Recent Responses
Regarding the availability of options... I have not been able to take any formal philosophy classes so far, but I am lucky to have friends with whom I can debate at lunch. One abstract question that I thought was interesting, and I do wonder if it is a common one in philosophy, is whether or not it is necessarily better or necessarily worse to have multiple options as opposed to one option. One can easily see that a student early in life may prefer to be able to study anything that he chooses instead of being forced into one option of subject to study. At the same time, there are instances in which the ethical pressure brought upon by the availability of options may force a person into an unpleasant internal conflict that, had the other options not been available, would otherwise have been avoided. For example, a nation that changes its military policy to one allowing women into the military, during the times of a demanding war, may distress some women who had not previously felt the obligation (for the purpose of the example, a woman in the country is not forced by draft, but is only offered the option of serving her country). In this sense, I suppose that one could put both dilemmas in terms of liberty. While I consider the scenario of the young student, limited to only one subject to study, to be one of restricted negative liberty, the woman who enters the military reluctantly out of feelings of obligation appears to be acting under restricted positive liberty. My knowledge of the liberty dichotomy is limited to an entry from the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I am curious to know if the subject of available options has been interpreted in different terms by philosophers. Thank you.
Sean Greenberg
November 26, 2010
(changed November 26, 2010)
Permalink
The significance of options, or, as they are sometimes called in contemporary philosophical work on freedom, alternative possibilities, has received considerable attention. However, most of the attention has focused on the question of whether an agent needs to have options in order to b... Read more
Theists often claim that the "fine-tuning" of the universe indicates that it was created especially for man by a divine benevolence. Doesn't the fact that the earth will eventually be incapable of supporting any life (when the sun eventually runs out of energy) disprove this hypothesis? And what of the fact that the entire universe it seems will one day be incapable of supporting intelligent life (the big-freeze)?
Andrew Pessin
November 26, 2010
(changed November 26, 2010)
Permalink
Yeah -- I don't think you need to go so far as the future to raise these sorts of questions. To believe in fine-tuning is to believe in being tuned to some end or purpose -- and it's strange to imagine that it's tuned to the purpose of some part or subsection of the universe: it should b... Read more
I've read various explanations of what philosophy is, but what is "A philosophy"? When a philosopher sits down to write "a philosophy of . . . .," what is s/he trying to do? Thank you!!!
Andrew Pessin
November 26, 2010
(changed November 26, 2010)
Permalink
good question. you know the degree 'Ph.D.', the hghest degree you can obtain in many fields, is a 'doctor of philosophy', so presumably what one gets in completing a PhD in say literature, language, art history, physics, etc., is 'a philosophy of that field' -- and that in turn indicates... Read more
People are often amazed that we exist. For example, I have heard on numerous occasions people say something like: "How crazy is it that atoms have aligned in a particular way to produce you and I, in the circumstances that we're currently in, as seemingly conscious beings?" Is the answer to that: "It's not crazy, it was bound to happen at some point!" ? Isn't time so long that every possibility of life, every permutation or combination of every event is bound to occur? For example, sometime eons in the future or the past, another me could be sitting here writing this exact question, only to make a miniscule typo, and that be one of the only differences between then and now? Is the fact that I am alive and conscious as I am right now a certainty given how long time is?
Andrew Pessin
November 26, 2010
(changed November 26, 2010)
Permalink
You clearly hang out with interesting people. These issues are much discussed amongst proponents/critics of various forms of 'telological' or 'design' arguments. You can find in Aquinas the idea that if time stretches back to infinity then eventually every logically possible outcome occ... Read more
Asking this as a self-described masochist: Is pain purely physical, or is there a psychological component, too. And is it inherent in pain that it is avoided/disliked? Is it possible for a person to truly enjoy pain, or is a masochist's experience with pain transformed by the fact that they enjoy it that the experience can't really be called "pain" at all?
Andrew Pessin
November 26, 2010
(changed November 26, 2010)
Permalink
great question -- though it's not like there is 'an' answer here, though there is much to be debated as you formulate your own anwer. For one thing one must try to separate 'the 'experience from the language we use to speak about it and focuse on the experience. And anecdotal (incl medi... Read more
Scientific skepticism seems to be on the rise in the past few decades (postmodernism, the climate change debate, controversy surrounding genetics & cognitive sciences, creationism, alternative medicine, etc). Some say scientific discoveries are relative; others say they are false; others say they are a conspiracy by special interest groups to sway public opinion, or keep people in the dark. This has raised a question I think we need to answer, as a society, if we are to draw the line between science, pseudoscience and charlatanism, and to move forwards into the future: what good reasons are there for trusting in scientists and their theories? What makes trusting what a scientist says about his or her specialty, or trusting a scientific journal or article or experiment on some specific theme, when we know little about it from experience, any different from trusting a member of the clergy or a holy text? All this, of course, from the point of view of a person who is neither a scientist nor knows intimately the ways in which scientists work (the hypothetical lay person). I know the two are somehow different, but I find it hard to articulate, besides saying "faith in education and the peer review system", which won't satisfy any skeptics. What do you think?
Andrew Pessin
November 26, 2010
(changed November 26, 2010)
Permalink
fantastic question, and one I struggle with as well. I don't have a very good answer to offer, but can recommend a couple of things which might help you formulate your own answer. A new book called "Voodoo Histories" is a study of conspiracy theories, and while it's not specifically abo... Read more
In my mind, discrimination has always been about denying people rights or opportunities based on some irrelevant aspect of themselves (irrelevant to whatever is being denied, that is). However, we also use the word "discrimination" to describe such terms as "nigger" or "retard". These terms are obviously pejorative, and shouldn't be used by anyone hoping to appear kind or civilized, but they aren't, in and of themselves, denying anyone's rights or opportunities. So this is a different kind of discrimination, then. Why is this discriminating? What kind of discrimination is this? Is it related to the presumed stereotypes we assume people have in mind when using these terms pejoratively?
Thomas Wartenberg
November 25, 2010
(changed November 25, 2010)
Permalink
To begin with, I would define discrimination as the use of a person's membership in a group, such as a race or gender, to unfairly deny them access to some good or benefit, such as a job or admission to something desirable like a school. So when a woman, for example, is denied a job b... Read more
We know that when we see Alpha Centauri with the naked eye we are seeing light that left that star over 4 years ago when Bush was still President. Other stars are obviously much farther away and we’re looking at light that originated, say, when Galileo was still around or when the pyramids were being built. When we’re told that telescopes help us see into ‘deep space’ I’m wondering what that means: do they simply magnify the detail of images or do they help us see the detailed images earlier than we would with the naked eye? The difference that I have in mind is this: a friend comes to my house who I know has been travelling an hour to see me. I first see him when I open the front door. But suppose I’m looking forward to the reunion and I set out to meet him half way so as to abbreviate his journey. Suppose further I have the capacity/technology to meet him at his place of origin so I can see him immediately. Now, does a telescope, say Hubble, allow astronomers and cosmologists to see ‘earlier’ into space? The objective distance between Star X and earth (the telescope) may still be, say, 1000 light years, but do better telescopes help us 'meet' light along the way? Thanks for considering my question
Marc Lange
November 25, 2010
(changed November 25, 2010)
Permalink
A telescope collects more light than an ordinary human eye. It is a larger "light bucket". Consequently, a telescope helps us to see things that are fainter (as seen from earth) than we can with the naked eye. Consequently, a telescope helps us to see things that are more distant (and hence... Read more
Is it wrong for me to accept the very real possibility (in light of social trends in the past decades) that my current partner and I might well break up, for reasons yet unforseeable, in the future? It seems a rational judgement - a large number of marriages don't last, and unmarried partnerships even more so - yet I can imagine that I would be upset if my partner accepted this possibility as one of those "facts of life" we have to deal with.
Eric Silverman
November 24, 2010
(changed November 24, 2010)
Permalink
It is certainly wise to take these statistics seriously and to realize that you and your relationship are not immune from those trends. Yet, I don't think the ideal response is to 'accept the possibility' that your relationship will fail, but instead you should ask yourself why relations... Read more
If everyone has the right to their own body, is there anything even wrong with self-injury? If someone who smokes is effectively also 'harming' himself, what makes a person cutting herself doing something wrong?
Jasper Reid
November 24, 2010
(changed November 24, 2010)
Permalink
I'd be appalled if anyone was to suggest that there was something morally wrong about self-harm. Not least because the very worst thing that one could do to a cutter would be to make her feel even more guilty and ashamed than she probably already -- though quite undeservedly -- does feel.
B... Read more