Recent Responses
I just had a job interview today. As is often the case, I am now nervous as to whether or not I got the job. But in the process of being nervous, I got to (over)thinking about my own nervousness and potential disappointment if I don't get the job, and I've come to wonder something: would it be rational for me to be disappointing at not getting the job? I mean, I suppose if we were to endorse the logic that if (a) something is important to me, (b) it is rational to be disappointed when important things fail/fall through, and (c) getting this job is important to me, then it seems logical to be disappointed. But why endorse this logic in the first place? Why not just apply, do your best and then, if it falls through, shrug and move on to other opportunities? Is it in any meaningful way rational to be disappointed, sad or frustrated when things don't go our way? It may be natural, and it may be human, but that doesn't mean it has to actually make sense.
Nicholas D. Smith
February 2, 2012
(changed February 2, 2012)
Permalink
Great question, and one with very deep historical roots. The ancient Stoics, for example, thought that remorse and regret were not compatible with being a true Sage, and I think the same arguments they give about these responses would also apply to those of disappointment or frustratio... 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
Is there such thing as a male feminist philosopher?
Nicholas D. Smith
February 2, 2012
(changed February 2, 2012)
Permalink
I think it depends on what precisely you mean by "feminist," but by most understandings of this term, I think there are a number of male feminist philosophers, and certainly an even greater number of male philosophers who are generally very sympathetic to and agree with feminist philoso... Read more
How is "philosophical progress" made, assuming it is made at all? And on a related note, are philosophical theories ever completely abandoned (considered "wrong"), or do they simply adjust to criticism?
William Rapaport
February 2, 2012
(changed February 2, 2012)
Permalink
The philosopher Benson Mates once characterized philosophy as a field whose problems are unsolvable. This has often been taken to mean that there can be no progress in philosophy as there is in mathematics or science. But I believe that solutions are always parts of theories, hence that... Read more
I read about the sorites paradox, especially "what is a heap?" and was a bit puzzled about the reasoning. Isn't it fairly straightforward to say, "fiftenn grains is not a heap" and "fifteen thousand grains is a heap" and then say, "even if we cannot give a single precise number where "not a heap" ends and "is a heap" begins, we can narrow down the range within which it occurs, right? In other words, a sort of "bounded fuzziness" applies, where we know for sure what is a heap and what is not a heap (the "bounded" part) while we cannot say exactly where the transition occurs (the "fuzziness" part). It also reminds me of Alexander the Great's solution to the Gordian Knot problem, in a way. People are getting confused because they are using the wrong tools, not because of the nature of the problem itself. the argument seems reminiscent of the supposed paradox about achilles and the tortoise, you can calculate the exact time at which Achilles catches and passes it.
Stephen Maitzen
February 2, 2012
(changed February 2, 2012)
Permalink
The sorites paradox -- the paradox of the heap and similar paradoxes exploiting more important concepts than heap -- is a terrific topic. It's great to see people thinking about it.
You wrote, "we cannot say exactly where the transition occurs." Some philosophers would respond, "It can... Read more
Is there any moral justification for income taxes? If a person receives an income through the exchange of his services to an employer, who then grants that person a wage, how can it be justified to force the person to relinquish some of his earnings or else face violent coercion? I understand that from a utilitarian standpoint, taxes are justified if the services they provide increase overall happiness, but hasn't this understanding of utilitarianism been largely forsaken because of it's inability to adequately deal with individual rights?
Allen Stairs
February 2, 2012
(changed February 2, 2012)
Permalink
Others can no doubt give more nuanced answers, but most people (I'd be wiling to say virtually all) who earn a living depend either directly or indirectly on government-supported institutions and government-provided infrastructure for the possibility of their livelihood. This includes but is... Read more
I am in the midst of applying to a master's program in philosophy and am wondering if a 5 page writing sample will necessarily disqualify me.
Eddy Nahmias
February 2, 2012
(changed February 2, 2012)
Permalink
It might not disqualify you at some programs, but it will certainly count against you at most. The writing sample is the primary way of distinguishing applicants' philosophical talents, at least once they have been narrowed down using other criteria (such as coursework in philosophy and gra... Read more
Despite the fact that philosophy is based on rationality, are there any philosophers who embraced the irrational side of man or irrationality in general, and how could they justify this except by contradicting themselves by using rational arguments?
Charles Taliaferro
February 1, 2012
(changed February 1, 2012)
Permalink
Good question and good suggestion! Beginning with the last point, there are philosophers who love self-refuting arguments, the most famous being the Cartesian (and Augustinian) proposal that claims such as "I do not exist" have a habit of self-destructing. But some philosophers (and... Read more
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy Schopenhauer was one of the first philosophers to advocate for the idea that the universe was not something "rational" What is an "irrational" universe then? Is there a difference between a universe being beyond the grasp of human reason and saying that the universe is "irrational"? Does he mean to say that the universe can do things that are illogical such as have square triangles?
Stephen Maitzen
February 1, 2012
(changed February 1, 2012)
Permalink
I'm also no scholar of Schopenhauer, but from what I remember he's claiming that our universe is at bottom non-rational -- fundamentally arising from causes rather than from reasons. The universe isn't, on this view, irrational if that means 'capable of reasoning but bad at it' or 'conta... Read more
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy Schopenhauer was one of the first philosophers to advocate for the idea that the universe was not something "rational" What is an "irrational" universe then? Is there a difference between a universe being beyond the grasp of human reason and saying that the universe is "irrational"? Does he mean to say that the universe can do things that are illogical such as have square triangles?
Stephen Maitzen
February 1, 2012
(changed February 1, 2012)
Permalink
I'm also no scholar of Schopenhauer, but from what I remember he's claiming that our universe is at bottom non-rational -- fundamentally arising from causes rather than from reasons. The universe isn't, on this view, irrational if that means 'capable of reasoning but bad at it' or 'conta... Read more