Recent Responses
Can you have morals without acknowledging God? If so, where do they come from?
If I may: One can argue that
Stephen Maitzen
November 4, 2017
(changed November 4, 2017)
Permalink
If I may: One can argue that people have morals only if they do not, in the relevant sense, "acknowledge God." I give such an argument in this chapter of a recent anthology.
Log in to post comments
Can you have morals without acknowledging God? If so, where do they come from?
If I may: One can argue that
Stephen Maitzen
November 4, 2017
(changed November 4, 2017)
Permalink
If I may: One can argue that people have morals only if they do not, in the relevant sense, "acknowledge God." I give such an argument in this chapter of a recent anthology.
Log in to post comments
Are there any rationally compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods, which created the cosmos and the things in it?
Nope. But what of it?
Allen Stairs
November 3, 2017
(changed November 3, 2017)
Permalink
Nope. But what of it?
"Rationally compelling" is too high bar. If a position really were rationally compelling, a rational person who understood it would have to be convinced. But there's very little in philosophy that meets this standard. There are rationally acceptable... Read more
A friend of mine committed suicide recently, and I find myself instinctively trying not only to understand why she did it and the cause and effect of how it happened, but trying to impose meaning -- trying to work out what the "significance" of her death is, and looking to sum up her whole life the way a funeral celebrant might, and say these are the patterns and themes and shape of it, this what it amounted to, this is what it represented, these are the takeaway ethical messages for your own life. But is there really any significance in suicide, is there any point to asking what it means, or is it senseless, like washing the dishes or mowing the lawn or any other physical event or act? And is it disrespectful to try to interpret meaning into someone's life or death or reduce their life to a moral lesson? The process not only feels a little bit like a lie, but also like it objectifies them and takes away from their humanity.
You are obviously grappling
Michael Cholbi
November 2, 2017
(changed November 2, 2017)
Permalink
You are obviously grappling with your friend's death, and I appreciate the sophistication and sensitivity evident in your question.
I think it's crucial here to distinguish the meaning or "significance" of suicide from the meaning or significance of your friend's... Read more
If we all have personal biases (ie. every individual, being unique, perceives the same event slightly differently), how can we trust anyone to provide the real truth?
An incomplete answer, but
Allen Stairs
October 27, 2017
(changed October 27, 2017)
Permalink
An incomplete answer, but relevant, I hope.
Suppose the question is: did Prof. Geisler show up for class on Monday? We ask students enrolled in the class. All the students who were there in the room at class time say yes: Prof. Geisler was there. In fact, she arrived... Read more
Through some years of philosophical study I've become confused about what exactly it means for me to have knowledge. What was once a familiar and seemingly clear concept has now become unfamiliar and obscure. Can it be made clear again for me? Can I ever know whether or not I know? It seems as though the more I read about knowledge the more obscured it becomes.
I don't know the answer to
Peter S. Fosl
October 23, 2017
(changed October 23, 2017)
Permalink
I don't know the answer to your question, but since this topic interests you, I would recommend you take a look at the skeptical traditions generally categorized as Pyrrhonian and Academic skepticism. One famous device you might use to think about these questi... Read more
Not sure whether this question would fall under philosophy or psychology (both perhaps) but I was always curious why it is that children love video games but hate homework. Cognitively they are pretty much the same. They challenge the child to think critically to solve a problem, and provide a sense of reward when completed, so why is one cherished while the other despised?
Plato recounts a conversation
Peter S. Fosl
October 23, 2017
(changed October 23, 2017)
Permalink
Plato recounts a conversation in his magisterial dialogue "Republic" (at lines 475e-476b) where a young man names "Glaucon" and Socrates discuss education and philosophy (the love of wisdom). A distinction is generated between "lovers of sights and sounds" and "... Read more
Don't many of us regard that "vision" is something like the headlights of a car, casting a beam of light on objects, originating inside the eye? Which is of course completely wrong and the truth is the opposite. Its fairly present in many cultures and even though it is just a mere figure of speech it feels wrong doesn't it?
Do the perceptual systems
Jonathan Westphal
October 19, 2017
(changed October 20, 2017)
Permalink
Do the perceptual systems work from the environment in, or from the perceiver out? In English there are famously two very different groups of perceptual words, one active and one passive: look/see, listen/hear, touch/#feel, smell/smell (i.e. "smell" has two mean... Read more
Is it fair for the government to impose something onto people that they did not want or ask for, while still expecting them to carry the burden of it? For example in 2015 the government mandated that all TV stations stop broadcasting in analog and broadcast exclusively in digital. The result of this was billions of dollars wasted in PSAs and handing out converter boxes, millions of portable TV sets ending up in landfills, and many low income families left without TV. The cost of all of this was ultimately left to taxpayers, while the government made 19 billion in spectrum auctions. In other words, the government gained a massive benefit at the expense of the citizens. Can one justify breaking a law that causes more harm than good? Lets say that I am operating a TV station in a rural area with a lot of mountains and bad weather, in which a digital signal would have poor reception. Would I be justified in broadcasting an analog TV signal in this area, even though I am legally prohibited from doing so? As consumers in a free market society, do we not have the right to make these decisions as the circumstances would necessitate. After all, we (more often than not) know the conditions we are dealing with more than the government.
Lots of questions there. I'll
Allen Stairs
October 19, 2017
(changed October 19, 2017)
Permalink
Lots of questions there. I'll offer three comments.
The first is that if citizens simply get to pick and choose the laws they follow, then we don't have laws at all. The question of what makes government coercion legitimate is a big one, and I'm not a politi... Read more
Through some years of philosophical study I've become confused about what exactly it means for me to have knowledge. What was once a familiar and seemingly clear concept has now become unfamiliar and obscure. Can it be made clear again for me? Can I ever know whether or not I know? It seems as though the more I read about knowledge the more obscured it becomes.
I don't know the answer to
Peter S. Fosl
October 23, 2017
(changed October 23, 2017)
Permalink
I don't know the answer to your question, but since this topic interests you, I would recommend you take a look at the skeptical traditions generally categorized as Pyrrhonian and Academic skepticism. One famous device you might use to think about these questi... Read more