Recent Responses
Suppose someone brings John a glass of tap water, which John watcher being poured from an entirely normal tap. Yet suppose that the water from that particularly tap was somehow laced with poison. When asked what the glass contains, John, not knowing of the poison, says "That's water." Let's put aside the issue of whether witnessing tap water being poured is sufficient grounds for knowledge that the substance is in fact tap water, and assume that, were the water not poisoned, John would have a justified true belief about the contents of the glass. Presented with the poisoned water, does John have knowledge about the contents of the glass? I ask because, normally, our tap water contains a great deal of things besides water, yet we would not intuitively say that calling the stuff that comes from taps "water" is incorrect. But if some of the stuff was poison, it suddenly seems that John's belief that the glass contains water is incorrect (despite, in a sense, being obviously true), because if he were to let that belief inform his actions, the consequences would not be what he expects, to put it lightly. Yet in either case, the water contains a lot of things that are not water; so why is it correct to say "water" when there are lots of non-poisonous contents, but incorrect to say "water" when one of the contents is poisonous?
Miriam Solomon
October 27, 2011
(changed October 27, 2011)
Permalink
Questions should be understood contextually. In your story about John, we are led to assume that John is about to drink the contents of the glass, and not, for example, use it in a chemistry experiment requiring high levels of purity. The suggestion is that it is water and not e.g. orang... Read more
It is said that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is stupid and or insane - but is it? My teenage son occasionally truants from school and when does he is punished by suspension - which suits him as he does not like school. However, missing school sets him further back with his studies, which makes him like school less, so he truants more frequently, then he is given more suspension and the cycle continues. When I discuss the matter with the school Principal and Vice Principal their attitude is that these are the rules and cannot be changed to suit a particular student as, among other things, that would be unfair to the other students. I said that treating all the students the same is not necessarily fair; that students should be treated according to their needs. I asked the school to use a different form of punishment (detention, extra homework, not allowed on school trips, etc. for a while - but to no avail (there is no point getting on to the School Board as both Prinicpal and Vice Principal are on the Board - and outside intervention, has been unable to help). I am very concerned about my son and I am unable to resolve the situation. Is the school's approach correct?
Oliver Leaman
October 27, 2011
(changed October 27, 2011)
Permalink
I am afraid your argument is a bit too subtle for the school, and one can see why. They are working on the principle perhaps that eventually something will click in the young man's mind and he will benefit from the "punishment". There is in fact some evidence that young offenders who consta... Read more
The phrase "inner beauty" is often used in popular writing. Is there a philosophical line of thought about what inner beauty is. In other words, do some philosophers maintain that there is a sort of beauty inside a thing that is distinct from whatever beauty that might exist in the exterior structure and symmetry and proportions of the thing?
Oliver Leaman
October 27, 2011
(changed October 27, 2011)
Permalink
I don't think they do, although colleagues may know of someone who does.
In fact, one might go further in challenging this popular notion of inner beauty and suggest that there is something very impressive about a beautiful person who is in fact rather evil. One is compelled to admire the... Read more
Why do grandparent's love their grandchildren so much, when they can usually take or leave other people's children? Is it natures way of making sure that should something happen to the natural parents, the offspring will be raised by someone who cares?
Eddy Nahmias
October 27, 2011
(changed October 27, 2011)
Permalink
The evolutionary explanation in terms of genetic fitness (kin selection) goes roughly like this: Grandchildren share 1/4 of each of their grandparent's genes (parents and siblings share 1/2), so genes that help to "code" for traits that lead you to give up X/4 amount of your fitness (your c... Read more
It has recently struck me that despite my interest in both physics (as a qualified physicist) and philosophy (as a complete amateur), I have not encountered any philosophy regarding the 'origin' of the universe or indeed aspects of the Cosmos as a whole. While metaphysics is increasingly dealing with questions and dilemmas in modern theoretical physics, I have not seen anyone address the question of *why* the Universe/Cosmos exists. I raise this point purely from a metaphysical standpoint. (The religious aspect is irrelevant.) I am curious whether most philosophers would even think it is a valid question to ask *why* the Universe exists. That is, why not nothing? (I do not mean the Universe is a limited physical sense, as part of a great "Multiverse" perhaps, bus as the all-encompassing everything.) If it does not sound too strange: why does nothing not exist? The temporal problems that some consider; for example the "beginning" and "end" of time do not particularly bother me as a scientist, since time is but another (asymmetrical) dimension, that may well have raised from symmetry-breaking or need not exist at all for a generic Universe to exist. In any case, if this question is considered valid (by some at least), has anyone addressed it? It strikes me as somewhat difficult to reason or even conjecture about the (non-)existence/possibility of nothingness, though perhaps I am missing something. I would be most interested in hearing any thoughts philosophers here or indeed in the great world have on this subject.
Marc Lange
October 27, 2011
(changed October 27, 2011)
Permalink
There is a considerable literature on this subject. As a place to start, I suggest "Why anything? Why this?" by Derek Parfit, reprinted in "Metaphysics: a guide and anthology" edited by Tim Crane and Katalin Farkas (Oxford University Press, 2004), as well as the discussion of this question in... Read more
How does one draw the line between the sort of morality a legal system should enforce, and the sort of morality the legal system should leave to its own devices? It seems that there are some cases where the law should clearly enforce morality (special laws against child abuse, for example), yet there are clearly other cases where the law doesn't and shouldn't have much to say (for example, the law does not systematically punish people who lie to their spouses, and most would probably argue that it shouldn't). But what is the distinction between the two sides of the boundary?
David Brink
October 27, 2011
(changed October 27, 2011)
Permalink
Whether the law should regulate immorality, and not just harmful behavior, is the issue about whether legal moralism is defensible. A classical liberal view (sometimes associated with John Stuart Mill) is that liberty may be restricted to prevent harm, but not to enforce morality as such. I... Read more
Why do so many philosophers seem to have a left-wing political view?
Richard Heck
October 25, 2011
(changed October 25, 2011)
Permalink
It's been shown in several studies that political views vary with how much education you have had. People who have a post-graduate degree of any kind tend to be to the left of people who have only a high school or college degree. In the 2004 US presidential election, for example, people with... Read more
do you think that there are certain knowledge that cannot be attained thru logic, and could only be attained thru other means like that of a meditation?
Jasper Reid
October 22, 2011
(changed October 22, 2011)
Permalink
To begin with a slightly pedantic point: logic doesn't actually give us very much knowledge at all. Logic tells us things like that, if A is true and B is true, then A & B is true. But, in order for us to be in a position to draw that conclusion, we first need to know that A is true and B... Read more
Hi, I'm having an argument with my pal. He argues since logic prescribes (creates a standard) what is a good/bad inference (valid/invalid) it is normative. On the other hand, I think Logic is like mathematics or physics - there are laws of logic, but they are not normative (they only describe). Can you help us settle this beef? Thank you, Miko
Richard Heck
October 22, 2011
(changed October 22, 2011)
Permalink
I don't know that I can settle anything. The dispute you are having is one philosophers today have generally. Some people think logic is normative, in that it prescribes rules concerning how one should think, or reason; other people think logic is purely descriptive, and that it simply tells... Read more
I'm struggling wit the following: I am reading an essay that states (repeatedly) that the following "p, p implies q, therefore q" is valid but that the following: "I judge that p, I judge that p implies q, therefore I judge that q" is "obviously" invalid. There is no explanation; apparently this is supposed to be transparent but I fail to see why this is obviously invalid. Why adding "I judge that" makes it invalid?
Allen Stairs
October 21, 2011
(changed October 21, 2011)
Permalink
One sure way to prove invalidity is to describe a possible case where the premises of an argument are true and the conclusion false. To make things a bit more plausible, let's change the example slightly. The following is valid:
"q, not-p implies not-q, therefore p"
I pick this example beca... Read more