Recent Responses
Hi, I'm a German student in physics. something i noticed is that in every theory we start with a few postulates and conclude predictions about the behaviour of uninlevend objects. Even in quantum- mechanics we can make declarations about things our mind can't even imagine (like electrons). We do all this with math or let's say logic. and here is my question. Why does the universe behave in a logical way? is logic something humans have learned from the universe and only exists in this universe or is logic something that would exist even if this universe wouldn 't exist? Greetings Tobias D. and excuse my bad grammar
Allen Stairs
June 17, 2011
(changed June 17, 2011)
Permalink
There are several questions in what you've asked, all of them interesting. I'm going to single out one of them. If I read you correctly, one thing you're asking is why we can describe the universe using math and logic -- why the universe "fits" our rules of math and logic. We can begin our stab a... Read more
Consider a person who wants to go jogging in order to improve their health, but never seem to actually be able to go out and jog, despite having lots of free time and, in many cases, nothing better to do. Some might call this laziness; but what is laziness? Is the person effectively choosing/wanting not to go jogging, and their belief that they want to jog is actually a misinterpretation of the simple feeling that they should jog, even if I don't want to? Or is the person choosing to jog, or truly wanting to jog in a relevant sense, and yet somehow failing to do so? If the latter, how can we conceptualize this failure to do something we want to do without any meaningful physical, organizational, social or institutional restrictions on our behavior? If a person has free will and nothing is standing in their way (neither the laws of nature nor their schedule), how can they fail to do things they truly want to do?
Charles Taliaferro
June 16, 2011
(changed June 16, 2011)
Permalink
That is an excellent question that has fascinated philosphers from the beginning in the west. Socrates seems to have equated knowing an act is good with desiring it, and reasoning that if someone desires X they must (on some level) both think it good and do the act or try to do it (unless c... Read more
A professor of English who taught a class I once visited said that every time we used the word "vulgar", we are expressing elitist prejudice against the working class and the peasants, because of the word's roots in the Latin vulgus ("the common people, the public") combined with its pejorative meaning in English. This doesn't seem right; surely, most of us, if we use the word "vulgar", don't mean to insult the working class. Are we doing so nonetheless?
Richard Heck
June 16, 2011
(changed June 16, 2011)
Permalink
It's hard to know where to draw the boundaries on this sort of thing, and we need to distinguish questions. Is the claim that the working class will themselves be offended by use of the term "vulgar"? Or is the claim that, by using the term, you are showing them disrespect (that is, showing disres... Read more
Since programming languages are supposed to be ways to express logical processes, it would seem that they would be of interest to philosophers on some level or another. For example, it would seem there are interesting relationships to be described between object-oriented programming and Plato's theory of ideas. So what are the relationships between programming on the one hand and philosophy on the other? What investigations into this area have been conducted?
Richard Heck
June 16, 2011
(changed June 16, 2011)
Permalink
I'm not sure about the relationship to Plato's theory of ideas, but there are many connections between programming and philosophy. I'll mention just a few.
Some of the earliest investigations into natural language semantics appealed to ideas connected to the notion of compilation. Roughly, the tho... Read more
Why do we punish criminals? Is it to keep society safe, to exact revenge, to set an example or to teach the criminal a lesson? Which of these motivations would lead to the most just society?
Eddy Nahmias
June 16, 2011
(changed June 16, 2011)
Permalink
Good questions. The answer to your first question is, basically, all of the things you list in your second question, plus some. The justifications for criminal punishment are typically divided (oversimplistically) into two theories: "backward-looking" retribution and "forward-looking" consequen... Read more
Do all things exist? Nonexistence is the absence of existence, by definition. So, nonexistence does not exist. Therefore there is no such thing as nonexistence. To say that something does not exist thus seems to be a fallacy, since NOTHING does not exist. Everything, therefore, must exist. Is this right? If not, what is wrong with the argument?
Allen Stairs
June 16, 2011
(changed June 16, 2011)
Permalink
Of course, in a perfectly good sense of "exist", existence doesn't exist either. Existence isn't a thing, and so there is no such thing as existence, though of course, bears, bells and BMWs exist, to mention but a few.
And yes: there is no such thing as non-existence, because "non-existence" isn't... Read more
Why don't philosophers philosophize about love more? Is it not a good philosophical topic?
Peter Smith
June 16, 2011
(changed June 16, 2011)
Permalink
Perhaps it is worth pausing to ask: What is it to "philosophize"? What sort of questions or puzzles or worries call for "philosophizing" as a response?You might say: philosophy is a motley business, embracing Plato's Symposium and Kierkegaard's Works of Love as well as Aristotle's Physics and Frege... Read more
Would there be better philosophers if it was more lucrative? Do market forces determine the quality of philosophers?
Charles Taliaferro
June 16, 2011
(changed June 16, 2011)
Permalink
What a wonderful question! It would be great to launch a social experiment in which this question was addressed, e.g. in certain parts of the world large sums could be made available for students to go on to do philosophy life-long and compare regions where there is less money in the offing... Read more
Sometimes, when person A claims to love person B, some might say "No, person A, you don't really love person B." Often, they will back up this claim by pointing to aspects of person A's behavior as "proof" - i.e. person A is not jealous when person B speaks with members of person A's sex; or person A does not sacrifice a job opportunity because person B is opposed to the employer's ethical practices; or so on. Does it make sense to tell someone that they do not really love someone they believe they love? After all, love is an emotion, and people external to person A's mind cannot properly judge the emotions person A actually feels. So what justification is there for judging a person's love on the basis of their behavior (setting aside cases where a person regularly beats or abuses someone they claim to love)?
Allen Stairs
June 16, 2011
(changed June 16, 2011)
Permalink
You say that love is an emotion, and in some sense we can grant that. But saying it suggests that love is a feeling, and that, in turn, suggests that it's like a warm sensation in one's tummy -- something that we can simply detect by introspection and that we can't (or can't easily) be wrong about... Read more
Do most aesthetic theorists in philosophy think that things beside art can be aesthetic (such as everyday life when not presented with art)? Or is that something only a few philosophers advocate (such as Dewey and Wittgenstein)?
Jonathan Westphal
June 16, 2011
(changed June 16, 2011)
Permalink
Most aestheticians make the distinction between aesthetics and philosophy of art, with "aesthetics" being the wider term and "philosophy of art" the narrower one. "Philosophy of art" is only the philosophy of works of art or art objects as they are unappealingly called these days. In other w... Read more