Recent Responses
This might be a silly question, but can you argue against opinions? Someone once wrote to me "u can't argue with opinion". Is that true? I would think arguing against a person's opinion happens regularly-- philosophers certainly do it. And I thought that was the plain answer, but I thought about it more and well, question it. It is possible that this someone is already accepting the fact, or assuming that "opinion" is neither true nor false. For example, "It is my opinion that X is beauty, and Y is beauty for you," knowing that there is a difference of opinion, of which both can claim truth, you therefore can't argue with my opinion. This might be a case of relativism, "what's true for me, may not be true for you, etc". Anyways, I just want some clarity with the claim that "u can't argue with opinion."
William Rapaport
January 30, 2011
(changed January 30, 2011)
Permalink
I agree with Sean's response, but I'd like to add a few, um, opinions of my own.
Some students believe that only "authorities" (e.g., teachers) know the "correct" answers to all questions. And they believe this until these students meet "authorities" who disagree. Such disagreements... Read more
Where is the line between behavior subject to ethics and behavior subject to "common sense"? For example, the question of whether to hold the door open for people behind you hardly seems an ethical one, and while we might call a person who doesn't hold the door open names, we won't call them unethical. Yet there are other cases which clearly are ethical. So how can we distinguish between being a nice person, and acting ethically?
Allen Stairs
January 27, 2011
(changed January 27, 2011)
Permalink
I'd suggest that the line isn't really very sharp. Here's a case: you are at the door. you see someone who's struggling under a burden of carried boxes. You aren't the worst person in the world if you don't hold the door, but you really should - and not just in some conventional sense. Why?... Read more
Hey there! My question is: is randomness an illusion or can everything theoretically be predicted? Let me use the coin toss analogy. At first, a coin toss appears totally random, but as we look deeper, we find that the "randomness" is simply a result of factors that we cannot perveive at first glance (ie. tossing force, distance from ground, air resistance etc). Suddenly the coin toss isn't random anymore. So is true randomness really out there or is all randomness just an illusion?
Marc Lange
January 27, 2011
(changed January 27, 2011)
Permalink
That's an excellent question. Here is a rough reply. Oftentimes, when we refer to some everyday phenomenon as "random", we mean that we are ignorant of the fundamental causes at work -- as in games of chance. However, according to modern physics, there are some fundamental phenomena involving... Read more
Stephen Hawking recently stated that we do not need God to explain where everything comes from. Theoretical physics can provide the answer. My question to Hawking is: How does he explain the laws that were functioning with the Big Bang? Where do these laws come from? Physical laws are predictable, orderly events on which we can rely. Science is about testing knowledge against stated criteria or laws. So why is reality knowable (having laws to uncover, to use to our benefit)?
Andrew N. Carpenter
January 22, 2011
(changed January 22, 2011)
Permalink
To follow up on my earlier response: In the February 10, 2011 edition of the New York Review of Books, Steven Weinberg has an excellent review of Hawking and Mlodinow's book. The review, which is also published online at URL http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/feb/10/univers... Read more
Some people have argued that because people's choices are often influenced by factors that are not relevant to rational decision making, people do not have free will. For instance, people are much more willing to register as an organ donor on their driver's liscenses if this is presented as the default option ("check this box to be an organ donor" vs "check this box to opt out of being an organ donor"). Does a person need to be rational in order to have free will?
Allen Stairs
January 21, 2011
(changed January 21, 2011)
Permalink
I'd like to suggest that it's not an all-or-none affair, but yes: rationality is part of free will. One way to think about it is to ask what kind of "free will" would be worth caring about. A will that's not able to respond to reasons is one I wouldn't want to have, and any sense in which it... Read more
Hypothesis: Marketing works by making people dissatisfied with their life, then offering them a product that will relieve their dissatisfaction (for a price). If this is true, then it would seem that marketing always reduces a consumer's quality of life, because it leaves them either dissatisfied or paying for a product they wouldn't have needed if it weren't for the marketing. Hence, marketing harms consumers. How then, can marketing ever be ethical?
Thomas Pogge
January 21, 2011
(changed January 21, 2011)
Permalink
There are surely cases like the one you describe. But far more frequently, I would think, marketing gets people to switch to a product that costs about the same and is about equally good. In those cases, marketing still imposes a net loss on consumers because its cost gets factored into the... Read more
What do you philosophers think of when non-philosophers step into your turf? Are "pop-philosophers" (for lack of a better term, I don't see the "man on the street" going hooplah over what Putnam or Kripke says) worth reading or do they have any good philosophical value at all? What do you philosophers think of Dawkins commenting on God which I believe is your turf? What do you philosophers think of when Stephen Hawking says that philosophy is dead?
Gordon Marino
January 14, 2011
(changed January 14, 2011)
Permalink
I also don't think of philosophy as turf - nor do I think that teaching philosophy or studying philosophy necessarily makes you a lover and possessor of wisdom. I also find it irksome when some in the field act as though philosophy profs are the ones who have access to the so-called deeper... Read more
Hello: Almost two years ago -in January 2009- I was supposed to marry my fiancé with whom I have had a five-year relationship. Three weeks before our wedding, I just called her and cancelled everything over the telephone. That was a very mean and coward thing to do. I inflicted a serious emotional harm on her (and on myself too). A couple of months after I did such an awful thing (I can’t find a better word for that kind of action) I called her to apologize for what I have done. I explained her that I committed such a grave error because I was terrified of getting married. I wanted her back, but she refused me. Since then I’ve tried to gain her love again, but she just do not care for me anymore. I accept that as a fair outcome for my reckless behavior. I just deserve to be refused by my ex fiancé. What I haven’t been able to do until now is to cope with my regrets and my endless sense of guilt. I just can’t believe that I did what I did. I feel awful and unworthy of anything. I don’t need a priest or a shrink to deal with this internal turmoil that is taking my soul over. I need philosophy the help me understand and deal with my sorrow, but without getting indulgent. I don’t want indulgence or pity. I want a serious, fair and moral way out to this situation I am in. I want my soul back. Can you help me please? Jules
Gordon Marino
January 14, 2011
(changed January 14, 2011)
Permalink
If a friend were to tell you the poignant story that you relate I doubt that you would tell them that there ought to be no end to their guilt, that getting spooked by marriage and backing out is a sin that can never be forgiven. Think of yourself as a friend. You apologized many times. You... Read more
Was Heidegger and atheist? I only ask because I get very conflicting statements regarding his stance on theism.
Charles Taliaferro
January 13, 2011
(changed January 13, 2011)
Permalink
Good question! There is actually quite a bit of controversy over Heidegger's position, and some decent books address this. See, for example:http://www.amazon.com/Heideggers-Atheism-Refusal-Theological-Voice/dp/02...In Being and Time, it seems as though the existence or non-existence... Read more
Some people and philosophers seem to see individual human activity as arising, not from interaction between individuals, but from interactions between social groups - that is, what gives rise to the behavior of individual men and women is the dymanic between men and women, as social groups. They see people's motivations as rooted in power, never in lust or greed or any other emotion (or if they do, these emotions are reduced to expressions of power). Everything is symbolic - wars are started not for resources, but in order to impose realities and dominate discourse. My question is this: isn't this all a bit far-fetched? A man who flirts with a woman doesn't seem to be doing so because he feels compelled to exert sexual power over her in accordance to patriarchal discourse; he thinks she's cute. The media doesn't distort information in order to control the all-immersing hyperreality we all live in; individuals simply simplify and exaggerate stories to gain more viewers. What is it that makes this metanarrative of "human behavior as discourse of power" credible? How real are these sorts of hypothetical, structural explanations, when they don't seem to leave room for human falliability, diversity, narrow-mindedness, interest, emotion and irrationality?
Oliver Leaman
January 13, 2011
(changed January 13, 2011)
Permalink
I think the sort of language you are complaining about does incorporate the human characteristics you mention at the end, it is just that the argument goes that we act within a context defined by the basic power relationships in our culture, and the norms which have been created as a result... Read more