Recent Responses
I enjoy philosophy very much though doing it has caused me a good deal of suffering. The problem is, is that I can no longer relate to people the way I used to. I avoid discussions with people in my ordinary day-to-day life because it often can't be conducted in the kind of systematic and sensitive way that characterizes most philosophical discourse and that I find myself accustomed to. It has also caused other people to not be able to relate to me as well. I was strange before though now I fear it is unforgivably so. (It also doesn't help that doing philosophy (for me at least) requires long bouts of solitude.) How should I deal with this horribly lonely feeling of detachment?
Allen Stairs
July 6, 2011
(changed July 6, 2011)
Permalink
I'd also add this to my co-panelist's good advice. But don't tell anyone I said so.
(Sh!) A lot of what we philosophers spend our time thinking about isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. And...
(Sh!) Being a wise person and being a good philosopher aren't the same thing. If someh... Read more
I enjoy philosophy very much though doing it has caused me a good deal of suffering. The problem is, is that I can no longer relate to people the way I used to. I avoid discussions with people in my ordinary day-to-day life because it often can't be conducted in the kind of systematic and sensitive way that characterizes most philosophical discourse and that I find myself accustomed to. It has also caused other people to not be able to relate to me as well. I was strange before though now I fear it is unforgivably so. (It also doesn't help that doing philosophy (for me at least) requires long bouts of solitude.) How should I deal with this horribly lonely feeling of detachment?
Allen Stairs
July 6, 2011
(changed July 6, 2011)
Permalink
I'd also add this to my co-panelist's good advice. But don't tell anyone I said so.
(Sh!) A lot of what we philosophers spend our time thinking about isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. And...
(Sh!) Being a wise person and being a good philosopher aren't the same thing. If someh... Read more
It is said that animals cannot behave immorally because they are incapable of discerning right from wrong. But why is this relevant? Chimpanzees murder one another on occasion, for example. If murder is inherently wrong, what does it matter that the chimps don't know it? Surely, we wouldn't allow moral ignorance as an excuse when a human commits murder. (Not to mention the fact that chimpanzees probably shun other chimpanzees who've committed murder, so how can we really be sure they don't have any moral sensibilities?) The only way I can think of this being relevant is that morality actually has nothing to do with the actions themselves, but rather has to do with how human beings relate to these actions. If murder were wrong because of features inherent in the act of murder, than chimpanzees who kill others would be just as morally guilty as humans who do so. Murder must be wrong because of features inherent to humans (as we are the only candidates for moral agency we know of), and the way we relate to murder. Ultimately, though, doesn't this mean that morality is entirely mutable, via thought or culture or even only through something radical (yet plausible) like genetic modification?
Allen Stairs
July 5, 2011
(changed July 5, 2011)
Permalink
A man points a gun and pulls the trigger. The gun fires, and the bullet strikes another man in the head, killing him instantly. Was it murder? Anyone who thinks they can answer the question based on what's been said so far doesn't understand the word "murder." Did the man who pulled the trigger do s... Read more
Can a set of rules constitute a form of art? This seems to be one way to get at the question of whether games (chess, basketball, video games etc.) should be considered art.
Allen Stairs
July 5, 2011
(changed July 5, 2011)
Permalink
It's pretty clear that the rules of chess don't count as a work of art. That's not a comment on the virtues or beauty of the rules; it's a comment on what we count as an artwork. As it is, particular chess matches/basketball games... also don't count, though we might get a good deal of aesthetic pl... Read more
Why do smart people disagree about fundamental questions about life?
Allen Stairs
July 4, 2011
(changed July 4, 2011)
Permalink
How about because they're hard questions?
Okay, maybe that's a bit quick. But it's close. When a question doesn't have an obvious answer, it's no surprise that people disagree. And if there's no agreed-upon method for getting the answer, it's even less surprising. A lot of what most people would cou... Read more
I've noticed that Western media – and perhaps society as a whole – pay far greater attention to civilian deaths (and coalition deaths) than to the deaths of enemy military personnel. The best current example of this is Libya – when civilian deaths due to NATO's campaign are suspected, this is heavily reported. But it is hard to get any sense of how many of Gaddafi's soldiers have been killed by NATO. From the point of view of the media (and NATO) these numbers don't seem to matter. The neglect of loss of military life (on both sides) seems to me indefensible. If Gaddafi's soldiers were entering the conflict of their own free will then we may try to argue (incorrectly, in my view) that their deaths have less moral significance than the deaths of civilians. However, it is likely that many of Gaddafi's soldiers are not in the conflict of their own free will, because defection is punishable by death. My question is this: shouldn't philosophers fight as hard for the rights of military personnel (whichever side of a conflict they happen to be on) as they do for the rights of civilians (especially those lower-ranking personnel who have no choice but to fight)? I believe that a consequence of this could be greater political will to develop military technologies that focus on disabling military assets (e.g. tanks, aircraft, communication lines) without killing civilians *OR* personnel. For example, focusing on using cyberwarfare to hack into and destroy military infrastructure.
Charles Taliaferro
July 2, 2011
(changed July 2, 2011)
Permalink
You make very good points! HIstorically, philosophers have been concerned about the status, importance, and duties of soldiers. Aristotle has a very high view of the warrior (and this perhaps makes quite good sense when one notes that he was a tutor of Alexander the Great) and Socrates was v... Read more
Is human nature the subject of philosophy, or of the empirical sciences?
Sean Greenberg
June 30, 2011
(changed June 30, 2011)
Permalink
I myself am inclined to think that both philosophy and (certain) empirical sciences--including psychology--investigate human nature, although they investigate it in different ways. For example--and oversimplifying--the genetic differences between human beings and other animals can be investigat... Read more
What area of Philosophy currently has the most impact outside of philosophy? On things like neuroscience, literature, religion, maths etc.
Sean Greenberg
June 30, 2011
(changed June 30, 2011)
Permalink
I'll be very interested to see how other panelists respond to this question!!My first inclination is to respond that very few areas of philosophy--especially as it is practiced in the English-speaking world--impact areas outside of philosophy; if pressed, I would venture that although the influe... Read more
Why is there a universe, rather than nothing at all? Is this a question that shall never be answered by science?
Sean Greenberg
June 30, 2011
(changed June 30, 2011)
Permalink
Why is there something rather than nothing seems to me to be a quintessential example of a metaphysical question, one that cannot be answered by scientific investigation. It is logically possible that science might come to explain how the universe came into existence--although the information n... Read more
How can we balance conflicting moral obligations to the future and to the present? Things we do today--say, burn fossil fuels--improve the lives of people living now, while, science suggests, creating very serious problems for the future that may be impossible to aleviate once the negative effects are felt. Activities which may cause very specific good effects now have negative effects which are vanishingly small for a single instance but cumulatively disasterous in the future (this is, perhaps, an entirely different but related issue). This seems analogous in some ways to the trolley problem; if you would pull the lever to save five people while killing one, does it matter when the five people would have been killed? What if it were five people with ninety percent certainty one hundred years in the future?
David Brink
June 30, 2011
(changed June 30, 2011)
Permalink
Consider three kinds of cases in which my conduct, though beneficial to me, is harmful to others. In particular, let's assume that my conduct causes more harm to others than good to myself, and that I don't have any obvious right to the good. (1) The harm I cause falls on a small number of contem... Read more