Recent Responses
Can we love someone as an end in himself or herself? Can I love A because he is A, not because A is handsome or intelligent or generous or caring or whatever it is. The question may seem absurd but so does the expectation of all such properties to last forever!
Charles Taliaferro
September 29, 2011
(changed September 29, 2011)
Permalink
Brilliant question, and one that philosophers have struggled with. There is some reason to see Plato and subsequent Platonists as holding the view that our love is always on some property or other, a property that can often be surpassed, and so they run into the problem of why it... Read more
Would it be ethical for law enforcement agents to specifically target people who are on social security for violations of drug laws?
Gordon Marino
September 29, 2011
(changed September 29, 2011)
Permalink
No. That would be a form of discrimination and discrimination is both illegal and morally wrong.
Log in to post comments
Is it logical to infer a higher power given how extraordinary human life is?
Andrew Pessin
October 7, 2011
(changed October 7, 2011)
Permalink
If by 'logical' you mean 'a decent argument can be constructed of this form' then i would say the answer is yes -- but if you mean 'an absolutely convincing argument ...' then, well, you don't find too many of those anywhere in philosophy -- my favorite version of the kind of argument that Al... Read more
Sigmund Freud told of a Jewish women who dreamt that a stranger handed her a comb. The women desired to marry a Christian man which triggered an emotional argument with her mother on the night prior to her dream. When Freud asked her what memories she associated with the word comb the woman told him that once her mother had once told her not to use a separate comb because she would "mix the breed." Freud then revealed that the meaning of the dream was an expression of her own latent wish to "mix the breed." Examples such as this seem like very persuasive evidence of Freud's theory that dreams are a form of wish fulfilment but many scientists and philosophers of science say that Freud's theories can't be scientifically falsified or that he lacks scientific evidence. But what constitutes scientific evidence? Surely Freud is a scientist because he grounds his theories in specific empirical clinical examples that he expresses clearly in a way that even the most uneducated person can understand them? The symbolic nature of dreams may require interpretation but interpretation isn't necessarily simply "subjective" and therefore lacking "objective" "scientific" grounding in my opinion if one can bolster that interpretation with empirical evidence. If we dismiss Freud because he isn't "scientific" then how do I know that other forms of science have been dismissed despite the fact that they maybe entirely reasonable on their own terms?
Gabriel Segal
April 26, 2012
(changed April 26, 2012)
Permalink
I don't myself think the term 'scientific' is a scientific term, nor have philosophers, such as Grunbaum or anyone else given it a very interesting or useful interpretation. Freud had a lot of ideas. So do contemporary psychoanalysts 100 years on. Psychoanalysis is no monolith. We can ask o... Read more
Is it possible to positively prove a negative?
Alexander George
September 29, 2011
(changed September 29, 2011)
Permalink
People often say this and it can be baffling to logicians! Perhaps your use of "positively" hints at what you're getting at though. Let's assume by "prove a negative" you mean something like: establish that something of a particular kind does not exist. For instance, your "negativ... Read more
Could there (is it conceivable/possible) be an alternate reality/universe (a rich complex universe) which was such that mathematics could not provide any (or say very little) description of it?
Thomas Pogge
September 25, 2011
(changed September 25, 2011)
Permalink
Why not? We can conceive a nice large space filled with moving matter, all as in our universe, except that the laws of nature vary randomly in space and time -- which is really to say that there are no laws of nature. You could still use geometry to describe the trajectories of objects,... Read more
I have a fifteen year old son, bright competent, popular, who has been missing school on a regular basis for the past one and a half years. He has attended a psychologist (for this reason) and the psychologist has found nothing wrong with him - the psychologist said that my son had, for his age, a "phenomenal understanding of people" . I always felt that my son was emotionally and psychologically very advanced for his age - from a very young age. Anyway my son cannot explain why he does not attend school other than that he hates it (he was badly bullied - mainly by shaming and humiliating by a teacher when he was aged seven - having to stand in a public place in the schoolyard known as "No Man's Land" for three to four lunch times at a go - but the school would not hear a word against the teacher - my son has little recollection of this)and things went down hill from there. My son understands the long term affects of not attending school - he can see that he is falling behind more and more each time he does not attend. He admits that there are no real difficulties in school now - none at home either and none that anyone knows about. He is not unhappy - in fact he appears in good form most of the time. So my question is - why would a bright person do something that is knowingly damaging to himself for no good reason - the psychologist and there were others - does not know?
Thomas Pogge
September 25, 2011
(changed September 25, 2011)
Permalink
It's hard to give advice on the basis of a one-paragraph description; so please take the following as no more than a suggestion for your consideration. Unfortunately, your son's problem is not unique. At least I feel that Isee it ever more often: really bright teenagers peaking premature... Read more
Generally speaking, we don't consider it unethical to harm artificial "beings" such as plush toys or robots (or if we do, we consider it property damage or vandalism, not actual violence). At what point, though, would this change? Say a robot was invented that, from the outside, looked and behaved just like a person, even though it was actually a robot with advanced systems and programming. Would it be unethical to harm the robot? Where would the line be between a lifelike robot and, say, a human clone grown in a vat? When does damage to an inanimate object become violence against something capable of suffering?
Allen Stairs
September 23, 2011
(changed September 23, 2011)
Permalink
It's an interesting question, but I'm going to turn your last sentence into my answer: it becomes violence when whatever we're dealing with is not an inanimate object, but is capable of suffering.
Could a robot fit that description? It could if its wiring, programming, detection system... Read more
There was something that I wanted so badly for so long. Now, I got it but I am not as excited as I thought. How can we know what we want (our goal) in life?
Miriam Solomon
September 23, 2011
(changed September 23, 2011)
Permalink
Some recent papers by the psychologist Daniel Kahneman suggest that we are not very good at predicting what will make us happy. It is a good idea to read these to get a feel for human fallibility.
Philosophers often argue that reflecting rationally on our values and goals can lead us... Read more
There was something that I wanted so badly for so long. Now, I got it but I am not as excited as I thought. How can we know what we want (our goal) in life?
Miriam Solomon
September 23, 2011
(changed September 23, 2011)
Permalink
Some recent papers by the psychologist Daniel Kahneman suggest that we are not very good at predicting what will make us happy. It is a good idea to read these to get a feel for human fallibility.
Philosophers often argue that reflecting rationally on our values and goals can lead us... Read more