Recent Responses
Why do so many atheists think that other atheists "ought" to be a humanist, or at least care about animal rights, environmental protection, left-wing politics, and so on? Isn't this both a psychological cognitive dissonance and a philosophical naturalistic fallacy? I think even David Hume would consider a religious person be more inclined to support those causes since they have sacred and textual norms to follow whereas the atheist has none.
Gabriel Segal
April 26, 2013
(changed April 26, 2013)
Permalink
I am far from convinced that a particularly large number of atheists think that other atheists "ought" to be a humanist, or at least care about animal rights, environmental protection, left-wing politics, and so on. Do you have any evidence for this idea? I am also puzzled by the suggestion o... Read more
The Symposium seems to be more of an artistic intellectual exercise than a philosophical treatise and philosophers generally see it that way but The Republic is taken literally as a philosophical work. Why is that?
Nickolas Pappas
April 26, 2013
(changed April 26, 2013)
Permalink
There are several problematic assumptions at work in your question: that taking a work “literally” means the same thing as taking it as “a philosophical work”; that the two options for philosophical writings are “artistic” and “philosophical treatise”; ultimately, that real philosophy is pla... Read more
Is it appropriate for philosophers who specialize in specific branches of philosophy to comment on philosophical branches outside their field of training? By analogy, a professional chemist would almost never publish books or articles in computer science. Why then should we even consider the political theories of Noam Chomsky (a linguist and philosopher of language) instead of those of Machiavelli or Leo Strauss? Or the moral writings of Bertrand Russell (a logician and philosopher of science)?
Jasper Reid
April 26, 2013
(changed April 26, 2013)
Permalink
First, let's consider what constitutes 'training'. Should we, for instance, be focusing solely on the subject(s) in which someone has taken a formal degree? It's true that Chomsky didn't formally study politics as either an undergraduate or a doctoral student: but then, neither did Machiavelli or... Read more
Why Nature selected only 2 genders through evolution, why not 3, 4 or any other number?
Miriam Solomon
April 25, 2013
(changed April 25, 2013)
Permalink
There are species with only female gender (parthenogenetic species such as some lizards), and species with three or more genders (some bacteria, insects and fish). An interesting and accessible book that explores gender and evolution is Evolution's Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden.... Read more
Is length an intrinsic property or is it something which is only relative to other lengths? Is an inch an inch? Or is it simply a relation between other (length) phenomena?
Allen Stairs
April 27, 2013
(changed April 27, 2013)
Permalink
It is indeed an interesting question, and in fact it's more than one question.To begin with, my colleague is correct: in special relativity, length is like velocity in classical mechanics: it's a "frame-dependent" quantity. However, the theory of relativity is also a theory of absolutes; between... Read more
In reply to a recent question about whether aesthetic judgments are reliable Stephen Maitzen wrote http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/5097 "(1) We often seem to make objective aesthetic judgments, such as the judgments concerning Bach and Rihanna that you mentioned in your question; why not take those judgments at face value? Why think we have to interpret those judgments as non-objective?" Often we (or some of us) feel that the aesthetic value of a work derives from an ontological sense that the music represents, expresses or even manifests a higher reality. We don't take Rhianna very seriously as a great artist because her music doesn't seem to convey anything of profound importance. We can feel that way even if we happen to enjoy her music a lot. If we listen to Suite Number 3 in D Major by Bach we might feel that the music conveys something grand but we can't say for certain what. It's that lack of certainty about what is conveyed by the music that I think makes people question the validity of such aesthetic judgments. If I didn't have a certain amount of faith or wonder about Bach's Suite I would honestly think that Rhianna might be a comparably great artist or if not Rhianna some other pop artist without any metaphysical pretensions. So isnt saying that we can rely on these aesthetic judgments therefor tantamount to saying that we can trust the ontological ideas that accompanies those aesthetic judgements?
Stephen Maitzen
April 25, 2013
(changed April 25, 2013)
Permalink
Thanks for your reply.
As I did in my previous answer, let me emphasize that aesthetics isn't my specialty, so I hope specialists will come forward to answer your questions. I'm not sure what to say about the idea that a musical work "conveys something grand" or "manifests a higher reality" t... Read more
Am I a hypocrite if I support gun control while owning guns myself?
Allen Stairs
April 25, 2013
(changed April 25, 2013)
Permalink
Being in favor of "gun control" covers a lot of territory — from modest reform of gun laws to outright prohibition.But a hypocrite is someone who exempts himself from his own stated principles. If the sort of gun control you favor is something you'd be willing to apply in your own case, there's... Read more
If there IS philosophical progress, is it worthwhile to read philosophy that was written before you were born? Isn't the most current understanding of philosophy the most valid? For example, we now know Newtonian physics is false at the quantum level; wouldn't it stand to reason that after two hundred years Kant's moral philosophy has been refined or superceded and should not be followed in its entirety? If there is NOT any philosophical progress and philosophical questions are inherently unresolvable, then is the entire field of philosophy futile? If philosophers can't even agree on what the aims of philosophy are, then does that mean Marx's philosophy is as equally valid for people to follow as that of Aristotle's?
William Rapaport
April 21, 2013
(changed April 21, 2013)
Permalink
I agree with Ian for similar reasons (see my Unsolvable Problems and Philosophical Progress)So, because we both agree that there is philosophical progress, is it worthwhile to read philosophy that was written before you were born?Yes, for at least two reasons: First, of course, some of that... Read more
Are answers to philosophical questions always distinct from sociological questions? How much should the two fields inform one another or at all? It seems particularly when it comes to ethics, many people give philosophical answers to sociological questions and vice versa. For example, suppose a legislature attempts to censor certain very violent forms of pornography after several studies and interviews with criminals confirm that its proliferation causes more sex crimes in society. This seems like a proposed sociological solution. But if a group of political, legal, and moral philosophers in academia object, claiming that producing and watching violent pornography is not immoral, regardless if does lead to more sex crimes (since it is done with the personal autonomy of performers and viewers), how should the public balance the two differing arguments?
Ian Kidd
April 20, 2013
(changed April 20, 2013)
Permalink
One might say that sociology asks what people think and why they think it - for instance how social factors affect their attitudes, ideas, and values and so on - while philosophy is more concerned with (firstly) identifying which attitudes, ideas, and values are defensible (in the sense that good r... Read more
If there IS philosophical progress, is it worthwhile to read philosophy that was written before you were born? Isn't the most current understanding of philosophy the most valid? For example, we now know Newtonian physics is false at the quantum level; wouldn't it stand to reason that after two hundred years Kant's moral philosophy has been refined or superceded and should not be followed in its entirety? If there is NOT any philosophical progress and philosophical questions are inherently unresolvable, then is the entire field of philosophy futile? If philosophers can't even agree on what the aims of philosophy are, then does that mean Marx's philosophy is as equally valid for people to follow as that of Aristotle's?
William Rapaport
April 21, 2013
(changed April 21, 2013)
Permalink
I agree with Ian for similar reasons (see my Unsolvable Problems and Philosophical Progress)So, because we both agree that there is philosophical progress, is it worthwhile to read philosophy that was written before you were born?Yes, for at least two reasons: First, of course, some of that... Read more