Recent Responses
Isn’t it true that ultimately all truth is conventional? The system of logic, our inferences we accept, our physics, our views on reality; are all grounded in our presuppositions? To be intellectually honest there is no argument for objectivity. We have to retreat to commonsense realism and agreement among people and communities...so truth in reality is a matter of consensus! Even though none of us wishes to cop to that label. So logic, physics, science is all rhetoric or the art of convincing one of our views? Even if we hold that there is one God and His truth is absolute and objective - this is still a convention one must accept?
Allen Stairs
July 16, 2011
(changed July 16, 2011)
Permalink
The way you begin your question hints at a problem we'll get to below, but before that, let me suggest a distinction. It's one thing to presuppose or assume something; it's another thing for it to be a matter of convention.
There's a lot to be said on the matter of convention; there's not just on... Read more
I graduated this year with a philosophy B.A., and now I am cautiously considering grad school in philosophy. My professors think I have promise; for example, they have encouraged me to try to get a couple of my undergrad papers published. However, I know that, given the state of the philosophy job market, I would likely end up out of philosophy and underemployed if I pursue a PhD. Do I have a moral obligation to pursue a less risky but productive career?
Sean Greenberg
July 16, 2011
(changed July 16, 2011)
Permalink
I don't think that one has a moral obligation to pursue any particular career: one's obligation is to oneself, to pursue what one thinks will be a fulfilling, satisfying career, but what will count as fulfilling or satisfying is of course highly contingent on one's values, personality, etc.. Al... Read more
The media frenzy and general public outcry arising from the acquittal of Casey Anthony has raised a major ethical issue:- If "everybody believes" that Casey was the person who killed her her child, was the jury wrong in concerning itself with the legal technicalities, such as the absence of any substantial evidence linking Casey to the murder. She claimed that her father was implicated in the child's death, and the jury considered him as a completely unsatisfactory witness, and that seemed to have given rise to the "reasonable doubt" that the jury had, and which ultimately caused them to opt for acquittal.
Sean Greenberg
July 16, 2011
(changed July 16, 2011)
Permalink
I think that the issue raised by the Anthony case is more directly bound up with the philosophy of law than with ethics more generally. Indeed, the justification for the verdict seems to reflect the nature of American law in particular, which holds that in a criminal case, guilt must be establi... Read more
Are philosophy conferences really hostile? I ask this because I was reading how there was a guy in a conference with his portable white board keeping score of who was winning. I also hear that you guys are vicious trying to pick arguments. Is this some type of philosopher bonding thing or are you guys really just hostile? hehe.
Sean Greenberg
July 16, 2011
(changed July 16, 2011)
Permalink
In my experience, among humanists, it is philosophers who ask the most pointed questions: although the questions posed by Anglo-American philosophers (things are different on the Continent, in my experience) are pointed, they are not necessarily hostile, and I have never heard of anyone keeping... Read more
People often complain that, generally, philosophical writings are too difficult to read. Taking this seriously, do you think one could say that it is in some respects immoral for a philosopher to -perhaps unthinkingly!- cast her thoughts in such a way as to make them difficult to apprehend? (Excluding very specialized philosophy, that is- where apparent abstruseness is simply a consequence of complexity. ie. surely all philosophy is not simply beyond the ordinary citizen.) I ask this because I enjoy reading philosophy but sometimes find that if the writer where more patient and deliberate with his/her presentation and structuring I wouldn't take so wretchedly long to understand the ideas. So...do you learned men and woman think that you have a duty to write concisely, laying out your thoughts as accessibly, systematically and neatly as possible? (In a gentle voice:It is after all tax payers money you're spending, and as readers we have finite time and much to do!) Kindly.
Thomas Pogge
July 16, 2011
(changed July 16, 2011)
Permalink
Do we have a duty to write concisely and as accessibly, systematically and neatly as possible? It would take a very long time to bring a philosophical essay to the highest feasible level of accessibility -- perhaps a lifetime. Had I subjected myself to this standard in earlier years, I would be lo... Read more
Do people have a right to be racist? I argue that people don't. They have a legal ability to be racist but not a right because a right implies that you are in some fundamental way their is justification to be racist and that's just not true when it comes to racism. Am I right? Am I almost right?
Thomas Pogge
July 16, 2011
(changed July 16, 2011)
Permalink
Your position is that it is -- and probably also that it should be -- legally permissible to be racist but that this is not morally permissible. I think most people in contemporary democracies (myself included) would agree with this. But they would typically understand the phrase "people have a ri... Read more
My maternal grandfather was a teenager in the Second World War, and he stole a pocket knife and a relatively valuable watch from a dead German. This kind of looting, I gather, was widespread at the time, yet the few times I was told the story, whoever was telling (either my grandfather or my mother) always seemed slightly embarrassed, and appeared to be trying to make excuses for taking stuff from a dead body. If we look beyond the Second World War, looting bodies (as in, taking items from the corpse when one did not cause the death oneself) is often considered quite despicable. But assuming one is not in such a position as to know whether the person made a will and who the items should be returned to, why should we disapprove of it so strongly?
Thomas Pogge
July 16, 2011
(changed July 16, 2011)
Permalink
Transpose the case to one where you come across a body by the side of a rural road in your own country. You stop your car, find that the person is dead, then take her valuables and drive off. You are in no position to know whether the person has made a will or who the items should be returned to.... Read more
Why is aesthetics so concerned with beauty? When I listen to music or appreciate art I respond to it in all sorts of different ways and beauty is only a small but significant part of the experience of art.
Allen Stairs
July 15, 2011
(changed July 15, 2011)
Permalink
The answer is that it isn't. Here are links to recent tables of contents from two major aesthetics journals:http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/2.tochttp://www.temple.edu/jaac/archive/69.2.htmAs you'll see, beauty doesn't make much of a splash here; only one essay on the topic. If yo... Read more
What's the difference between saying "John is fat. Mary is tall." and saying "John is fat and Mary is tall."? What does "and" mean here?
Alexander George
July 15, 2011
(changed July 15, 2011)
Permalink
I don't see that there is much difference in terms of what you're committing yourself to regarding how the world is. In both cases your claim will be true if "John is fat" is true and "Mary is tall" is true, and false otherwise.
Log in to post comments... Read more
When two people share an experience of something but reach difference aesthetic judgements about the experience, are they experiencing the thing in question differently? Or are they reacting differently to exactly the same experience, and if so, what does that entail? For example, I grew up in Canada and have always liked peanut butter, but I now live in Germany, where few people seem to even know what peanut butter is, and nobody actually likes it. My girlfriend has tried it, but doesn't like it at all. I find it hard to believe that she can eat peanut butter and experience the same delicious taste I am experiencing, and yet not enjoy it. It seems more plausible to me that peanut butter tastes different to her than it does to me, for whatever reason (and obviously, neither of us experience the "correct" taste, just different ones), and that this accounts for her not liking it. Yet on the other hand, the chemicals in the food are the same for both of us, so how can the taste be so different? So which is it? Are we tasting the same thing, and differing in our opinions? If so, where does this difference arise? Or are we tasting the food differently? (i.e. if peanut butter tasted to me the way it tastes to my girlfriend, I wouldn't like it either)
Andrew Pessin
July 15, 2011
(changed July 15, 2011)
Permalink
This is a terrific question! But rather than answer it, let me direct you to someone who has treated it at some length with many interesting and provocative things to say. Check out Daniel Dennett's famous article "Quining Qualia," as well as his book "Consciousness Explained" -- you'll get som... Read more