Recent Responses
What have philosophers said about the idea that sex results in babies so therefor we should look at the meaning of any sexual act in terms of sexual reproduction? It does seem as if we didn't evolve to have sex without reproduction and therefor sex without reproduction is a modern phenomena not attached to our evolutionary nature. So maybe our emotional responses to sex and the feelings of shame that correspond with sex might be because of this evolutionary nature?
Nicholas D. Smith
July 26, 2013
(changed July 26, 2013)
Permalink
Something seems to have gone a bit wrong here. There can be no doubt that human evolution has effects on our sexualities, but I see no reason at all to agree with the reduction of all sexuality to reproduction. Sexuality can manifest itself in sociality and other very important aspects of h... Read more
Did Hume commit the genetic fallacy when he argued that one of the reasons we should not believe in miracles was because they derived from "ignorant and barbarous nations"?
Jasper Reid
July 26, 2013
(changed July 26, 2013)
Permalink
Before I address your question directly, it would be worth just running through Hume's main argument in section 10 of the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, for the sake of those readers who might not have come across it before. Hume is concerned with the credibility of testimony concerning mi... Read more
Do I have an obligation to be healthy in virtue of the fact that my health problems contribute to higher health care premiums for other people?
Allen Stairs
July 26, 2013
(changed July 26, 2013)
Permalink
I'm not convinced that we gain a lot here by talking about obligation; more on that below. However it's true: if you are unhealthy, then this makes at least a marginal difference to other people's health care premiums. That's one reason why it would be a good thing to try to stay healthy, even it... Read more
Is the statement, "the only rule is that there are no rules" the same in meaning as "there are no rules"? Why would a person ever necessarily use the first statement?
Oliver Leaman
July 25, 2013
(changed July 25, 2013)
Permalink
It is a rhetorical flourish, designed to show how open minded and liberal one is, but as you suggest, it is really equivalent to saying there are no rules. Of course, if there are no rules about anything then one wonders how the statement could be understood, since presumably it depends on rules... Read more
What is the the truth value, if they have one, of propositions whose subject do not exist? "The current king of France is bald" is the famous example. Is that true or false, or neither? I have a hard time understanding how the current king of France can be neither bald nor not bald, even though I have no trouble understanding that there is no current king of France.
William Rapaport
July 25, 2013
(changed July 25, 2013)
Permalink
There are (at least) 3 ways to handle the assignment of a truth value to sentences with non-referring subjects, like "The current king of France is bald":1. Bertrand Russell's solution (as Stephen Maitzen's response points out) was to argue that the subject-predicate (or noun-phrase/verb-phra... Read more
What is the the truth value, if they have one, of propositions whose subject do not exist? "The current king of France is bald" is the famous example. Is that true or false, or neither? I have a hard time understanding how the current king of France can be neither bald nor not bald, even though I have no trouble understanding that there is no current king of France.
William Rapaport
July 25, 2013
(changed July 25, 2013)
Permalink
There are (at least) 3 ways to handle the assignment of a truth value to sentences with non-referring subjects, like "The current king of France is bald":1. Bertrand Russell's solution (as Stephen Maitzen's response points out) was to argue that the subject-predicate (or noun-phrase/verb-phra... Read more
Why do we do anything if nothing lasts forever? Every action we make is but a blip on the finite timeline of the universe, ending with the heat death. All our actions fade into insignificance as they become the past. Similarly, on a smaller scale, why do we do things if life is finite too? What difference would it make to the individual who is unable to witness the effect of his actions?
Stephen Maitzen
July 25, 2013
(changed July 25, 2013)
Permalink
I presume you're asking a philosophical question about the rational justification of our actions rather than simply a psychological question about our actual motivations for doing them. The first thing to emphasize is that your question isn't rhetorical (and I'm not saying that you meant it to... Read more
Is pragmatic truth inherently less valid than other forms of truth? If a Hindu believes in the truth that Vishnu exists and a Muslim does not, how could they both be right? I don't know how to word this, but are the correspondence and epistemic theories of truth the most "true?"
Charles Taliaferro
July 23, 2013
(changed July 23, 2013)
Permalink
This is a complicated matter. Realist views of truth, including versions of the correspondence theory, hold that reality cannot or should not be split into different venues in which, say, Vishnu exists and is divine for one person, but not for another. Realists, then, hold that if Allah exi... Read more
Could having children be considered forcing life upon somebody who never asked for it?
Thomas Pogge
July 21, 2013
(changed July 21, 2013)
Permalink
Yes, it could. Two philosophers who have written in this vein are Seana Shiffrin and David Benatar. You can find at quick introduction to this debate (along with additional literature) at http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com.au/2008/08/is-coming-into-existence-agent-neutral.html.... Read more
I'm going to ask a somewhat bizarre question concerning casuality, probability, and the nature of belief so bear with me thanks! Suppose a craps player goes to two casinos in Macau, the first one architecturally built according to feng shui principles and a second one not according to feng shui principles. Feng shui is an ancient Chinese system of geomancy that modern psychologists tend to discredit. This craps player personally believes in feng shui himself but only to a moderate extent. He frequents both casinos equally and bets exactly the same way every time but he usually wins at the first casino and usually loses at the second casino. 1) Does this prove that feng shui is "real," at least for him? 2) Pragmatically, even if feng shui isn't "real" or cannot be proven to be real, isn't it advisable for him to stop going to the second casino? 3) Can psychology really influence probability involving human decisions?
Allen Stairs
July 19, 2013
(changed July 19, 2013)
Permalink
Statistics could give evidence that something about one of the casinos makes it more likely that your gambler will win there. Feng shui could be the explanation, though it would be a funny sort of feng shui that only worked for some of the gamblers, and so if it is feng shui, the casino may not be... Read more