Recent Responses
I want to say Hume was an idealist but this seems controversial. My reasoning goes like this. Hume thinks that all we can know comes from our personal experience (this is uncontroversial Hume was an empiricist). He also thinks that we have no justification for believing in an external world, because all we ever experience are our sense perceptions which, Hume thinks, are wholly mind dependent. So Hume thinks all we can know is mind dependent and we have no justification for believing that there is anything more than this. So for Hume all there is, is mind dependent stuff. This clearly makes Hume an idealist. So my qustion is am I right in saying that Hume was an idealist?
Donald Baxter
January 9, 2014
(changed January 9, 2014)
Permalink
Here is another take on this important and difficult question. The fact that Hume can find no justification for believing in the external world does not prevent him from believing in it. Nature causes us to believe many things we can find no justification for. "We may well ask, What causes in... Read more
Some people believe that removing someone from life support is wrong and is "playing God" because it could most likely cause death. With that line of thinking, shouldn't life support be considered "playing God" since they are sustaining life (especially when there is almost no chance for recovery)?
Daniel Koltonski
January 2, 2014
(changed January 2, 2014)
Permalink
I think you're right to wonder about the 'playing God' objection. First off, it's not always clear what the objection actually is. Sometimes, it seems to be the straightforward claim that only God may make decisions about life and death (and so about when to prolong life or hasten death);... Read more
If it is illegal for a rape victim to kill the rapist after the fact, then why should it be legal for the rape victim to kill a baby that is the product of the rape? It seems to me that abortion is "vigilante justice" in a sense. This is all assuming, of course, that the unborn child is considered a living, human being. If it isn't, then why is an unborn child not then considered "evidence" to be used by a third party? I do not think an unborn child should be considered anything in between a "living human" and an "object," but please take this distinction into consideration.
Allen Stairs
January 7, 2015
(changed January 7, 2015)
Permalink
My co-panelist has drawn some genuine distinctions, but I'd expect many people to find his response unconvincing overall. One obvious reason: suppose I have a five-year-old child who poses a very substantial burden to me. Perhaps the child has a physical disability that makes extensive demands... Read more
I recently read a philosophy book and it got me thinking about morality. Is not morality a tool of society to make it run smoother? If an action effects the world in a positive way than the action is good. If it effects in a negative way than it is bad. Now each human beings deepest desire is happiness and thats what each human strives for so I can only assume that society, as a group of humans, must strive for happiness as a whole as well. If this is true than the way society would decide if an action is good or bad would be the overall effect on happiness. So if we take all of this as true than it would seem that the morality of a decision can be measured and morality itself even made into a science. Is this not so?
Stephen Maitzen
January 2, 2014
(changed January 2, 2014)
Permalink
I agree with you that the consequences of an action matter to its moral status. But unfortunately it's hard to specify exactly how the consequences matter. You wrote, "If this is true [then] the way society would decide if an action is good or bad would be the overall effect on happiness."... Read more
Alright, I have a small problem. I am applying to graduate schools for my ph.d. My application is OK, decent grades, great writing sample, but there's this one credential that I definitely want to include but can't put on the online application. These days, the applications are all online, and for a lot of schools what you can't upload to the application, you can't mail in either, because they simply won't accept it. I wrote a book on skepticism and philosophical naturalism, and I am getting it published by an academic publisher, and I desperately want to include what I think is an important credential with my application. I don't just want to mention the book on my resume and in my personal statement, I actually want to send it. I can send it to a couple of places, but other places (that I want to get into) don't accept supplemental materials. I'm definitely not bragging or anything, because my book has a lot of flaws, but I think that if the admissions committee sees the actual book that will definitely have a psychological impact, and I want them to see it. How do I get around the problem with a few schools that they "won't accept supplemental materials" and (politely) get the actual physical book to the admissions committee?
Stephen Maitzen
January 2, 2014
(changed January 2, 2014)
Permalink
I think I replied to an earlier question of yours on the topic of graduate school (14 September 2013). I strongly recommend against sending an unsolicited book to any graduate admissions committee, particularly if they've said they don't accept supplemental materials. At best you'll waste p... Read more
There was a question recently about whether "language" was necessary for "thought" and no one mentioned music! if I "hear" a tune running through my head, is that "language" and is that "thought"?
Oliver Leaman
December 28, 2013
(changed December 28, 2013)
Permalink
I suppose to hear the sound of music all you need is hearing, so anything with functioning ears can hear the noise. But to hear the music you need some basic grasp of what music is, in just the same way that to understand words you need to have an idea of a language.... Read more
In a chapter on regression to the mean (Thinking Fast and Slow) Daniel Kahneman resorts to "luck" as an explanation for why one professional golfer shoots a lower score in a round than his/her rivals given that the talent pool is reasonably even. While a "lucky" (or unlucky) bounce can impact one's score, I find luck as a concept a poor explanation for performance. What is the philosophical status of luck, and are there different flavors of luck depending upon the philosophy? Is luck to chance as evidence is to data?
Allen Stairs
December 26, 2013
(changed December 26, 2013)
Permalink
Games typically involve a blend of things that a player can control and things s/he can't. A golfer can work on her backswing; she can't do anything about the moment-by-moment shifts in the wind and the fine-grained condition of the greens. Things like the winds and the lay of the greens o... Read more
Why did Descartes pick thinking of all possible attributes to logically establish existence? Rocks exist but don't think. What exactly did he have in mind to establish? Was it really existence? Did he have any valid reason to doubt his or our existence? Wouldn't pain be a better criterion? Or movement? Or change? If a non-philosopher raised such a question we would certainly look askance at him and not value his "evidence" either way.
Jasper Reid
December 21, 2013
(changed December 21, 2013)
Permalink
Aha! My answer seems to have crossed in the mail, as it were, with Charles Taliaferro's. Well, there you go, two for the price of one! The price, of course, being free: isn't this a lovely site?
Log in to post comments
Why did Descartes pick thinking of all possible attributes to logically establish existence? Rocks exist but don't think. What exactly did he have in mind to establish? Was it really existence? Did he have any valid reason to doubt his or our existence? Wouldn't pain be a better criterion? Or movement? Or change? If a non-philosopher raised such a question we would certainly look askance at him and not value his "evidence" either way.
Jasper Reid
December 21, 2013
(changed December 21, 2013)
Permalink
Aha! My answer seems to have crossed in the mail, as it were, with Charles Taliaferro's. Well, there you go, two for the price of one! The price, of course, being free: isn't this a lovely site?
Log in to post comments
Why did Descartes pick thinking of all possible attributes to logically establish existence? Rocks exist but don't think. What exactly did he have in mind to establish? Was it really existence? Did he have any valid reason to doubt his or our existence? Wouldn't pain be a better criterion? Or movement? Or change? If a non-philosopher raised such a question we would certainly look askance at him and not value his "evidence" either way.
Jasper Reid
December 21, 2013
(changed December 21, 2013)
Permalink
Aha! My answer seems to have crossed in the mail, as it were, with Charles Taliaferro's. Well, there you go, two for the price of one! The price, of course, being free: isn't this a lovely site?
Log in to post comments