Recent Responses
I am interested in learning more about Philosophy, both the history of the development of ideas, and its practical application (or is that an oxymoron!). I am currently enrolled in two MOOCs, one taught by Mitch Green (Know Thyself) and the other by Michael Sandel (Justice). As a Clinical Psychologist, I have been skating around the edge of philosophy in my work as a therapist, so am excited about learning more of this field in depth. My question/curiosity is in the area of maternal obligation. More specifically, under certain circumstances, is it ever justifiable that a mother kill her infant. Lest this question sound too horrible to consider, I can imagine this scenario: a child is born with massive, multiple physical deficits that would make his/her life less than that which an animal might experience and would entail untold expenses, time, and emotional costs for the parents and society. There is clearly, here, an issue of the moral obligation of a mother to her infant, but I think even that is just an assumed rather than examined position. I'm interested in hearing from any panelist on this matter, as well as being directed to any relevant writings.
Charles Taliaferro
March 28, 2013
(changed March 28, 2013)
Permalink
I feel certain that even in this extreme case, the mother would be at least charged with homicide, if not murder, from a legal perspective. And I think it would also be a case of wrongful homicide or murder from a moral point of view (or, more specifically, from the stand point of natural... Read more
Many people believe in the concept of a "soulmate". Do I need to share everything with my partner? Should my partner always be my best and closest friend?
Richard Heck
March 28, 2013
(changed March 28, 2013)
Permalink
I'm wary of these sorts of comparatives: best, closest. We all have many relationships that mean a great deal to us, and we do not need to make sure that one of them is "best", "closest". Indeed, if there is anything I've learned about relationships, it is how destructive those sorts of expectat... Read more
How does one determine which side in an argument must shoulder the burden of proof?
Richard Heck
March 28, 2013
(changed March 28, 2013)
Permalink
The other guy has the burden of proof. And yes, I'm serious. It's that bad.
But, to elaborate a little bit, I despise burden of proof type arguments. I do not know of any reasonable way of telling who "ought" to have the burden of proof, and I'm not sure I understand what is supposed to follow f... Read more
Dear philosophers, I really appreciate your website, which I just discovered! I'd like to make one comment regarding the recent questions about infinite sets on March 7 and March 14. In your responses (Allen Stairs and Richard Heck on March 14), you write that you do not know of any professional mathematicians who deny the existence of infinite sets. However, such mathematicians do indeed exist (although marginally). They are sometimes referred to as "ultrafinitists". One well-known living proponent of this view is Princeton mathematician Edward Nelson, also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Nelson and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism Specifically, one argument an ultrafinitist might use is that formal proofs are finite. Thus, although we might use the concept of infinite sets in our reasoning, there is no need to assume that infinite sets actually exist, because any mathematical statement could be preceded by the phrase "There is a finite proof of the statement that ..." I hope this makes for an interesting addition to your answers. Best regards, Sam PhD student, mathematical logic RU Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Richard Heck
March 28, 2013
(changed March 28, 2013)
Permalink
What I said was: "It's important to distinguish two different issues: (i) whether there are infinitely many natural numbers; (ii) whether there are mathematical objects that are themselves infinite. And it is possible to accept that there are infinitely many natural numbers without accepting tha... Read more
I have read that subjectivity means something which is unique to a person's perspective. An example of something subjective might be color, but is that really something unique to a perspective? If a person is aware of a color isn't the "perspective" the awareness of that color, and isn't the awareness of the color separate from color proper? If that is the case isn't there a sense in which colors are just as external to our being and as objective as primary properties? The attitude of a child is to not distinguish between the secondary and primary properties so that colors are real features of the world but isn't this seeming mistake a product of the fact that awareness is in a sense fundamentally distinct from that which it is aware of? Of course on the other hand it seems hard to imagine colors not existing without a perceiver so I don't know, I'm guessing that philosophers have discussed this issue.
Stephen Maitzen
March 28, 2013
(changed March 28, 2013)
Permalink
You'll find many of your questions about color discussed helpfully in the SEP entry available at this link.
Log in to post comments
Has anyone written on the impact (or lack of it) of Descartes on Islamic thought?
Oliver Leaman
March 24, 2013
(changed March 24, 2013)
Permalink
Not to my knowledge, although there is literature on how Descartes may have been inspired by Avicenna's flying man argument when he developed his method of doubt.
Log in to post comments
Are 18 year olds capable of consenting to be in pornographic productions?
Oliver Leaman
March 24, 2013
(changed March 24, 2013)
Permalink
Certainly, if there is an age of consent then there is an age of consent. We may disapprove of the decisions that people make, but in a culture where people can make choices we need to have a rule as to when they can make those choices.
Log in to post comments... Read more
A lecturer I met a few weeks ago said to me (among other things) that up to this point no-one has managed to disprove Kant's famous claim that 'we should always treat others as ends in themselves and never as mere means'. While I agree that this is a noble maxim by which to live our lives, is it true that it has not been disproved? It seems slightly hasty to claim this about anything.
Allen Stairs
March 23, 2013
(changed March 23, 2013)
Permalink
I think there are two different issues here, so let me start with the simpler one. Suppose the lecturer said: "To the best of my knowledge—and I've read a great deal on the matter—no one has disproved Kant's claim. That seems the sort of thing one might reasonably be able to say, and might well... Read more
When I look at the room I'm sitting in, I am consciously aware of it as existing outside my body and head. So, for example, I can walk towards the opposite wall and I appear to get closer to it until I reach out and touch it. Now I understand that light is being reflected off a wall, travelling across a room, entering my eyes and this process creates nervous impulses. (In fact a physics would correctly point out that the photons that hit my retina are not even the same as the photons 'reflected' by any object). I understand that these impulses are processed in various parts of my brain, some unconsciously but eventually a mental "schema" representing the room is created. I also understand that there are other processes going on in my brain that create my awareness of different types of "self"s, that continually shift my awareness and that attempt to always produce a self-consistent view of myself and the world. However, my question is not about these (well not directly!). My question is simply how does the representation of the room that my brain is creating, not appear within me but instead outside? I look forward to some interesting answers.
Gabriel Segal
March 23, 2013
(changed March 23, 2013)
Permalink
Your answer may be in the question: "how does the representation of the room that my brain is creating, not appear within me but instead outside?" The representation itself is in your brain. But what it represents is the room outside your head, and that representational content is how the repr... Read more
Is it wrong to fall in love and have a relationship with your first cousin even if you did not grow up together and met as adults? There are many taboos about this kind of relationships and some cultures see it as a very bad thing and others don't. I am very curious to know what philosophers have to say about this.
Allen Stairs
March 22, 2013
(changed March 22, 2013)
Permalink
On the one hand, there are no doubt good reasons for incest taboos. For one thing, family life might become hopelessly complicated if sexual liaisons between first-degree relatives were common. To that we can add that when close relatives have children, the risk that their child will have birth... Read more