Recent Responses
Some people are comforted and secure by the idea that the Universe has inherent purpose or meaning, and are frightened by the notion that it might all be inherently meaningless. Others, however, feel empowered by the notion that they are ultimate source of value and meaning in their lives, and feel frightened by the idea that there might be some all-encompassing meaning or purpose that they would have to submit to or recognize. With people sitting on such seemingly distant sides of the river - not merely in such broad terms, but on every level from disagreements over what tastes good, through arguments as to whether one must always stand by one's people, all the way up to the problem highlighted above - how much can we allow ourselves to hope that one day we might finally agree on a common, general vision for humanity's future?
Charles Taliaferro
November 12, 2010
(changed November 12, 2010)
Permalink
Excellent question! I wonder whether such disagreement entails that we lack a common, general vision for humanity's future. In your opening example of wide divergence, both parties probably agree on a huge number of points. Probably both groups believe in the importance of justice... Read more
What justification could I have for entering a committed, long-term romantic relationship? It's probable that I would enjoy many aspects of the relationship. But it seems counter intuitive to say that I should enter a loving relationship as a means to promote my self-interest. So self-interest cannot be a justification for entering a loving relationship. The relationship might also benefit my partner. But there are lots of people who could benefit from being a relationship with me. No one would suggest that I find the person who most needs a relationship and pledge myself to them. Most people select long-term partners based on beauty or compatibility, not on neediness. Besides, few people would appreciate being in a relationship with a person who was only in the relationship out of pity. One could say that I should enter a relationship because it benefits me and my partner. But a combination of two bad reasons is rarely a good reason. Finally, one might suggest that my partner deserves a committed relationship because she is physically/intellectually/spiritually beautiful and this beauty motivates my romantic love. But this is elitist. Why should I commit myself to the service and assistance of a beautiful person? If anything, I should seek to help the ugly people. This beauty justification for love undermines our commitment to human equality, because it demands we show special concern for people we find beautiful. In light of these objections, is there any justification for committed romantic relationships?
Charles Taliaferro
November 12, 2010
(changed November 12, 2010)
Permalink
Some philosophers have indeed wondered about the basis for family and romantic relations --from Plato to Abelard and Heloise to Bertrand Russell. I wonder, however, whether your worries about a foundation for a romantic, committed relationship wouldn't apply to any number of differe... Read more
Could the conclusion of a good philosophical work be only a metaphor?
Charles Taliaferro
November 12, 2010
(changed November 12, 2010)
Permalink
What an unusual and interesting question! Before replying directly, I wonder about your use of "only." Metaphors can be true or false, and are not necessarily less precise than literal or non-metaphorical terms. With that caveat, various promising philosophical conclusions do seem... Read more
My question is about quantum theory and the afterlife. In the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, even if I die in *this* branch of the multiverse then "I" will still exist in some parallel universes. If we subscribe to the theistic position that every individual has a soul, then what happens to my soul upon death? Will it go the afterlife? What about the parallel "me's"; do they each have their own soul? I'm confused.
Allen Stairs
November 11, 2010
(changed November 11, 2010)
Permalink
The obvious response is that there isn't a single response, and for a simple reason: quantum theory doesn't have anything to say (or not obviously, anyway) about souls -- at least not if a soul is some non-material thing that doesn't fit into the equations we use to do physics.
There is a... Read more
Much of the psychiatric literature refers to psychopathy as a "mental disorder". However, can't it be considered a natural part of the spectrum of human psychological characteristics? It has after all, evolved for a reason; traits such as a lack of: guilt, remorse, empathy and the ability to be superficially charming are beneficial in many areas such as politics and the corporate business world. So which is it; "mental disorder", or "natural evolutionary adaptation"?
Allen Stairs
November 11, 2010
(changed November 11, 2010)
Permalink
I guess it's partly a matter of what we mean. We could decide that if there's an adaptive explanation for some trait, we won't call it a disorder. That said, the fact that there could be an adaptive explanation for a trait doesn't mean that there is and in particular, the fact that there c... Read more
Many people criticize the concept of an "open relationship", that is, a relationship in which both partners are allowed to have sexual relations with people other than the primary partner. There are also other forms of so-called "polyamory", for example a three-way relationship which excludes sexual relations with anybody besides the other two partners. While in some cases such relationships may only benefit one party, may involve coercion or neglect, or sacrificing for one's partner, there are some such relationships in which both or all partners find themselves more fulfilled and happy than they otherwise would. Yet these "good" polyamorous relationships are the subject of the same moral aversion and disdain as the abusive, coercive ones. What kind of moral argument could lie behind the idea that such relationships are wrong - surely not a morality based on happiness. Is some kind of deontological sexual ethic at the root of the criticism of open relationships and polyamory? What does this ethic look like? Why, in short, is there opposition to polyamorous relationships that goes beyond mere personal disagreement?
Nicholas D. Smith
November 8, 2010
(changed November 8, 2010)
Permalink
I will leave it to others to supply whatever they may think is a good reason for supposing that there is some kind of rule written in Heaven (about which, more in a moment!) as to why "one size fits all" in terms of fulfilling sexual relationships. As you quite rightly point out, it is... Read more
Is it ethical to have pets? Wouldn't a dog or cat be happier in the wild, where it could procreate on its own, run freely, interact with its own kind etc.? As a pet, these animals do experience joy, but most are spayed or neutered, are bored or generally trapped inside while people are at work, have their nails clipped when they wouldn't like it (or declawed altogether), etc. I think the animals would have more happiness living in the wild. I know the animals would live shorter lives on average, but I am not convinced that a longer life necessitates a better life.
Nicholas D. Smith
November 8, 2010
(changed November 8, 2010)
Permalink
You are right that a longer life is not necessarily a happier life, but there are other things that go with longer life that are probably relevant to your question. I am not sure what the exact statistics are, but I see to recall that feral cats (felis domesticus) have an average life... Read more
I want to start to study logic on my own to the level that I can understand a book like Enderton's and Michael Potter's Set Theory and Its Philosophy, also be able to study mathematical logic like recursive functions and model theory and Understand Logicist Reduction and why It failed because of Godel. Suppose that I've read nothing on logic and I'm not fair in math, but I want to be good at it. I'll be gleeful if you introduce me a series of books on a) Introductory books on logic followed by more professional ones, b) Mathematics of logic, c) books on Logicist Reduction and Godel or what is necessary to understand them. I have a plenty of time to study all these and will face all the troubles. Thank You Very Much Pouria From Turkish part of Iran (I think you guessed why I have to study on my own)
Alexander George
November 7, 2010
(changed November 7, 2010)
Permalink
If you have difficulties actually getting or buying books, you might also look at Paul Teller's A Modern Formal Logic Primer. The book is now out of print, but Teller has made it completely available for downloading from the Web. You can find it here.
Log in to pos... Read more
All human activities seem to have dramatic, defining, pivotal moments. Take basketball : 1987 Game 5 Celtics v. Pistons. Dennis Rodman rejects Larry Bird with 5 seconds left. Pistons take the ball. All they need to do is inbound the ball and hold it and they take a 3-2 series lead home. Instead, Larry steals Isiah's inbound pass and the Celtics win. Wow. Of course there are many such moments in sports. What are the equivalent moments in Philosophy? What Philosopher, finally, in what paper, knocked down a prevalent theory held for 1,000 years? That kind of thing. Can a few of you contribute your favorite moments in the history of philosophy?
Sean Greenberg
November 15, 2010
(changed November 15, 2010)
Permalink
This is a great question!! It would be wonderful if as many panelists as possible could respond, not only because I'm as curious as Jasper as to what people think, but also because I think that the responses would reveal much about the respondent's own philosophical temperament and prio... Read more
I have a reoccurance of Base of Tongue cancer, and this is a dehumanizing sort of cancer in that it starts to strip away some our most basic asthetic appreciations: eating food, tasting, swallowing, speaking and sexual intimacy. It is also dreadfully painful. So - I've been having the internal question of, when is enough enough, and I think there was a classical parable of how someone would choose their death.
Gordon Marino
October 14, 2013
(changed October 14, 2013)
Permalink
When is enough enough? Oh my friend, what a hard, hardquestion - a question that when being raised says a lot about life itself. Though I worry about a person being in decent fettle trying to resolve such a question --for me it would be when the pain got so relentless and all consumingthat... Read more