Recent Responses
Is it a common view among philosophers that human beings are simply biological computers? Doesn't this view reduce philosophy of mind to solely neuroscience?
Eddy Nahmias
May 13, 2013
(changed May 13, 2013)
Permalink
It is a common view among philosophers that human beings are biological entities--that, in some sense, our minds (including our conscious mental processes) are our brains (are based on neural processes). There are few substance dualists (who think the mind is a non-physical entity). But in which s... Read more
Should the government regulate hateful Billboards? I once saw a billboard that said the pope is the anti-Christ. I shrugged it off as a matter of free speech. But then someone pointed out that someone could advertise a billboard that expressed hatred for blacks. For whatever reason this has never happened. Most billboard owners dont want to accused of racism. So arguably society polices itself well enough without government intervention. Yet I suspect that there is another factor which is that billboards are owned by a very small amount of people because the high expense involved and the limited number of billboards. These folks don't want any bad attention. The same observation could be made about all aspects of the media. It is very difficult to get controversial or even outright racist materials despite the fact that many people are racist. (I suppose The Bell Curve is a notable exception) It seems like one "benefit" of concentrated wealth is that it promulgates political correctness to protect its own interests. On the other hand wouldn't a better solution to the problem of hateful speech would be to regulate some cases such as billboards while at the same time democratizing the media so that more people can publish, advertise or otherwise express their political views?
Eric Silverman
May 11, 2013
(changed May 11, 2013)
Permalink
This is a good question to raise. Unfortunately, Ian Kidd has implicitly offered us a false dilemma on the matter by suggesting that 'free speech' means either "anything goes" OR "we can limit free speech to those views [we judge to be] worth hearing/worth taking seriously." There are many possibl... Read more
I sent a small donation by cheque to someone specifically for cancer research and left payee line open for them to fill name of project in. It now transpires cheque was made payable to that persons partner. I suspect this was to cover postage of collected goods to another part of world also for charity although I had made it known that would not be acceptable to me. It came to my notice only when I checked my accounts. How should I broach this with friend and is it acceptable for someobe to take money for one charitable cause and use it for another?
Ian Kidd
May 10, 2013
(changed May 10, 2013)
Permalink
People often donate money to charities because they (i) have a special concern for the focus of the charity and/or (ii) because they research the charity and choose carefully the one they want - for instance people often donate money to charities for diseases that have affected their life somehow. In th... Read more
Should the government regulate hateful Billboards? I once saw a billboard that said the pope is the anti-Christ. I shrugged it off as a matter of free speech. But then someone pointed out that someone could advertise a billboard that expressed hatred for blacks. For whatever reason this has never happened. Most billboard owners dont want to accused of racism. So arguably society polices itself well enough without government intervention. Yet I suspect that there is another factor which is that billboards are owned by a very small amount of people because the high expense involved and the limited number of billboards. These folks don't want any bad attention. The same observation could be made about all aspects of the media. It is very difficult to get controversial or even outright racist materials despite the fact that many people are racist. (I suppose The Bell Curve is a notable exception) It seems like one "benefit" of concentrated wealth is that it promulgates political correctness to protect its own interests. On the other hand wouldn't a better solution to the problem of hateful speech would be to regulate some cases such as billboards while at the same time democratizing the media so that more people can publish, advertise or otherwise express their political views?
Eric Silverman
May 11, 2013
(changed May 11, 2013)
Permalink
This is a good question to raise. Unfortunately, Ian Kidd has implicitly offered us a false dilemma on the matter by suggesting that 'free speech' means either "anything goes" OR "we can limit free speech to those views [we judge to be] worth hearing/worth taking seriously." There are many possibl... Read more
According to Kant intuitions without concepts are blind. I'm not sure I understand this but suppose the color red is an intuition and the awareness of the color as red or a more rudimentary awareness of the color red is the the concept. Couldn't it be argued that Kant is wrong because without a rudimentary awareness of the color red there would no red at all? Or was that Kants point? It seems to me that the "concept" of red is a precondition of red as much as the intuition and that Kant seems to suppose that they are at least theoretically seperable.
Douglas Burnham
May 9, 2013
(changed May 9, 2013)
Permalink
It seems to me that your interpretation of Kant is spot on. By 'blind' he means that we would have eyes (or ears or noses) but cannot see (or hear or smell), unless concepts were operative. However, this 'would have' is quite hypothetical. Kant certainly does not mean to imply that there is ever me... Read more
Does a point in geometry (cartesian and euclidean) occupy space or have volume (if we consider 3-D geometry)? And is a line segment always perpendicular to its point of origin? Or can we frame this as, is a line perpendicular to each and every point lying on it?
Stephen Maitzen
May 9, 2013
(changed May 9, 2013)
Permalink
As I understand the theory, an individual point in geometry has no extension and no volume; it's in space but doesn't occupy space in the sense of taking up a nonzero amount of space. Being perpendicular is a relation between lines (or line segments) rather than a relation between a line (or a line... Read more
What does it mean when a certain axiom is neither provable nor deniable? Does it imply that such axiom is self-evident and can't be doubted? I don't think that "real skeptics"(a skeptic who is so deep in doubt that he doubts his own existence and even his own doubt) like Pyrrho would be happy with that.
Stephen Maitzen
May 9, 2013
(changed May 9, 2013)
Permalink
Let's consider, for example, what philosopher Hilary Putnam has called "the minimal principle of contradiction":
(MPC) Not every contradiction is true.
Arguably, MPC is unprovable because whichever premises and inference rules we might use to try to prove MPC are no better-known by us, and no more... Read more
They say that relativism can not be affirmed without contradiction because to do so would imply that relativism had truth in an absolute sense. Is this simply an oversimplification or a strawman?
Stephen Maitzen
May 9, 2013
(changed May 9, 2013)
Permalink
I suspect that one can affirm relativism without contradiction provided one is willing to embrace an endless regress. One can affirm the following statements:
(R1) No statement is true except relative to some perspective (or worldview, or standard, or set of assumptions, or conceptual scheme).
(R2)... Read more
Recently I read an article by someone who claimed that the biggest problem we face in the US today in trying to help people in need is that parents care more about their own children than they do about other people's children. She elaborated on that point more but basically her conclusion was that until we could get people to spend as much money on the welfare of other people's children as they do on their own children we will never make enough progress. These assertions seemed to be completely serious as well. There was no indication that it was meant as satire. Are their any philosophical underpinnings to support such claims? it seems to me only right and natural that parents would be more invested in the welfare of their own children than the welfare of people they don't know and have never met.
Oliver Leaman
May 6, 2013
(changed May 6, 2013)
Permalink
I agree. The point is that if we try to spread our concern for welfare too broadly, we may end up with an inferior conclusion. We know or at least think we know what is in the interests of our children. It is likely to maximize welfare if we act in what we take to be their interests, directly, and of... Read more
Some people argue that a 15 year old should be required by their parents to have an abortion because they also can't get an ear piercing or attend an R rated movie without their parents permission. Is that a good argument?
I agree with Prof. Stairs:
Stephen Maitzen
May 13, 2015
(changed May 13, 2015)
Permalink
I agree with Prof. Stairs: even if we fix the argument's conflation of permissions and requirements, the analogies to piercings and 'R'-rated movies aren't close enough to abortion. We need to consider procedures that are of roughly equal invasiveness and seriousness.
So... Read more