Recent Responses
I am a first year Philosophy teacher at a private high school. Do you have any suggestions for where I can find age-appropriate excercises and activities? I teach high school juniors and seniors.
Eddy Nahmias
February 18, 2012
(changed February 18, 2012)
Permalink
Also, see resources being put together by Mitchell Green at UVA. See here: http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=12739
Log in to post comments
Dear Philosophers, I'm currently reading an excerpt from Descartes' Meditations, specifically the part where he attempts to prove the existence of god. I found myself unable to properly understand his notions of 'formal' reality or truth as compared to 'objective' reality or truth. The fact that an idea appears to him as something specifically, does not mean that it IS that something in reality (it might be merely appearance). However, taken purely in itself, at least the mental representation of the idea is real. Is the former here what Descartes continues to denote with 'objective' reality and the latter 'former' reality, or the other way around? Every time I think I have it figured out what these two terms mean, he uses them in a confusing manner two sentences later. Please help! Sadly, I'm reading an (undoubtedly terrible) translation which does not contain original page numbers; I hope you are able to answer my question without these as reference! Thanks in advance, and with regards, Paul
Jasper Reid
February 18, 2012
(changed February 18, 2012)
Permalink
'Formal' reality is a measure of the amount of perfection a thing actually has. Every existing thing has some formal reality, and the quantity of this reality depends on the kind of thing it is. (Putting it in traditional -- though not altogether Cartesian -- terms, it depends on its form).... Read more
what is the fundamental difference between science and non-science? aware of popper's theory of falsification, i still am unsure of how a theory can only be scientific if it can be proven false? this seems rather contradictory; what about if a scientific theory had been rigourously tested so much that it is in fact true, and cannot be proven false? thanks in advance :)
Allen Stairs
February 17, 2012
(changed February 17, 2012)
Permalink
I'm not sure there's a fundamental difference between science and non-science. But the point about falsifiability isn't that a true theory can be proven false. It's that scientific theories can be tested, and we know what sorts of results would count against the theory in principleKeep in... Read more
Do ethical truths change in response to social or technological developments? Or is what was true two thousand years ago still true today?
Thomas Pogge
February 17, 2012
(changed February 17, 2012)
Permalink
There is surely some such change. For example, it was not wrong 2000 years ago to have as many children as you could comfortably raise with your spouse or partner; but today -- when global warming and resource scarcity are real threats and when it is quite possible for affluent people to a... Read more
It is said that whether sexism is intentional or not does not matter - it is sexism all the same. How does that work, though? We generally distinguish between, for instance, killing someone by accident (as in manslaughter) and killing someone on purpose (murder, especially premeditated murder), and we generally agree that the longer or more intensely a crime has been intended, the worse it is. Why, then, should accidental sexism be just as bad as sexism that is intentionally perpetrated by somebody who explicitly approves of sexist ideas?
Thomas Pogge
February 17, 2012
(changed February 17, 2012)
Permalink
For the reasons you give, an accidental sexist utterance or other act does not reflect as badly on the agent as a like premeditated sexist utterance or other act. So let's be charitable and interpret the initial sentence as meaning that such an act -- whether intentional or not -- is just... Read more
Back in 2010, somebody asked a question about group rights, and mentioned the right to transmit one's language. Thomas Pogge replied by saying: "You have a right to speak to your children in the language of your choice; but do you also have a right that they be taught this language in school? Not, presumably, if you're the only speaker of this language far and wide. But if thirty percent of the adults in your town speak Spanish as their native language, then that could be a very compelling reason for requiring that Spanish be taught in the local schools." My question is: Isn't this what democracy is for? If a sufficiently large proportion of a community has an interest in one thing or another, deliberative democracy ought to provide them with a way to satisfy that interest (opening their own schools; mandatory Spanish classes in all schools; extra funding for schools with Spanish classes; etc.). Is that all group rights are, then? People negotiating situations favorable to their interests within a democratic framework? If group rights are the result of successful negotiations in democratic frameworks, then that must mean individuals rights are similar, i.e. the right to life (unless you are killed by somebody defending their own life from you) is a right because it has been (or would be, if anyone bothered to make an issue about it) successfully negotiated in a democratic framework?
Thomas Pogge
February 17, 2012
(changed February 17, 2012)
Permalink
It would be nice if democracy delivered this outcome. But in some cases the thirty percent may not have enough bargaining power to achieve it. In this case, Spanish-language classes may not actually happen. If so, I would think, the minority's group right would be violated by the majority.... Read more
What are some of the most common mistakes of reasoning or logic that you have experienced being made by non-philosophers? What are some aspects of reasoning schools should particularly focus on?
Stephen Maitzen
February 17, 2012
(changed February 17, 2012)
Permalink
In my experience, maybe the most common mistake in reasoning committed by non-philosophers (and certainly among the most exasperating) is the one that philosopher Paul Boghossian complains about here: "Pinning a precise philosophical position on someone, especially a non-philosopher, is... Read more
Why do so many people insist so strongly, even aggressively, that without death, nothing would have any value? What's the big deal?
Charles Taliaferro
February 13, 2012
(changed February 13, 2012)
Permalink
That's a great question! I suppose the idea is that without death, there would be urgency or boundary to our lives. Perhaps people think that part of what makes relationships important is that they will end. Maybe, too, there is a general, biological point, it would be hard for an... Read more
Dear Philosophers, I'm currently reading an excerpt from Descartes' Meditations, specifically the part where he attempts to prove the existence of god. I found myself unable to properly understand his notions of 'formal' reality or truth as compared to 'objective' reality or truth. The fact that an idea appears to him as something specifically, does not mean that it IS that something in reality (it might be merely appearance). However, taken purely in itself, at least the mental representation of the idea is real. Is the former here what Descartes continues to denote with 'objective' reality and the latter 'former' reality, or the other way around? Every time I think I have it figured out what these two terms mean, he uses them in a confusing manner two sentences later. Please help! Sadly, I'm reading an (undoubtedly terrible) translation which does not contain original page numbers; I hope you are able to answer my question without these as reference! Thanks in advance, and with regards, Paul
Jasper Reid
February 18, 2012
(changed February 18, 2012)
Permalink
'Formal' reality is a measure of the amount of perfection a thing actually has. Every existing thing has some formal reality, and the quantity of this reality depends on the kind of thing it is. (Putting it in traditional -- though not altogether Cartesian -- terms, it depends on its form).... Read more
What I remember from my philosophy courses is the spirited debate, lively dialogue. For me this site is too question-and-answer, like the Stanford Online Encyclopedia that is often pointed to in the responses. Is there a place on the web where I can find a more dialogue-based form of philosophy?
Stephen Maitzen
February 10, 2012
(changed February 10, 2012)
Permalink
I second Professor Smith's reply. I haven't participated in philosophy chat rooms either, but I've commented on blogs by non-philosophers who post on philosophical topics. I've found the quality of thinking in those totally unregulated forums to be so bad it's scary. There are peopl... Read more