Recent Responses
Does consciousness presuppose: language? long-term memory? the ability to understand that you have mental states? If not, is consciousness merely a recurrent, fleeting state of awareness? If so, SERIOUSLY, is it considerable that animals have consciousness (minus long-term memory, language, social cognition)? Thanks for any insight, this has been bugging me.
Charles Taliaferro
December 4, 2010
(changed December 4, 2010)
Permalink
The question has been bugging a lot of people! I suggest that the case for some nonhuman animals (great apes, chimps, dolphins....) being conscious is pretty strong. Sometimes the evidence includes appeal to language or communication, memory, recognition, but also a wide set of behav... Read more
What the role does cannabis (or any other mind-altering substances) play in the world of philosophy?
Peter Smith
December 4, 2010
(changed December 4, 2010)
Permalink
Well, there's mind-altering and mind-altering! Dope that makes you dopey might give you time out from the nagging concerns of philosophy, but isn't likely to play a role in producing serious thought. Wine or beer seems different. The glass or two in the pub after the seminar do often lubricat... Read more
How can an atheist possibly make sense of a world in which the vast majority of people adhere to a religious tradition? If atheism is correct and at the basis of all these religions lie mistaken facts and historical inaccuracies- for example that Jesus was risen from the dead, that Muhammad was visited by an angel, etc.- then the majority of humans who have ever existed have based their actions and beliefs upon a lie.
Jean Kazez
December 4, 2010
(changed December 4, 2010)
Permalink
Everybody, not just an atheist, has to make sense of a world in which billions of people have false religious beliefs. That simply must be the case, considering that there are lots of different religions, and they contradict one another. Billions of Christians are wrong about the divinity of... Read more
In "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking claims that free will does not exist. He uses the evidence of a study in neuroscience which found that the stimulation of certain regions of the brain resulted in the stimulation of certain desires; ex. a desire to move one's right arm. But does the mere fact that we can not decide our desires mean that we don't have free will? Don't we have the ability to control these desires and act in an appropriate way? Isn't that free will?
Jonathan Westphal
December 3, 2010
(changed December 3, 2010)
Permalink
I hope that you are wrong in your account of what Stephen Hawking writes in The Grand Design, because it is so obviously wrong and uninformed. There is no freewill, Hawking writes, according to you, and the reason is that stimulation of particular regions of the brain results in certain... Read more
To many people, belief in God and belief in universal moral values is axiomatic. In fact, many believe that if God does not exist, then everything is morally permissible. But note that almost everyone believes that at least some things are morally impermissible; the best example might be raping a child. And if raping a child is not morally permissible, then not everything is morally permissible. Therefore, it seems to follow that God does indeed exist. This would be the argument form MT and it would be sounds correct? But why?
Andrew Pessin
December 3, 2010
(changed December 3, 2010)
Permalink
great question, and much ink has been spilled in addressing it! ... I can't speak for hte 'many people who believe that ...', but it does seem to me that you must argue rather vigorously to support the claim that without God everything is permissible -- indeed it seems more obvious to me th... Read more
How can an atheist possibly make sense of a world in which the vast majority of people adhere to a religious tradition? If atheism is correct and at the basis of all these religions lie mistaken facts and historical inaccuracies- for example that Jesus was risen from the dead, that Muhammad was visited by an angel, etc.- then the majority of humans who have ever existed have based their actions and beliefs upon a lie.
Jean Kazez
December 4, 2010
(changed December 4, 2010)
Permalink
Everybody, not just an atheist, has to make sense of a world in which billions of people have false religious beliefs. That simply must be the case, considering that there are lots of different religions, and they contradict one another. Billions of Christians are wrong about the divinity of... Read more
You have such a helpful and accessible website! Thank you and all the contributors for such a great free service to the public! If, G-d forbid, somebody is going to harm himself (e.g. commit suicide), then am I obligated to stop him? What lengths should I go to? For example, what if the only way I can stop him is by harming him in another way (e.g. by breaking his arm)? What if I will harm somebody else? Thanks, keep up the great efforts!
Andrew Pessin
December 3, 2010
(changed December 3, 2010)
Permalink
nice question; but obviously answering it depends on many things ... for example I assume we're talking about an adult (though of course there's no clear cut-off age for adulthood), and you'd certainly want to clarify the mental state of the person (depressed? crazy?) as well as the physi... Read more
If I am understanding it, some philosophers don't beleive in moral facts because such facts would have to motivate all people who KNOW about them regardless of what those people WANT (or something like that). My question is if it will make a big difference if those philosophers are right, and we give up talking about moral facts, but talk instead about, say, almost-moral facts (with words like "almost-wrong" and "almost-right"), which are almost identical to moral facts except in that they do not motivate people who just know about them? Let me put it another way: some philosophers say that nothing is wrong, because something being wrong would have to be, by itself, a motive for people not to do it, and this is impossible. But can't we just say: ok, nothing is wrong, but some things are almost-wrong, and "almost-wrong" is close to be a synonym of "wrong", except that something being almost-wrong, by itself, doesn't give anybody a motive to avoid it?
Allen Stairs
December 2, 2010
(changed December 2, 2010)
Permalink
My co-panelists who specialize in such matters may have more insight than I, but I would have thought the reply would be this: the idea that something could really be right and yet its rightness should provide no motive for doing it is incoherent. "Rightness," so the argument would go, is co... Read more
I am thirteen years old and I do not understand the world. In terms of world hunger, how can one possibly find happiness in their lives when such tragedies exist? Approximately 24,000 thousand people starved to death today, and three billion people live with under two dollars every day. For one to continue their lives as normal, or even not give any care, would this be the equivalence of starving someone yourself since you have the power to make a difference, yet you are choosing not to? And is the root cause of poverty a lack of equality within the world, or are specific governments not running thing effectively? For people that are not actively practicing compassion, would that make you a horrible person for not wanting to aleviate the extent of pain and suffering that so many have to endure day after day?
Gordon Marino
December 2, 2010
(changed December 2, 2010)
Permalink
A very good question - how can we happy in this world of seemingly boundless suffering? Of course, we could always get into the "it all depends what you mean by happiness" semantics game but lets not go there. Whatever the good life is, it will have to include a connection with other humans... Read more
Are there any other ways of arguing against the apparent abilities of Mediums other than by pointing towards the alternative naturalistic explanations for their 'results'. I'm getting very tired of having to provide answers to the 'well how else do you explain X?' response (and pointing out that even if I can't explain X, it doesn't make X true by default). Perhaps there's a way of showing how the idea of disembodied souls is flawed in the first place, or debunking a similar aspect of the background theory. I'm getting very concerned that my Mother-in-law's fascination with the Mediums on TV and and in the books she reads may lead to her wasting lots of money she can't really afford.
Miriam Solomon
December 2, 2010
(changed December 2, 2010)
Permalink
If Mediums did get "results" then it would be rational to go to them for advice i.e. not a waste of time!
So I think the thing to focus on is the results, and ask the question, are the amazing pronouncements just coincidences and/or wise vague sayings? There's no shortcut to answering t... Read more