Recent Responses
What is the next best thing to studying philosophy at an undergraduate level? I had wanted to study philosophy for a long time — but I've decided to go another path. I'm disappointed, because I think the transferrable skills from philosophy are absolutely amazing. (This is on top of the fact that I really just enjoy philosophy.) For instance, if you look at GRE scores based on the subject majored in, those who studied philosophy were the number one in verbal reasoning and analytical writing, and pretty high up in the quantitative reasoning. People have told me that the only way to experience the depth and breadth of philosophy is to actually study it full time for a number of years. But is there a way to at least develop some of the skills that philosophers have in bucket loads without actually doing it for a degree? I am doing a law degree.
Stephen Maitzen
October 13, 2013
(changed October 13, 2013)
Permalink
I agree with Prof. Leaman that philosophy hasn't cornered the market on good reasoning about difficult issues. But I'd caution anyone against thinking that even the best law schools, for example, generally attain the level of conceptual precision and logical rigor demanded by serious trai... Read more
I have a question regarding referencing and I don't know where else to turn, the quote: " Our greatest weapon against stress is our ability to choose one thought over another" is all over the net attributed to James, but I can not find a specific work of his which it is cited. Can anyone help?
Jasper Reid
October 11, 2013
(changed October 11, 2013)
Permalink
That definitely doesn't sound like William James, on account of the use of the word "stress". The notion of stress, in what I take to be the relevant sense of the term, only really started to arise in the 1950s. But James died in 1910. That's the internet for you.
He did however say the follo... Read more
If the probability of death is 100%, and the probability of being alive tomorrow is uncertain, does that mean the probability of dying tomorrow is greater than the probability of being alive? If so, why am I so convinced that planning for the future is a good thing? People seem to spend large amounts of time planning for their future lives, but shouldn't they be planning for their unquestionable death?
Stephen Maitzen
October 10, 2013
(changed October 10, 2013)
Permalink
If the probability of death is 100%, and the probability of being alive tomorrow is uncertain, does that mean the probability of dying tomorrow is greater than the probability of being alive?
No. Let death be represented by a fair coin's landing heads-up. The probability that the coin wil... Read more
What is the next best thing to studying philosophy at an undergraduate level? I had wanted to study philosophy for a long time — but I've decided to go another path. I'm disappointed, because I think the transferrable skills from philosophy are absolutely amazing. (This is on top of the fact that I really just enjoy philosophy.) For instance, if you look at GRE scores based on the subject majored in, those who studied philosophy were the number one in verbal reasoning and analytical writing, and pretty high up in the quantitative reasoning. People have told me that the only way to experience the depth and breadth of philosophy is to actually study it full time for a number of years. But is there a way to at least develop some of the skills that philosophers have in bucket loads without actually doing it for a degree? I am doing a law degree.
Stephen Maitzen
October 13, 2013
(changed October 13, 2013)
Permalink
I agree with Prof. Leaman that philosophy hasn't cornered the market on good reasoning about difficult issues. But I'd caution anyone against thinking that even the best law schools, for example, generally attain the level of conceptual precision and logical rigor demanded by serious trai... Read more
Is libertarian free will a necessary assumption for any decision theory because “one has to suppose that one has a choice to make”? It seems to me that decision theories needn't rely on the formulation that agent1 can x or ~x regardless of preceding states-of-affairs, but that it can equally well rely on agent1 x'ing because state-of-affairs1 determines that agent1 x's or agent1 ~x's because state-of-affairs2 determines that agent1 ~x's. The point is not whether the agent can make that decision with exactly the same preceding state-of-affairs, but whether the agent could make both decisions, however the decisions are brought about. My reason for this position is that if libertarian free will is a necessary assumption for any decision theory is correct, determinists should not make normative suggestions ever. One would suggest this perhaps, because they'd claim determinists cannot ever make normative suggestions coherently. I believe this is wrong because normative suggestions a determinist makes could potentially be the difference that makes a difference between agent1 x'ing and agent1 ~x'ing – hence, a determinist can prescribe that an agent makes one decision instead of the other because it may be that with the additional argument for the former decision, a person would make said decision where they otherwise would not have. This strikes me as fairly clear: determinists are not automatically barred from making normative prescriptions on decision making. My question, then, is whether there is something more to what a defender of libertarian free will's necessity in decision terms that I am missing or whether my approach to decision making from a determinist's perspective is severely flawed.
Stephen Maitzen
October 10, 2013
(changed October 10, 2013)
Permalink
Like you, I don't see why rational decision theory must assume that agents have libertarian freedom. Indeed, if memory serves (it's been a while), Richmond Campbell argues that fundamental principles of rational decision theory rule out libertarian freedom on the part of the agent: 'Moral... Read more
Do you think that there are things humans cannot understand because our brains are limited? Philosopher Thomas Nagel was recently quoted as saying that there are surely truths that people cannot understand (and will never be able to understand), as "nine-year olds cannot understand Maxwell's equations". I don't think this is a good example: after all nine-year olds are very smart, and it seems to me that they just don't have the time and information to "understand Maxwell's equations" while they are still nine years old. Is there any reason why nine-year olds wouldn't understand those equations if they had a nine-year old brain (physically speaking) forever (always adding new information)? And what if such equations were explained to them? Anyway, I would like you to answer not about the example, but about the general issue. Of course there are things we will never know and cannot know (for instancel, many things that happened before humans existed, or in distant parts of the universe, or things people just didn't notice and left no trace of their existence). And some things we will never understand because it never happened, for circumstantial reasons, that somebody had the right idea (it could have happened that Einstein never existed to create relativity theory, and social or cultural circumstances could have been such that science and philosophy never came to existence, as they never have in many cultures). But all this has nothing to do with some essential limitation of human brains. Human brains are surely limited (they can store only some limited ammount of information, since there is a finite number of neurons, and they have some limited "processing velocity"), but this doesn't seem to be like being unable to understand something. By the way, we can store information in computers and take many generations to solve our questions. But even if some problems involve so many operations that we wouldn't have the time to solve them before the universe collapses (it seems that that's what happens with the question of mathematically perfect chess playing, since there are to many possibilities in chess), that is nothing like failing to understand chess, its rules, or the difference between good and bad chess moves. I apologize for having written so much. Thank you.
Stephen Maitzen
October 10, 2013
(changed October 10, 2013)
Permalink
I'm inclined to think that there are, and perhaps must be, things that humans can't understand because of the limitations of our brains. Now, the term 'understand' might mean (i) 'understand at all (i.e., at least partly)' or (ii) 'understand completely'. On interpretation (ii), it's pret... Read more
Hi; I was wondering if there is ever justification in Religion and or Politics for "the Noble Lie". I ask this because it seems to me that both mainly rely on this is order to maintain relevance. Oddly enough what fascinates me most is the idea that it is necessary to invent some "Bogey Man" in order to maintain Social & Economic cohesion. Anyway I'd be more than interested in your views and opinions. Cheers Pasquale. BTW,, I've just finished reading your Book, "What should I do?" Great Read. Thanks.
Oliver Leaman
October 5, 2013
(changed October 5, 2013)
Permalink
Lies are a problem politically since they imply a paternalistic relationship between rulers and the ruled. Even from a consequentialist point of view this is problematic, since it would become more and more tempting for leaders to deceive themselves about when it was appropriate to level with... Read more
Suppose that all the languages in the world have the same number of vocabulary. Is it possible that one language is more superior than another in the way it represents the world, even if they have the same number of words contained in them?
Oliver Leaman
October 5, 2013
(changed October 5, 2013)
Permalink
I don't see what is so good about brevity in language. What is wrong with lots of synonyms? You then get to choose which word to use. Perhaps it seems that it does not matter, since the choice is between equivalents. Well, they may mean the same thing but they don't sound the same or look the... Read more
Do philosophers consider psychology to be a science? If not, do they think philosophy should inform personal life values or psychiatric treatment?
Charles Taliaferro
October 4, 2013
(changed October 4, 2013)
Permalink
Interesting question! The field of psychology emerged in the 19th and early 20th century as a science; at least the early self-described psychologists first described themselves as developing a science of the mind, and later changed this to the science of behavior. In any case, I sugge... Read more
Does intelligence imply obligation? That is, if you can understand a situation better than other people, or have a generally higher aptitude for solving problems, are you obligated to use that capacity to better help society? Are you held to a higher moral standard, say where crime (or harmful behavior) is concerned, if you have a demonstrably greater grasp of the values in play; are you more responsible to consider long-term consequences because you can anticipate them better? I'd be curious to know which, if any, philosophers addressed these sorts of questions historically.
Charles Taliaferro
October 4, 2013
(changed October 4, 2013)
Permalink
Very good question! Those philosophers in the utilitarian tradition tend to think that such a gifted person ought to apply her intelligence in such matters if that would be the maximal way in which she might bring about the greatest happiness. Formally, what is called 'act utilitariani... Read more