Recent Responses
Are there any secular arguments in favor of marriage as a moral good as compared to common law or cohabitation arrangements? If not, does that mean marriage is no more than a cultural tradition or something for tax purposes?
Oliver Leaman
March 9, 2014
(changed March 9, 2014)
Permalink
There are such arguments, and they tend to be that marriage is the best framework to raise children. No doubt there are arguments on both sides of this, but if it is best for children to be brought up by married parents, that is some sort of moral argument for the institution.
On the other hand,... Read more
Hello, Is everything in the universe invisible in its natural state? This question sounds strange, and maybe it's a bit hard to see what I mean, but I'll try to be as clear as possible. Imagine yourself outside of the universe, and that there are no other living beings in it. Since the light isn't reaching your eyes, you can't see the universe. The light inside the universe doesn't mean anything to you, it's just energy. Now, if you have, let's say, a room with nobody inside, being outside of the room would be the same as being outside of the universe when it comes to the meaning of light in the room. Yes, I understand, you can't see an object if your eyes are not exposed to the light reflected off an object, but what if there is no living being to interpret the reflected light? So, maybe a better question is what does light mean to a human if there is nobody around to form an image from the light? Thank you very much.
Stephen Maitzen
March 8, 2014
(changed March 8, 2014)
Permalink
Two replies:1. I'd caution against equating natural with non-human, let alone with non-living. Many living beings are in their natural state despite being alive, and many (if not all) human beings are in their natural state despite being human. A hermit crab in its borrowed shell is in its natu... Read more
Is one ever morally justified to beat someone up for making sexist and/or misogynist comments (this is a serious question)?
Stephen Maitzen
March 8, 2014
(changed March 8, 2014)
Permalink
I can't see how it could be. Beating up someone for making sexist or misogynist comments is using physical violence to punish the commenter. That seems like literally the wrong type of reaction to merely verbal misconduct. (Notice that we don't punish slander or libel that way.) It's something... Read more
I've heard there are people in philosophy called "action theorists" who think that action is always the product of one's own beliefs and desires. This view of action seems to call into question our free will. I know that I don't choose my desires and it really doesn't seem like I choose my beliefs either (e.g. I can't just choose to disbelieve that the earth revolves around the sun). So, if action is just the product of beliefs and desires, and I can't choose those, what room is left for me to choose my actions?
Allen Stairs
March 6, 2014
(changed March 6, 2014)
Permalink
This is a case of dividing questions. Whether our actions are ultimately free or not, we perform actions. I'm performing one right now: I'm responding to your question. You performed an action when you asked your question. There are various issues about just what sorts of things count as actions,... Read more
What is the metaphysical nature of logic itself? When we refer to a basic principle of logic (such as non-contradiction) are we referring to something that exists which we call “non-contradiction”? Or is it simply an abstraction that doesn’t exist naturally or non-naturally?
Stephen Maitzen
March 6, 2014
(changed March 6, 2014)
Permalink
I would caution against inferring from 'The principle of noncontradiction is an abstraction' to 'The principle of noncontradiction doesn't exist naturally or non-naturally'. A number of philosophers, and maybe an even larger number of mathematicians, think that at least some abstract objects mu... Read more
After much introspection I have decided to pursue a major in philosophy. Philosophy has become a passion of mine, and while other interests faded away, it has kept me intently interested. Currently, my long-term goal is to go to graduate school and complete a PhD. in philosophy. Afterwards I would like to devote my life to teaching the subject. Lately though, I worry whether a degree in philosophy would be enough in my intellectual development. I have considered possibly doing a double major in cognitive science in addition to my philosophy undergraduate degree, in hopes that it would expose me to another discipline for me to utilize in my philosophical research. My main concern is that when it comes to doing my dissertation I won't have a more empirical background to possibly ground some of my arguments accurately. I was recently talking to my logic professor and he was telling me that philosophy is becoming increasing more inter-disciplinary. I suppose my biggest question is, do I myself need to become interdisciplinary in my undergraduate work to contribute anything substantial to philosophy? I do enjoy the topics offered under cognitive science, and how they may illuminate some questions in philosophy of the mind, but doing a double major would also take away time from me in other ways. For example, I could be participating in the school's philosophy honors program or taking classes of other interests to me.
If your main interest is in
Gabriel Segal
March 4, 2014
(changed May 14, 2015)
Permalink
If your main interest is in philosophy of mind, then a really good grounding in cognitive science is very important. Interdisciplinary research is where it is at now.
Log in to post comments
Hello, My name is Ana I have recently read several articles on the subjects of evolution and religion. Many have been to support either theory about which is true but, not one has been to support both equally. My questions is it possible to support both evolution and be religious at the same point in time, and if so how?
Gabriel Segal
March 4, 2014
(changed March 4, 2014)
Permalink
Hi, Ana. Yes. For example, one could believe that God created a world in which evolution operates.
Log in to post comments
If a person chooses to drink alcohol in order to become more violent, should philosophers/society blame alcohol as "the evil substance," the drinker himself for not understanding the meaning of life, or society for not helping the person overcome alcohol consumption the first place?
Gabriel Segal
March 4, 2014
(changed March 4, 2014)
Permalink
Alcohol, not being sentient, can’t seriously be considered evil or blameworthy in the way many people (not including me) think some humans or other sentient beings can be. It is probably more fruitful to forget about blame and think instead in terms of causes and possible solutions. If the perso... Read more
Many prison sentences are far more damaging than the crime which led to the sentence. To what extent is that morally justified?
Gabriel Segal
March 4, 2014
(changed March 4, 2014)
Permalink
Good question. I assume you mean that they are more damaging overall, to the universe as a whole, rather than just to the person imprisoned.
Two arguments are typically offered to justify punitive sentences: retribution and deterrence. Personally, I can see no moral justification for retribution... Read more
Can anyone become a philosopher at any age? If not, what are the IQ and age requirements?
Miriam Solomon
February 28, 2014
(changed February 28, 2014)
Permalink
Anyone and everyone can become a philosopher by asking questions about knowledge, existence and ethics. Being a philosopher is like being a writer--democratic in that the opportunity and the identity are available to all, but tough in that making a living at doing it is a privilege that... Read more