Recent Responses
I have heard that undergraduate philosophy majors are some of the most imbalanced university programs when it comes to gender, being a bastion of male enrollment even though most universities now have more women than men, and other traditionally male fields are seeing near-equal enrollement, and even female majorities. First off, is it true that a disproportionate majority of undergraduate philosophy majors are men? Where might I find such figures? And second and more interestingly, if this is the case, why do you think things have turned out this way?
Sean Greenberg
October 28, 2010
(changed October 28, 2010)
Permalink
Just on the basis of my own experience, it does indeed seem to be the case that a disproportionate number of undergraduate philosophy majors in coed institutions of higher education are male. (The same disproportion is to be found in the profession itself.) I'm not sure whether the data... Read more
Theists often claim that the complexities of nature and the tiny details that allow human life to exist are evidence of god, as nothing so intricate and unlikely could happen without a designer. I believe that this is not the case as the universe is infinitely massive, and there are thousands, probably even millions of different planets. Logically, it is inevitable that at least one of those randomly created planets would have the required characteristics for life to survive. Can anybody provide a convincing counter argument to this?
Miriam Solomon
October 28, 2010
(changed October 28, 2010)
Permalink
Actually the universe is not infinite, although it is extremely large. Your claim that "it is inevitable that at least one of the millions of planets has the required characteristic for life" is not a logical claim (it is not true because it follows the laws of logic); it is an empirical... Read more
Theists often claim that the complexities of nature and the tiny details that allow human life to exist are evidence of god, as nothing so intricate and unlikely could happen without a designer. I believe that this is not the case as the universe is infinitely massive, and there are thousands, probably even millions of different planets. Logically, it is inevitable that at least one of those randomly created planets would have the required characteristics for life to survive. Can anybody provide a convincing counter argument to this?
Miriam Solomon
October 28, 2010
(changed October 28, 2010)
Permalink
Actually the universe is not infinite, although it is extremely large. Your claim that "it is inevitable that at least one of the millions of planets has the required characteristic for life" is not a logical claim (it is not true because it follows the laws of logic); it is an empirical... Read more
It seems that many philosophers use the "socrates" argument to explain a simple deductive argument. This argument is P1: All men are mortal P2: Socrates is a man C: Therefore, Socrates is mortal. However, is this not begging the question because P1 assumes that Socrates is mortal?
Peter Smith
October 28, 2010
(changed October 28, 2010)
Permalink
In response to the original question. We might have general grounds for thinking that all men are mortal -- e.g. general beliefs about the structure of human beings and about the relevant biological laws -- which we accept on inductive grounds (in a broad sense of inductive) and where our su... Read more
Hello, what do you think of this argument? If a woman has an abortion, then maybe a fetus is immorally killed. If this woman doesn't have an abortion, then a fetus is definitely not immorally killed. It is better to choose an option where a fetus is definitely not immorally killed, rather than an option where a fetus maybe is immorally killed. Therefore the woman should chose the option where the fetus is definitely not immorally killed. Therefore the woman should not have the abortion.
Eddy Nahmias
October 28, 2010
(changed October 28, 2010)
Permalink
That's a clever argument. It looks like the form is valid. The problem is with premise 3 (it's better to choose option where fetus is definitely not immorally killed ...). Whether that premise is true seems to depend on whether there may be other reasons why the abortion may be justified... Read more
Many philosophers who specialise in religion are atheists. How can they speak about the fundamentals of a religion without believing in those fundamentals? Won't this inevitable lead to condescension?
Jasper Reid
October 28, 2010
(changed October 28, 2010)
Permalink
Before I tackle your question head on, let me begin with an analogy: science. The number of philosophers who specialise in science is very small indeed. I'm not going to say that such people are non-existent: but, off-hand, I can't think of any. There are, however, quite a lot of philosophers... Read more
When investigating the relationship between works of fiction (literature, film, TV shows, etc) and social issues like racism and particularly sexism, it seems to me that much debate involves judging the work in question based on *possible* interpretations, rather than those interpretations favored by the author or the average member of the public, which can lead to the work being both praised and scorned by people from the same camp. For example, one critic might say a story presents a strong feminist message because that story tells of a woman in the traditionally male role of a warrior using sword and stake to combat, say, evil male creatures emerging from a cave under the town, showing that a woman is equally capable of being a hero and in control of her life. Another critic might, of the same story, say that it is anti-feminist and sexist because it implies that the female warrior is only powerful because she wields a phallic symbol, and that violence is being justified against beings emerging from a womb-like cavity in the Earth, thus symbolically justifying masculine dominance over the female as well as violence dominance of man over nature. My question is this: Is there ever such a thing as an interpretation too far-fetched? If so, where does one draw the line? If not, what reason is there to take any such criticism seriously - whether as a writer, a producer, a parent or teacher, or a member of the public? Is there such a thing as a "wrong" interpretation, even if multiple interpretations may be "right"?
Douglas Burnham
October 25, 2010
(changed October 25, 2010)
Permalink
I, too, like your example! Let me add three comments to Charles' response above.
First, we can distinguish between several different interpretative communities. One of these are 'average members of the public' -- consumers of cultural products who have no specialist training in the area.... Read more
Some thinkers mention the possibility of a "feminine" (not feminist) form of ethical reasoning, and contrast this to prevailing forms of ethical reasoning, which are "masculine". What does it mean for a way of thinking about ethics to be masculine or feminine? What would a "feminine ethic" look like?
Sean Greenberg
October 24, 2010
(changed October 24, 2010)
Permalink
The idea that there is a distinctively 'feminine' approach to ethics was articulated forcefully in the pioneering work of Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Gilligan argued that there are certain distinctive virtues and traits--such as care, empathy, forgiveness, etc.--that are coded 'f... Read more
When investigating the relationship between works of fiction (literature, film, TV shows, etc) and social issues like racism and particularly sexism, it seems to me that much debate involves judging the work in question based on *possible* interpretations, rather than those interpretations favored by the author or the average member of the public, which can lead to the work being both praised and scorned by people from the same camp. For example, one critic might say a story presents a strong feminist message because that story tells of a woman in the traditionally male role of a warrior using sword and stake to combat, say, evil male creatures emerging from a cave under the town, showing that a woman is equally capable of being a hero and in control of her life. Another critic might, of the same story, say that it is anti-feminist and sexist because it implies that the female warrior is only powerful because she wields a phallic symbol, and that violence is being justified against beings emerging from a womb-like cavity in the Earth, thus symbolically justifying masculine dominance over the female as well as violence dominance of man over nature. My question is this: Is there ever such a thing as an interpretation too far-fetched? If so, where does one draw the line? If not, what reason is there to take any such criticism seriously - whether as a writer, a producer, a parent or teacher, or a member of the public? Is there such a thing as a "wrong" interpretation, even if multiple interpretations may be "right"?
Douglas Burnham
October 25, 2010
(changed October 25, 2010)
Permalink
I, too, like your example! Let me add three comments to Charles' response above.
First, we can distinguish between several different interpretative communities. One of these are 'average members of the public' -- consumers of cultural products who have no specialist training in the area.... Read more
Are values nothing more than priorities and preferences, or is there something deeper at work?
Charles Taliaferro
October 22, 2010
(changed October 22, 2010)
Permalink
Some philosophers do think that moral and aesthetic values (right, wrong, good, evil, beauty, ugliness) are reflections of proper or correct priorities and preferences. It is proper to prefer compassion, for example, over cruelty. Some seek to articulate the best values in terms of t... Read more