Recent Responses
If thoughts depend on memories and memories are unreliable then how can we trust any thought? I assume thoughts require memories because thoughts seem to require at least some time to compute, even with very simple thoughts we think thing one at a time - if it's not quite like that I think it's very close to something like that, maybe my whole doubt depends on a dubious connection between thought and memory, I don't know. I think the unreliability of memory is more obvious, memory seems to be something just given to us and we simply have to "trust" it but the possibility of doubt is still there. I recognize that there is some not inconsiderable paradox in doubting the very idea of being able to form a thought and using thought to achieve that doubt but alas... I wonder if this suggests that thought in its truest form is something more intuitive and directly related to a grasp of the present moment than reason as it is generally understand as a discursive process.
Gabriel Segal
April 26, 2012
(changed April 26, 2012)
Permalink
"I recognize that there is some not inconsiderable paradox in doubting the very idea of being able to form a thought and using thought to achieve that doubt". Well spotted! Suppose that your doubts about memory lead you this: "I cannot trust any thought, including this one". Where do you go... Read more
How is the death penalty worse than a lifetime of imprisonment? If you kill them it's over and you killed them back case closed but, the have the oppertunity for eternal bliss still based on the final judgement of him, right? Improbable maybe but, a chance non the less. What else? Lifetime in prison gives the person limited to no freedoms, dependent on their behavior in prison, a life time of guilt, if capable of feeling it or if they do regret the crime, a chance to redeem themselves to the family/friends of the victim, be found not guilty and set free, write a book, make music or do work for the prison. In both cases they won't be able to hurt the public. So, it's just the value of existence vs freedom with morals thrown in.
Andrew Pessin
January 25, 2012
(changed January 25, 2012)
Permalink
I'm a little unclear on the question -- sounds like you think life in prison is better than death (for the convicted person, anyway), given your list of good things that life in prison allows (but death doesn't). So you already do think the death penalty is worse for the convict than life... Read more
It is said that happiness should be attained from the "inside out". That it should be unilaterally seeked, and not externally determined. On a philosophical standpoint, is this view tenable, considering that we do not live in a vacumn? It is, to a large extent, true that we can choose the way we respond to a situation. But wouldn't undesirable or negative events (or even harassment) trigger the need to choose to respond in a way that does not allow for the event to determine one's happiness, and that that itself connotes that external events have a role to play? I may be stretching the notion too far, in which case, a rephrasing of the question would involve asking the extent to which happiness should/could be unilaterally determined? On a general level, is happiness a concept that is consensually determined (a social construct) or is it a subjective pursuit, such that one can "choose to be happy" for real?
Charles Taliaferro
January 23, 2012
(changed January 23, 2012)
Permalink
Excellent question or set of questions! The Ancient Greeks were especially vexed by this concern, some of them (like the Stoics) stressing happiness as something that is almost always an internal matter, but those influenced by Greek tragedy tended to take the opposite view (chance or... Read more
First, is it true that academic philosophers reside in ivory towers? And that their ivory tower is filled with books and greek sculptures? Second, There seems to be an interesting feature of many logicians or philosophers of language, that they have a background in the field of mathematics or being related to the field of mathematics in some other way. Is this in your opinion a coincidence? Does the field of mathematics grant those capable of handling it some clarity of mind or perspective in observing the world? This could be interpreted as a question to what sort of intelligence, if any, is more favorable to logicians and philosophers of language(presupposing that the distinctions made in the theory of multiple intelligences hold). It was an interesting and, in my opinion, true prediction of Alfred N. Whitehead when he said that science in its evolution becomes more and more mathematized.
Charles Taliaferro
January 22, 2012
(changed January 22, 2012)
Permalink
As for the first question, I do (as it happens) work on a college campus in which my office is in an ivory covered building with a tower, and there are some Greek sculpture here and there on my floor, though the most common things (except for other professors, students, books, furnitur... Read more
I often hear people say that metaphysics is not really philosophy because the philosophy is based on rational arguments and metaphysics often not, it is really true? the metaphysics is only about "supernatural" things (or concepts) or or it is also about things that can be demonstrated rationally?
Charles Taliaferro
January 22, 2012
(changed January 22, 2012)
Permalink
I believe that in some bookstores "metaphysics" is used to classify books that are "new age," but, technically, in philosophy or for most philosophers, the domain of metaphysics refers to theories of what exist. In this usage, metaphysics is hard to avoid. For a good defense of this... Read more
Hi; I'm not sure this is a philosphical question, but nonetheless I would love to know, why is it that people do bad things even when they know they are bad things? Is there a philosopher or a philosophy that answers this question? Cheers Pasquale
Charles Taliaferro
January 22, 2012
(changed January 22, 2012)
Permalink
Dear Pasquale,Yes, this is a question that exercised the earliest philosophers in Ancient Greece (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle). It is sometimes referred to as the problem of akrasia, which is the Greek term for weakness of will. Some of these early philosophers thought that ignorance... Read more
Is there any discussion about how art is highly individualistic with respect not to its content but the fact that most works of art, at least traditional art like painting, sculpture, etc., are created by single individuals, rather than groups? I've heard it said that Western art is highly individualistic while Eastern is not, and that this is a reflection of cultural differences; however, with respect to the artist as a single person, Eastern and Western art seem the same. Why is art such an individual creation? Perhaps one person has great vision and another great technique; why haven't there been numerous pairs like this throughout history who've worked together on creating paintings?
Sean Greenberg
January 20, 2012
(changed January 20, 2012)
Permalink
It's not clear to me that it is correct that Western art--even in media such as sculpture and painting--is indeed historically such an individual creation. In the Renaissance, there were workshops, with masters and apprentices; some contemporary artists, such as Andy Warhol and Jeff Koons... Read more
Is there any coherent non-religious argument that shows that the appearance of life on the universe is a "good" or "valuable" thing? It seems to me that something is valuable iff there's somebody who values it. So life would not be valuable when it does not exist, but it would become valuable when it does exist? Would it value itself? I'm not sure if this circular reasoning, or there's some solid ground. What would be some standard literature on this kind of issues?
Allen Stairs
January 20, 2012
(changed January 20, 2012)
Permalink
An interesting question. I'd start by suggesting that your "if and only if" is open to challenge. First the less important part for our purposes: the fact that somebody values something doesn't obviously mean it's actually valuable. Some people value terrible thing, after all. There's a chil... Read more
Some people say that you don't have to have faith to be in touch with a supernatural reality, rather you can have an intuitive access to that reality. Isn't that really just faith since it's not based on reason? I mean what is "intuition" anyways? I'm sure there are a lot of different definitions but I could use some of that "analytic" style of philosophy clarity on this concept of intuition. (even if that's by definition impossible)
Oliver Leaman
January 19, 2012
(changed January 19, 2012)
Permalink
I wonder if it is faith. There is an Islamic philosopher called Ibn al-Arabi who argued that for him there was no point in proving the existence of God since He is just so obviously all around us. Here he was thinking of one of the beautiful names for God, al-Muhit, the omnipresent. Suppose... Read more
What is the nature of "privilege", as in "white privilege"? Is it just the statistical fact that (for instance) people of European descent tend to be more prosperous overall than others? Or is it something more substantial?
Bette Manter
January 18, 2012
(changed January 18, 2012)
Permalink
Perhaps examining the root meaning of "privilege" could help us unpack this question a bit. The term means "private-law" - or to put it another way - the laws that operate for most persons do not apply to some particular thing or person or group. For example, one might have "privileged infor... Read more