Dear Sir or Madame,
As you now there are names for nearly every ideology, liberalism, positivism etc. But I cant find the name of one ideology, and I was wondering if you can help me with that.
For the record, I do not believe in the way of thought I am about to discribe,
I am just curious if there is a name for it.
Here it goes:
What do you call it when someone believes so much in science, that it values scientific progress above all else, even human rights? This person will for example think human experimentation is okay, if it benefits scientific progress.
The reason I ask this, is because I came across articles about bioconservatism. And was wondering if there was something like extreme anti-bioconservatism, but wikipedia didnt satisfy me.
Thank you for your time and with kind regards,
Say the universe is natural (say it had 'natural' beginnings and there was no creator)... what should this mean for my life? If we took this a step further and said we are the products of some accidental RNA interaction and there is no soul or afterlife, what should this mean about an overall worldview? Am I to live happily? How am I to struggle through moments of toil - work hard in society - if there is no meaning?
We've been pondering the Problem of Evil. How can a good God allow evil to exist? I think the solution is right there in opening pages of the Book of Genesis. According to the Bible, after six days' labor, God needed to rest to regain his strength. When God is enjoying some necessary down time, then evil takes advantage and spreads. Is this a convincing argument?
In an answer to a question about logic, Prof Maitzen says he is unaware of any evidence that shows classical logic fails in a real-life situation.
Perhaps he has never heard of an example from physics that shows how classic logic does not work in certain restricted situations?
A polarizing filter causes light waves that pass through it to align only in one direction (e.g., up-down or left-right). If you have an up-down filter, and then a left-right filter behind it, no light gets through.
However, if you place a filter with a 45 degree orientation between the up-down and left-right filter, some light does get through.
It seems to me that classic logic cannot explain this real-world result.
The last few years I've struggled with Nihilism - my work, games, activities really just have no fun or spark like they used to have. I have many sleepness nights where I'm wracking with existential thoughts and anymore I feel like just sentient matter waiting to die, and yet I dread that moment where my consciouness will no longer exist. My questions are - How do you break through Nihilism? How does one truly come to terms with impermanence and actually enjoy the short time they have left despite a meaningless, uncaring universe? I have read Camus and Sartre but I still struggle with the existential angst.
I can see how private language does not make sense in Wittgensteins eyes, in that a language in its true sense cannot be with one person, but I don’t see how this is relevant to mind/body dualism? I see lots of people saying that a ‘language’ that is ‘private’ suggests mind/body dualism is not real, but all I see is the feeling of senses cannot be described in a (soliloquised, for lack of a better word ‘language’) doesn’t mean anything except a private language is not possible.
Note: I’ve never asked a philosophical question online before, and I’ve also had a couple of beers as England have just got to the QFs of the World Cup so if this makes no sense I will try to reword!
Race and the history of slavery in the US is a highly sensitive topic (here in America). Recently, a news story came out about a town - Charleston, SC - that has officially apologized for its key role in slavery. According to the numbers, roughly 40% of all African slaves taken to the US were brought to Charleston.
A lot of people are upset about this, and the main idea seems to be that no living persons are connected to and/or responsible for slavery (either directly or indirectly), and so no apologies should be made. The argument can probably be more formalized as follows:
P1 - People should only apologize for those things which they are either directly or indirectly responsible for. (The 'responsible' party, here, being the causal antecedent of slavery)
P1.2 - People should only receive apologies for those things in which they were either directly or indirectly affected by.
P2 - No person alive today is either directly or indirectly responsible for slavery.
C - There should therefore be no...