My husband and I are agnostic. His ex-wife is Christian. His children (ages 7 and 11) go to church with their mother and very religious stepfather. She has told them that she divorced their father because he wasn't Christian and that it's not okay to not be Christian (she left out the part about her adultery, but I digress). They have learned in church that all non-Christians go to hell and are not loved or forgiven by God. We found a worksheet from church with a list: Christian/Non-Christian. Under the Christian list, there was a glistening gold heart. Under the Non-Christian list, a flat black heart. Under each was a list describing the wonderful things that happen to Christians and the horrible things that happen to Non-Christians. You get the picture. The oldest son believes that my husband's grandmother, his great-grandmother, will go to hell when she dies because she is Jewish. They have been told not to question the Bible (or their church's interpretation of the Bible) because they are...

"In some ways one might welcome the fact that they are being brought up by one parent in such an unusual and distinct manner, as compared with the majority of their peers." Oh, really? I think not. The kids are being subject to child abuse of a rather nasty kind (how else should we describe telling children that their greatgrandmother is going to be damned to hell?). Of course, saying that doesn't settle how you should respond to the abuse. I agree with Oliver Leaman at least in this much: future influences are likely to counteract some of the effects. A healthy teenage dose of sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll will probably do wonders. Still, you don't want your kids getting too caught up in some superstitious farrago in the meantime. What to do? I'd suggest some cheerful urbanity and gentle mockery (after all, kids rarely like to think that they are being uncool and rather silly ). But why not try some philosophy too? Press the obvious questions with wit and good-humour when the occasion arises: ...

Dear sirs and madams, I recently met my cousin, who is a very bright biologist. When she learned that I studied political science and philosophy at university, she asked respectfully me why I would study a self-perpetuating field. I know what my reasons are, but I would be interested in reading what some of the professionals have to say: Why study philosophy? Moreover, why study it since there is an impracticality associated with it? Have you ever gotten any flack from loved ones for philosophizing? Thank you for your time, -Justin

I wonder what is meant in the question by talking of philosophy as a self-perpetuating field ? In what sense is philosophy supposed to be "self-perpetuating" while biology isn't? Perhaps the idea is supposed to be that philosophy is self-perpetuating because, unlike biology, it just goes round in circles for ever and never settles anything. If that is the implicit claim, then I think it should be resisted vigorously. It would be just absurd to deny that we now know a vast deal more about issues about language, meaning and reference than we did before the time of (say) Frege; it would absurd to deny that we now know a vast deal more about the nature of the mind than we did before the time of (say) William James. Again, think about the philosophy of space and time: it would crazy to suggest that we are stuck where Newton was. And so it goes, through area after area. Of course, "settling a question" in philosophy isn't exactly like settling a question in biology (though that too, as the...

If you were to build an introductory philosophy course for community college kids, would you choose to focus more on the philosophers and their theories or would you focus more on philosophical questions (what is being, is there a god, is there a soul). Which do you think would be more effective for struggling or non-traditional learners?

To understand "the philosophers and their theories" you have to understand what philosophical questions were bugging them -- and understand the arguments they give for their theories (since the theories are worth no more than the arguments that support them). So it's not a really an issue of where to start, philosophers vs. questions. It's more an issue of whose list of questions to start with. An agenda set by some of the great dead philosophers? Or an agenda set by a class of students? Or perhaps somewhere in between -- an agenda set by the author of a good introductory book (like Simon Blackburn's Think ) which raises questions that look likely to have immediate "relevance" to the students, but which relates some of the responses and arguments to those of the great dead philosophers? In general I'd go for the third option. I certainly wouldn't go for the first.

How can I achieve the level of philosophical know-how and thinking ability that the philosophers of this site and the famous philosophers throughout history have had? Must I simply read many works of philosophers of the past, does the philosophical mind come with becoming more educated, or is there something else - a thought process or state of mind I must develop? Or is it an innate quality that people get at birth? I am eager to know because I have been reading much philosophical work lately and I very strongly desire to be a philosopher. and I want to write a book. Thanks, Jake - 15 yr. old

Well, Jake, it is flattering that you put the philosophers on this site on the same level as the famous philosophers of the past! But I don't think we quite deserve that . And maybe, indeed, what separates us from those all-time greats is some quality of mind that we're never going to acquire, however hard we work -- something innate, if you like. But let's not worry about trying to emulate the great: let's take your question to be one about how to get modestly competent at philosophy (like your average philosophy professor here). The short answer is: by reading, and thinking, and discussing. A lot. It is no good reading without thinking hard about what you are reading, trying your best to understand and critically evaluate the arguments as you go. It is no good just thinking without reading, or you will almost inevitably just re-invent various tempting views that are now well known to be horribly problematic: you need all the help you can get to avoid the pitfalls. And even if you read and...

Pages