Recent Responses
When a philosopher describes his or her work as a "critique" of something, what exactly do they mean? Is there a general consensus among philosophers or are there different possibilities? I assume it means something different or more specific than what we ordinarily mean by "criticism", right? Thanks!
Douglas Burnham
October 30, 2012
(changed October 30, 2012)
Permalink
Indeed: the ordinary use of the term 'critique' ('criticism') means to evaluate something. So, a film critic doesn't just tell us how bad a film is, but also how good -- and thus whether certain types of viewers might wish to see it. The philosophical use of the term to analyse something... Read more
Are there any philosophers that deny that a logically derived conclusion from a series of true propositions is also true?
Richard Heck
August 17, 2011
(changed August 17, 2011)
Permalink
So far as I know, there is no one who holds quite this view. The reason is very simple. We say that an inference is logically valid just in case, whenever the premises are true, so must the conclusion be true. So if one starts with some true premises and "logically derives" some conclusion, th... Read more
Would it be wrong to regard Max Weber as a philosopher even he is often categorized as an sociologist? Is making profound observations about society like Weber did enough to be a philosopher?
Lee McBride
August 17, 2011
(changed August 17, 2011)
Permalink
I suspect that some philosophers would argue that Weber was not a philosopher and should not be categorized as such. But I doubt many would question the claim that Weber, as a social theorist, produced conceptual analyses of religion and politics that have been extremely influential in contemp... Read more
Is it fair to force someone to learn even if it is for their own good?
Charles Taliaferro
August 14, 2011
(changed August 14, 2011)
Permalink
Well, in many countries attending school up to a given age is not voluntary; penalties are in the offing for not doing so. The justification is often articulated in terms of the good of the person who is forced to learn --such education will enable her or him to work, make a living, mak... Read more
I have a friend who is an Atheist because he claims that the burden of proof (for the existence of God/other practices and belief's) is on religion and he has not been satisfied with any proof set forth. He says, "if you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you." Should one believe in God or practice religion only if it can be proven by the scientific method? What do you think of his reasoning? Is it rational to believe in a God/Religion without the SM? Thanks and I'm a huge fan of the site!
Charles Taliaferro
August 13, 2011
(changed August 13, 2011)
Permalink
It would be interesting to draw your friend out a bit more on what he means by the scientific method. Is he including non-behaviorist psychology, in which it is permissible to describe and explain people's subjective experiences, employing introspection? Does he include history? Or is... Read more
Is it a common belief among philosophers that the external world does not exist independently of consciousness? That consciousness creates the material world rather than the other way around? How can anyone believe this?
Allen Stairs
August 12, 2011
(changed August 12, 2011)
Permalink
I'd say it's an extraordinarily uncommon view among philosophers. Very few philosophers have believed it throughout the history of the discipline (Bishop Berkeley is the most obvious exception) and I can't think of any contemporary philosophers who do, though I'm sure there are some somewhere.... Read more
Could ADHD drugs like Adderall be accurately described as strengthening a person's will?
Jonathan Westphal
August 12, 2011
(changed August 12, 2011)
Permalink
We tend to regard the will as something that is marked off from the rest of the person, because, somehow, it is a direct manifestation of the person's being. So an ADHD drug could not be described as "strengthening people's will", because it if were described in this way it could not then... Read more
Is convincing a person they are wrong not a form of indoctrination? After all, it involves changing the way people think such that it conforms with one's own views. Is it not censorship? Since putting opinions in the wrong clearly prevents them from being expressed.
Allen Stairs
August 11, 2011
(changed August 11, 2011)
Permalink
Let's suppose you say to me "How's your brother Paul?" I say "My brother is fine, but actually his name is Peter." Most likely that will be enough to convince you. And unless your reactions are rather unusual, you're likely just to ay something like "Oh. Yes. Guess I got mixed up." It would be... Read more
What does it mean to say that an opponent's view, though incorrect (as far as one can tell, anyway), is nonetheless "reasonable"? Why aren't all incorrect views unreasonable?
Richard Heck
August 11, 2011
(changed August 11, 2011)
Permalink
One way to answer this question, I think, would be to consider the history of science. Ptolemy, for example, believed that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that the sun and other planets revolved around it in roughly circular orbits, except for "eccentricities" accounting for w... Read more