Recent Responses
Our understanding of the physical universe is better than say, what it was a few thousands of years ago. We may continue to understand it better as time progresses. My question is, would it at all be possible, at some stage, to say that we know it all, that the universe has been stripped naked and it no longer holds any more mysteries?
Stephen Maitzen
June 14, 2012
(changed June 14, 2012)
Permalink
I strongly doubt it! I think it's a very good bet that we human beings will continue to improve our understanding of the universe, but I strongly doubt that our understanding will ever become perfect, that there will come a time at which we've answered every meaningful question about it. Cert... Read more
What does 'all things equal' actually mean? I don't understand the expression at all. It surely isn't to be taken literally...unless one is constructing a thought experiment. But philosophers don't only use the phrase when constructing thought experiments. I'm lost.
Douglas Burnham
June 16, 2012
(changed June 16, 2012)
Permalink
Like any real experiment, a thoughtexperiment (or analogy, case study or example) in order to be validevidence for some position, has to be conceived of as beingrepeatable. So, my thought experiment should be compelling onits own terms, and not because of some special context that makes itcompe... Read more
Is the exhortation by Jesus to "Love thy neighbor as thyself" something that many or most modern ethicists would agree with? What about the part about "loving thy enemy"?
Nicholas D. Smith
June 14, 2012
(changed June 14, 2012)
Permalink
It probably depends on which ethicist you ask, but one consideration weighs against these mandates, and that is the criterion of what is called "demandingness." A theory that demands more from human agents than they can be reasonably held responsible for is too demanding. Arguably, these ma... Read more
I'm having a hard time separating virtue ethics from other theories. As I understand it, virtue ethics states that we ought to have strong moral characters, because virtue will help us make moral decisions; the decisions themselves are said to be mere reflections of one's character. But, first, how is this different from deontology, i.e. a preoccupation with rules and duties? Isn't a virtuous character simply somebody who follows certain rules and who perceives certain duties? Alternatively, how is it different from utilitarianism? Isn't a virtuous person merely a person who is intrinsically motivated to behave in such a way that produces more happiness? Aren't virtues just descriptors of such a character?
Nicholas D. Smith
June 14, 2012
(changed June 14, 2012)
Permalink
Here is a way to distinguish the different theories: What does each regard as the primary bearer of value? Is it the characters of moral agents (so that actions have value only insofar as they are either symptomatic of, derive from, or help to create or sustain the approved character-traits)... Read more
Even if there is overwhelming evidence in opposition of solipsism, it still cannot be disproven to 100% certainty. Is it just the nature of any conscious entity to have to have faith in their surroundings being external and objective to the mind, while still viewing them subjectively, in order to just live their lives? Or can one really live their entire life suspecting solipsism?
Gabriel Segal
June 19, 2012
(changed June 19, 2012)
Permalink
Whether one thinks there is overwhelming evidence in opposition of solipsism may depend on what one takes evidence to be. Arguably, if evidence is just the way things seem, construed in the most minimal, least question-begging way possible, then there is no evidence in opposition to sopipsism at... Read more
Is marriage an artificial concept that has come into existence just because the life expectancy of humans is around 60 years. What if the life expectancy was 200 years or say just 15 years. Would we still have the concept of marriage in humans?
Nicholas D. Smith
June 14, 2012
(changed June 14, 2012)
Permalink
I rather expect that monogamous marriage is more the result of the agricultural revolution than an artifact of our life spans. It was when we changed from hunter-gatherers to "property-owners" (so that we could raise our crops and lay claim to the fruits of our agricultural labors), I suspec... Read more
I've read in several places that scientists have estimated the number of atoms in our galaxy to be (very) roughly 10 to the 65th power. This is an extraordinarily huge and basically incomprehensible number. However, this figure is more than 100 times smaller than the number of ways I could arrange the ordinary deck of playing cards I have in my hands. [52 factorial is approximately 8 x 10 to the 67th power]. Pardon the exaggeration, but how can I keep facts like this from melting my brain?
Andrew Pessin
June 12, 2012
(changed June 12, 2012)
Permalink
Apparently you have, if you wrote this question! :-)
(People also like to talk about the immense number of neural connections within our brains -- I don't know how that number compares to the ones you mentioned, but I believe it's pretty brain-melting too!)
ap
Log in to pos... Read more
If it was for an organised civilization of aliens to be discovered, could an actual form of communication emerge? I mean, aside the fact that we would speak different langugages, we would have totally different habits, different way of thinking and ethics (if not different ''types'' of logic as they would have grown on a diffent planet with all the consequences this fact induces).
Andrew Pessin
June 12, 2012
(changed June 12, 2012)
Permalink
Great question. I would think, though, that the onus would be on the skeptic raising the question to give solid reasons why communication would NOT be possible. Already on earth we find different cultures with different languages, different "habits," different ways of thinking and ethics, and in... Read more
Is it psychologically possible to believe a proposition in the absence of understanding the proposition? If not, do many of us continue to harbor beliefs "as tho" they are understood. While admitting that total understanding is, probably, not attainable, it appears to me that our mutually formed groups that purport to make and implement serious decisions stands as a possible threat to concerted action. I have classified these thoughts as somewhat metaphysical since, if totally psychological, the answer might be in the domain of science. Thank you for this site. Jerry D. H.
William Rapaport
June 11, 2012
(changed June 11, 2012)
Permalink
A valuable paper on this topic, written by a psychologist, but with many discussions of Descartes's and Spinoza's views on these issues, is:Gilbert, Daniel T. (1991), "How Mental Systems Believe", American Psychologist 46(2) (February): 107-119(online at http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/Gillber... Read more
Dear All, Few days ago, I read quote that stated "Life becomes easier when you accept apology that you never got". Recently, I broke up with my ex and he did something terrible to me, and most of friends that know my problem would say if he did something terrible and he needs to apologize. Unfortunately, his pride is way much bigger than his conscious. He never apologizes and I haven't feel so terrible because of him. How could I forgive him though he would never apologize to me? I want to forgive him even he never apologizes to me, I just want to feel better. Thank you.
Allen Stairs
June 9, 2012
(changed June 9, 2012)
Permalink
Just what forgiveness amounts to is an interesting question. As a wise teacher once noted, it's not a matter of simply forgetting; even if I forgive someone, prudence might dictate that I be careful not to let them hurt me again. One way to think of it is that to forgive someone for what they've don... Read more