Recent Responses
Why shouldn't we test drugs and cosmetics on mentally challenged or severely disabled human beings, rather than animals?
Roger Crisp
September 15, 2006
(changed September 15, 2006)
Permalink
Other things being equal, perhaps we might. But of course they're not equal. Our social morality -- the morality we live by -- is 'speciesist' in the sense that human beings -- whatever their mental or physical capacities -- are considered to be due special protection. If we were to seek... Read more
I have not written to my MP or participated in a public demonstration about my country's foreign policy, e.g., Britain's involvement in Iraq, although I do condemn it. Am I 'guilty by association'? Can you please explain this phrase. Thank you. Glen.
Roger Crisp
September 15, 2006
(changed September 15, 2006)
Permalink
Perhaps it depends on how strongly you condemn it. Let's assume that, like many people, you think the invasion of Iraq was a crime under international law, as well as extremely harmful and dangerous. Seems to me that we might want to encourage a public morality according to which people w... Read more
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once told a story that one of his philosophy professors asked, "What is time?" Young Mr. Sheen had responded that he knew what it is but wasn't sure he could explain it, to which the professor responded, "If you cannot explain it then you do not know what it is." Is it or is it not possible to know what something is and not be able to express it in language?
Peter Lipton
September 14, 2006
(changed September 14, 2006)
Permalink
This is not an easy question to answer, in part because it's not clear what it means 'to know what something is'. Still, various sensations may be candidates for things we know better than we can describe, sensations like headaches, the taste of pineapple, or the smell of rotten eggs.... Read more
If humans are not born with "reason" and the rational faculty develops over time and therefore through experience, isn't "a priori" essentially an impossible concept, as the rational faculty itself is developed "a posteriori"?
Alexander George
September 14, 2006
(changed September 14, 2006)
Permalink
Also, take a look at Question 1161.
Log in to post comments
As an educator but outsider to philosophy I've heard rumors about students' experiences as philosophy students in college and was wondering if the professors on this site could shed some light: One student told me that while philosophy began properly with Socrates as a relentless quest to improve the soul, philosophy as it is taught today has long abandoned the goal of improving character or deepening the philosophy student's lived experience, and that it has become an exclusively mental activity. I was also told that in disuniting learning from life, philosophy departments were only following the trend of other humanities departments which were also divorcing knowledge from soul as much as possible and keeping all assignments and discussions mental and analytic. Without intending to criticise, if this is indeed true, isn't it strange and antithetical to the essence of philosophy, literature, and many of the humanity subjects, since the goal of so many writers was to touch and expand the contours and sympathies of the souls of their readers? (Naturally one could still do this, I would think, even if the 'soul' as a philosophical concept were in question in some courses). Thanks for your time.
Louise Antony
September 14, 2006
(changed September 14, 2006)
Permalink
I don't know your students' experiences, of course, so I don't know if they were justified in coming to the conclusions they did on the basis of those experiences. I can tell you, from my experience, both that I strive mightily to teach philosophy as a discipline dedicated to finding t... Read more
I was taking a Dance History class the other day and my professor made a comment stating: Philosophers believe that if one does not possess a language to express their thoughts, they have none. Is this true? If so, how does one express the phenomenons of people with disabilities (such as being deaf) or even one of the greatest minds in the world: Helen Keller? If one does not have a language to verbally express emotion, why are other non-verbal forms of communication (especially dance) not justified in the eyes of the philosopher?
Louise Antony
September 14, 2006
(changed September 14, 2006)
Permalink
Your dance teacher is correct in thinking that some philosophers believe that there cannot be thought without language, but not that all philosophers believe this. I do not, for example.
There was a very similar question to yours that I answered a while back. Check out question 953.... Read more
I have not written to my MP or participated in a public demonstration about my country's foreign policy, e.g., Britain's involvement in Iraq, although I do condemn it. Am I 'guilty by association'? Can you please explain this phrase. Thank you. Glen.
Roger Crisp
September 15, 2006
(changed September 15, 2006)
Permalink
Perhaps it depends on how strongly you condemn it. Let's assume that, like many people, you think the invasion of Iraq was a crime under international law, as well as extremely harmful and dangerous. Seems to me that we might want to encourage a public morality according to which people w... Read more
I'm puzzled by the Kierkegaardian 'leap of faith' concept. If someone announces he is the son of God and violates the laws of science (i.e. by performing miracles) to prove it, then 'faith' doesn't come into it at all as far as I can see - one has no choice but to believe, like if the current Pope levitated to prove he is Christ's Vicar on Earth. Or does this 'faith' really boil down to the belief that these ancient miracles actually occurred, and that the 'son of God' claims are attendant on and pursuant to them? I don't see how anyone can dismiss Christ's miracles and base their belief solely on faith especially when the Resurrection (a miracle) is so fundamental to Christianity. Surely 'faith' presupposes lack of evidence and is blind. (I would add completely untenable, too.)
Peter S. Fosl
September 14, 2006
(changed September 14, 2006)
Permalink
Yes, I think this is an important question. The issue of miracles as evidence for religious claims is a fascinating one. But I wonder if there really can be an event that we could have good reason to believe violates the laws of nature. David Hume explored just this question in his l... Read more
If humans are not born with "reason" and the rational faculty develops over time and therefore through experience, isn't "a priori" essentially an impossible concept, as the rational faculty itself is developed "a posteriori"?
Alexander George
September 14, 2006
(changed September 14, 2006)
Permalink
Also, take a look at Question 1161.
Log in to post comments
In question 630 about the future, one answer was that "If it's true now that you will lose a finger next year, then you will lose a finger next year and zipping into the future isn't going to change that." What if the person cut his/her whole hand off? This would obviously show the loss of the finger, but with a new addition (or subtraction, ha ha!) to the picture: a missing hand. Wouldn't this prove that one could alter the future if it was seen?
Alexander George
September 12, 2006
(changed September 12, 2006)
Permalink
You might also look at Question 997 and other entries mentioned there.
Log in to post comments