever. What happens when the raven turns back to being black after it is temporarily sick? Then will it become a true raven again? It cannot be possible for one bird to go from being a raven, to turning green and not being a raven, and then back to being a true raven again. It wouldn’t make sense. We do not know that all ravens are black or that they can’t be sick and turn back to being black. The philosopher should question the King’s brother and ask him then what a green “raven” would be.
Since the philosopher stated that all ravens are black, it can be understood that he is perplexed when it comes to what he should reply. A human being is a human being no matter what, correct? Yes. So when human children have the chicken pox and have spots as a side effect, would they still be considered humans. It is the same in the case of the raven. It must be identified by something more than just color in order to be recognized as ravens. This is because the one distinguishing factor that the people know has been changed. Still, diseased or black, a raven is a raven. It was born black and only acquired the disease, therefore it was born a rave and should still be considered a raven. Now according to Plato, the King cannot be convinced that all ravens are black. Plato suggested that a warranted belief in an idea needs to be there in order to accept it. But I still believe that the green bird is a raven.
Excellent job scholars!! This one is now closed!
Post a Comment