Recent Responses

If someone is interacting with an interactive art installation, what is their role? Are they part audience, part artist? Are they still just an audience, or do terms like audience and artist cease to make sense in such cases?

Douglas Burnham October 7, 2011 (changed October 7, 2011) Permalink A great question. It has never been the case that the role of'artist' and 'viewer' have been as clear cut as we would like. Firstof all, historically, many 'artists' were anonymous craftspeople whoprobably worked collaboratively -- and collaborative art works havereturned more recently as a... Read more

Value

Why are wisdom and truth important? How does one defend their importance over the superficial like wealth and popularity? What is wrong with the superficial anyway? I like to think that I pursue wisdom and scorn worldly goods, but I can never justify to others why I live this way.

Gordon Marino October 6, 2011 (changed October 6, 2011) Permalink If by superficial you mean something like material wealth, then it is clear that there are many who are possessed of and perhaps by the superficial but who do not lead good/happy lives. Wisdom is a knowledge of how best to live and without that knowledge your Maserati may not mean much. Supp... Read more

Ethics

Are philosophers the "early adopters" of new moral beliefs? Do philosophers lead new trends in moral thinking, or do they lag behind? If, in 100 years, some moral intuition has become widely held by the general public, should we expect philosophers to widely hold this moral intuition first?

Sean Greenberg October 6, 2011 (changed October 6, 2011) Permalink This question raises a very deep metaphilosophical issue. Before treating it, however, I want to sharpen the question a bit, for you raise several issues that I think need to be distinguished. You might be taken to be asking whether, as a matter of empirical fact, some person who is a prof... Read more

Children Medicine

Is there any validity in the following argument? By medical science we keep people with severe chronical diseases alive and these people are free to reproduce. Already there has been an increase in people with chronical diseases, maybe because of our progression in medical science. So, in the future, it is possibly that we will all struggle with many chronical diseases, unless we accelerate in stem-cell research or genetic manipultaion. With this I see only two opportunities: either deny the chronically diseased to reproduce (Which I think is quite unethical) or "play God" and rid our selves with these plagues with either genetic manipulation or stem-cell research (which is also unethical, for some). But not matter what ethical principles one leans on, these two options are the only sensible ones, of course to the exception of not doing anything (which is also unethical). So we have here, three unethical options, depending on one´s ethical affiliation: 1. Everyone will be chronically diseased. 2. Chronically diseased will be refused to reproduce, and 3. We excel in stem-cell research and genetic manipulation. If you ask me, I would say that everyone would agree that being in a state where everyone is diseased is the least ethical one, we should intervene if we can. The second most unethical option is refusing people to reproduce, as this is a fundamental aspect of human life, without it it could cause mass depression. The third option, although for some is unethical, is the least, because the stem cells that are extracted can not feel pain, and it does not hinder anyone in fulfilling a good life, it only makes some people angry.

Miriam Solomon October 6, 2011 (changed October 6, 2011) Permalink We have been grappling with these ethical issues since the mid-nineteenth century and the beginning of the Eugenics movement. You have obviously done some deep thinking yourself, and perhaps it is time for you to engage with some texts in history and ethics in order to see how to take the q... Read more

Logic

I know a number of people who subscribe to a particular model of human development, who often use terms peculiar to this model in premises in arguments. For example, I've heard many variations on this theme: "You and/or your worldview, and thus your view on the issue we're arguing about, are at level or stage x, and because x is not as highly developed as y and me and/or my view is at y, it's obvious that your view is less than adequate [or wrong, etc.]." One could point out that the premises require support, but I've been reluctant to do that in large part because my sense is that the very use of these premises falls in the direction of being a fallacy of relevance. (I've suggested that interjecting such premises into an argument is a conversation stopper, but the term "conversation stopper" doesn't have the same weight as terms like "fallacy of relevance.") I seek clarification, suggestions, advice.

Eric Silverman September 30, 2011 (changed September 30, 2011) Permalink Actually, this sounds like a pretty good example of the 'question begging' fallacy. I can't just assert that 'your view is inferior/not as highly developed'. I have to provide some sort of reasonable evidence for you to think my claim that 'your view is inferior/ not as highly develope... Read more

Truth

Is all truth subjective? A subjective truth is a truth based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based off of our input - our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective. All truths are subjective. Do you think all truths are subjective? If not, what is wrong with the above argument?

Jonathan Westphal September 30, 2011 (changed September 30, 2011) Permalink Your argument is: (1) Our senses and perception are subjective. (2) Everything we know is based on on our senses and perceptions. Therefore (3) Everything we know is subjective. There is a well-known difficulty with this argument. It equivocates on "subjective". In the first prem... Read more

Science Time

Is the concept of backward causation coherent and is it really taken seriously by philosophers? I doubt whether any scientist would accept the idea and I would like to know what you think.

Jonathan Westphal September 30, 2011 (changed September 30, 2011) Permalink Is the idea of backwards causation coherent? It seems not, as you could, for example, cause earlier events, such as your own birth, not to have happened. There is also the famous "bilking" (cheating) argument due to Max Black, according to which you can prevent the future cause of... Read more

Truth

Is all truth subjective? A subjective truth is a truth based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based off of our input - our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective. All truths are subjective. Do you think all truths are subjective? If not, what is wrong with the above argument?

Philosophy

Is it dumb to ask someone, especially a philosopher, the following question. Who's your favorite philosopher? This strikes me as a rather dumb question to ask. Something akin to asking a physicist, "Who's your favorite scientist?" If it's true that the question is dumb, why is it dumb? Or why not?

Sean Greenberg September 29, 2011 (changed September 29, 2011) Permalink I don't think that it is a dumb question either to ask a natural scientist who her favorite scientist is or to ask a philosopher who her favorite philosopher is, although I am inclined to think that there are very different bases for the answers that might be given that reflect differe... Read more

Philosophy

Is it dumb to ask someone, especially a philosopher, the following question. Who's your favorite philosopher? This strikes me as a rather dumb question to ask. Something akin to asking a physicist, "Who's your favorite scientist?" If it's true that the question is dumb, why is it dumb? Or why not?

Recent Responses

Pages