Recent Responses
Do you think that the caveman had philosophers?
Andrew Pessin
September 22, 2011
(changed September 22, 2011)
Permalink
Why would you think he wouldn't? By "caveman" do you mean a creature before language? (Then maybe; perhaps philosophy requires language.) Of course, you'd need to be more specific about what constitutes philosophy. If a philosopher is one who thinks reflectively, carefully, asks certa... Read more
Is knowledge produced just to be sold? If not, then why are there ubiquitous tuition centres that are situated even within the tutors' houses, assessment books that encompass the many subjects students study for and take up the most space in most book stores (a generalisation),and sky-rocketing tuition and scholastic fees? Why do people perceive that the more knowledge you have, the higher the chances of you being successful and happy? And why do schools give difficult examinations? Is knowledge produced just to be sold, to be keep in secret, and will be only disclosed to the people who could afford to pay?
Andrew Pessin
September 22, 2011
(changed September 22, 2011)
Permalink
There's a lot of interest here, and a lot that's problematic in your questions! ... There are empirical studies in the U.S. at least that show things such as that college degrees increase average earning power over the course of your life -- now whether that means 'the more knowledge yo... Read more
If someone is believed to be insane, yet they are happy and are not dangerous to themselves or others, what right does anyone have to force them to be treated or hospitalized? To them we may all seem insane, so do they have the right to ask us to change? What if bringing them closer to our definition of sanity leads them to additional pain or difficulty in life-- is it just to rob them of their former happiness by forcing them to conform to our definitions of sanity?
Andrew Pessin
September 22, 2011
(changed September 22, 2011)
Permalink
Hm, good question. But does your question have an implicit premise -- that we do, or think we should, 'force' such people to change? When your conditions are truly met -- they're happy, not dangerous, and, presumably, adequately self-sufficient -- I'm not sure many people DO think we s... Read more
If someone is believed to be insane, yet they are happy and are not dangerous to themselves or others, what right does anyone have to force them to be treated or hospitalized? To them we may all seem insane, so do they have the right to ask us to change? What if bringing them closer to our definition of sanity leads them to additional pain or difficulty in life-- is it just to rob them of their former happiness by forcing them to conform to our definitions of sanity?
Andrew Pessin
September 22, 2011
(changed September 22, 2011)
Permalink
Hm, good question. But does your question have an implicit premise -- that we do, or think we should, 'force' such people to change? When your conditions are truly met -- they're happy, not dangerous, and, presumably, adequately self-sufficient -- I'm not sure many people DO think we s... Read more
I enjoy writing and playing the piano. I would like to pursue both things throughout my life, at least at this point. They’re very special things to me. However, I feel a responsibility to lend my body and mind to serving humanity, fulfilling others’ more concrete needs such as food, shelter, clothes, and a physical sense of peace. It seems to me that music and literature are superfluous to those who lack the education to enjoy or access them thoroughly or are preoccupied with survival to bother with them. Are humans, when navigating their life paths (jobs, careers, etc…), obligated to live a life in service to others or a life in service to themselves? Is it possible to do both without being too focused on one or the other? Note: I am an atheist, so if this could be answered without reference to God, that would be the most helpful. Thank you!
Andrew Pessin
September 22, 2011
(changed September 22, 2011)
Permalink
Great question. You might try reading Peter Singer's recent book, "The Life You Can Save." In my view, once you start thinking this way then the most natural conclusion is that you should be, basically, a saint. That is, at almost every moment you are choosing what to do, and beyond p... Read more
Why is prostitution considered immoral, as long as it is a service that is provided, just like the service of a driver or a cleaning person? Why is a prostitute seen like a person of low value and why do we think it's immoral that she sells herself for money, because, if we think about it, any person who works and gets paid is also selling himself for money. Thank you!
Nicholas D. Smith
September 22, 2011
(changed September 22, 2011)
Permalink
Kinda depends on what you think is OK to buy, sell or rent, doesn't it? We don't accept slavery, because we don't think people should be for sale or should ever be owned--though we accept that it is OK to pay for the labor that people can perform in some cases.
So I agree with the... Read more
If you have a loved one in the hospital with a terminal illness and this person no longer has a capacity to communicate, sustain thought, or make critical decisions, can it be considered ethical to pull the plug on them without their consent given their circumstances?
Nicholas D. Smith
September 22, 2011
(changed September 22, 2011)
Permalink
What can be considered ethical will, of course, depend on what conception of ethics (and also, perhaps, what metaphysical assumptions) one brings to bear on the question. So, for example, if one believes in the absolute sanctity of (human) life, then the fact that the loved one con... Read more
I am currently studying Existentialism and have come across a statement by Sartre that appears to suggest that consciousness or being- for- itself is not determined in any manner by being-in-itself (which presumably is absolutely determined). However, the question arises that if the world of objects (being-in-itself) represents the total environment then how it is possible, in the light of recent neurological, genetic and psychological findings (e.g. questioning volitional aspects of freewill) can being-for-itself (i.e. consciousness) not interact with being-in itself? Have I misunderstood the meaning of this idea? All the best Paul C. Clinical Psychologist
Sean Greenberg
September 22, 2011
(changed September 22, 2011)
Permalink
You raise--in Sartrean terms--the excellent question of whether Sartre engages what contemporary philosophers call 'the problem of free will', the problem, that is, of how, if determinism, according to which every event is caused by some preceding event, is true, agents can be said to... Read more
Normally, I would refrain from piggybacking on other people's questions, but I am not sure when I will again find occasion to ask the kinds of questions I have in mind. Very recently, a woman asked a question about transsexuals and how they could feel that they were of a certain gender (Question #4282). I have some related questions, although it does not exclusively concern the transsexual and transgender identities. I will focus for now on the transgender identity in asking my questions, but I hope it is clear that my question applies just as much to the cisgender identity. It seems to me that many people whom I encounter confidently hold both of these beliefs: (A): Gender, as distinct from sex, is a social construction. (B): People can be transgender. I have struggled to reconcile what has struck me as a glaring contradiction between these two beliefs. For people to be able to be transgender, it must be possible for them to have genders; this cannot be possible lest, in some fundamental sense, gender exists. But if gender is a social construction and nothing more, then gender does not exist in this fundamental sense. If my reasoning so far is sound, then it cannot both be the case that gender is a social construction and that people can be transgender. If we assume the reality of gender (thereby rejecting the social construction thesis of gender), then it follows almost as a matter of course that people can be transgender. It may even be our conviction that people can be transgender that leads us to affirm the ultimate reality of gender itself. But what if we aren't ready to abandon the social construction thesis of gender? If what I have said thus far is right, then it seems that not only can people not be transgender, but they cannot be of any gender whatsoever. And indeed, I must confess that I cannot help but wonder why people in general put themselves through hell and back solely in the pursuit of gender, costing themselves immensely in the way of their time, their energy, their money, and even their health and well-being. For if I am understanding the social construction thesis and its implications correctly, then gender identity must be itself a falsehood. If everything I have said is sound, then my line of thought leads to two questions: (1) If gender itself is a social construction and nothing more, are we committed to an error theory or a false consciousness thesis on gender identity? (2) If gender itself is a social construction and nothing more, is it possible for us to see a person's pursuit of gender as being a worthwhile enterprise, even for her? I mean no offense in asking these questions, and my apologies if I have caused any offense. These sorts of questions about the existential nature of gender and gender identity have fascinated me for years now but I have been afraid to talk about them openly for fear of how people might react to my asking such questions. Furthermore, I have not had much luck in finding relevant literature pertaining to these kinds of questions, making me wonder if there is some obvious and embarrassing flaw in my reasoning or if I just happen to be a minority of one in holding the views I do. Thank you for considering my rather long-winded set of questions. :)
Richard Heck
September 22, 2011
(changed September 22, 2011)
Permalink
Since I answered the original question, I will try also to answer this one.
We need to reconsider the phrase "social construction and nothing more", or at least to what you take to be the implications of such a description, that somehow what is socially constructed isn't real. One would... Read more
What are the main issues in aesthetics? From superficially browsing the internet, it would seem that most of the debate centers around the question of what counts as art; surely an entire branch of philosophy can't be built on a question about the classification of cultural products. What other issues, besides the criteria for membership in the category "art", are dealt with in aesthetics?
Sean Greenberg
September 22, 2011
(changed September 22, 2011)
Permalink
The question 'What is art?' has the form of a classical philosophical question--questions of that form were raised by Socrates in 'early' dialogues such as the Euthyphro--and although this question has received considerable attention from philosophers, it's not universally accepted tha... Read more