Recent Responses

Is there an essence of Art that all art shares, or is art just a category into which we lump a contingent collection of cultural pursuits?

Charles Taliaferro July 27, 2012 (changed July 27, 2012) Permalink Excellent question! There are a number of theories of art over the centuries that philosophers have proposed. For Plato and Aristotle art involved what they called techne (technique) and imitation (mimisis), for romantics (and this was especially advanced by Tolstoy), art involved the expr... Read more

Freedom

Recently I read a newly published very short book criticisng the concept of Free Will. I thought the book made some good points and some not-so- good points, but what really disturbed me is that the author didn't ever carefully define what he meant by Free Will. Is the definition of Free Will so obvious and clear that there is no need to define it in a book intended for lay readers?

Stephen Maitzen July 26, 2012 (changed July 26, 2012) Permalink Eddy: Nice article! I'm glad they tapped you to review Harris's book. (I too suspect that it's the book the questioner is referring to.) --Steve Log in to post comments

Philosophers Truth

According to Wikipedia, which I grant isn't always a reliable source, William James believed that truth is what is useful. To me that just sounds stupid. Certainly truth is not just whatever is useful. Should I be so dismissive or is there more to his theory of truth to be appreciated?

Bette Manter July 26, 2012 (changed July 26, 2012) Permalink Oh, where to begin! Yes, James said this; no, it is not the case that James was stupid and it would be a travesty to dismiss James! But Lordy, have you stepped into a huge question- it is no wonder the Wiki-machine makes it sound so simplistic. Scholars of James, Peirce, and Royce (to name a f... Read more

Freedom

Recently I read a newly published very short book criticisng the concept of Free Will. I thought the book made some good points and some not-so- good points, but what really disturbed me is that the author didn't ever carefully define what he meant by Free Will. Is the definition of Free Will so obvious and clear that there is no need to define it in a book intended for lay readers?

Knowledge

There seems to be a common intuition that parts of a system can't understand the system they are in without stepping outside of it. This is mostly applied to ideological and political issues ("Ideology is everywhere, so you can't step outside it and thus can never fully understand it"), but I've seen it applied to artificial intelligence as well ("A computer program can't fully understand itself" is treated as self-evident by some). Is there something to this intuition, or is it just rhetoric? I can't think of any obviously necessary reason why a part of a system shouldn't be able to perceive or understand the system as a whole.

Bette Manter July 26, 2012 (changed July 26, 2012) Permalink I reply here knowing full-well I am out of my depth - I know there will be others who will probe this question far more adequately than I. But this disclaimer is itself a type of question imbedded within your query: what is "the whole" of any system? As a philosopher I know the limits of my know... Read more

Language

What does "fucing" mean and why is it a bad word? Does fucing mean sex where there is a desire to express physical control or dominance over a woman? Is that a bad thing? Is it a normal aspect of what is sometimes thought as its opposite, "lovemaking"? If it is normal does that mean that it is not a bad thing? (I use an asterisk because I do not know if this site has a word filter.)

Bette Manter July 28, 2012 (changed July 28, 2012) Permalink I agree with my colleague, N.S., and would like to add that his last line is worth reading the whole post! Another way to think about this term comes from personal experience - in which meaning and gender analysis had no part. A number of years ago I was walking down a hallway in a classroom bu... Read more

Punishment

In making such decisions as whether to grant parole, should we care whether convicts are "remorseful" for their crimes?

Nicholas D. Smith July 26, 2012 (changed July 26, 2012) Permalink I think so. After all, even if remorse is not an absolute guarantee that the remorseful person won't repeat his/her wrongdoing, it is at least a positive indicator. There are several theories of punishment and so the very idea of parole will vary under different theories. For example, in... Read more

Children Ethics Love

I don't think I like my mother as a person. I mean, if I were not her daughter I think I will not befriend this kind of woman. It's not that I hate her, I just dislike the value she has. Is this feeling acceptable? Do we, children, have an obligation to love our parents? Or is it suppose to be natural?

Nicholas D. Smith July 26, 2012 (changed July 26, 2012) Permalink There is an old saying (I'm told it originates with Kant, but I am not sure about that), which goes, "'ought' implies 'can.'" The idea is that you can only be held responsible or have an obligation to do something (you "ought" to do it) if it is something that is under your control. Do you... Read more

Logic

What is the definition of validity under possible world semantics?

Stephen Maitzen July 26, 2012 (changed July 26, 2012) Permalink Please excuse my parentheses; I hope they don't obscure my answer. As I understand it, an inference is (deductively) valid if and only if there's no possible world in (or at) which the premise(s) is (are) true and the conclusion is false. So "Socrates is a man; therefore, there's at least one... Read more

Freedom

Recently I read a newly published very short book criticisng the concept of Free Will. I thought the book made some good points and some not-so- good points, but what really disturbed me is that the author didn't ever carefully define what he meant by Free Will. Is the definition of Free Will so obvious and clear that there is no need to define it in a book intended for lay readers?

Recent Responses

Pages