Recent Responses
Are there any academic papers that you would recommend to a student of philosophy, regardless of subject area being studied, as valuable foundational reading?
Thomas Pogge
October 3, 2010
(changed October 3, 2010)
Permalink
Yes, there are seminal works of philosophy that are of historical and systematic interest for the understanding they convey of what philosophy is. Here I would mention at least a dozen historical works before any more recent academic papers - works by the usual suspects: Plato, Aristotle, Desc... Read more
Why do you think philosophers act like they are qualified to answer questions about physics, psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience when they have studied none of these?
Eddy Nahmias
October 2, 2010
(changed October 2, 2010)
Permalink
Just to add to Prof. Greenberg's response, the question suggests that philosophers regularly make claims about physics, psychology, anthropology, neuroscience, and other sciences without studying those fields. That is false. Few philosophers do so. Many who write about the sciences or use i... Read more
In response to a recent question about philosophy (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/3529/), Oliver Leaman made the claim that, "there are no facts in philosophy." Briefly reviewing the definition of "fact" I see "something that actually exists; reality; truth." Can it really be that there is no truth in philosophy? It seems like the respondent has made an assumption that it very broad, fundamental, and contestable.
Thomas Pogge
October 2, 2010
(changed October 2, 2010)
Permalink
I think you are over-reading Oliver Leaman's point. He was contrasting philosophers to historians, pointing out that the latter can rely on a wealth of facts while the former cannot. So I believe he was referring to empirical facts ascertainable by observation, such as facts about bullets and... Read more
My question pertains to two common attributes given to God. Omniscience and omnipotence. If we use a definition of omniscience that includes knowledge of all future events (as most believers would today due to things like prophecy and revelation) then it follows that God knows all of his future actions with absolute certainty. If this is the case, then God's omniscience is compromised. For example, let's say God knows he is going to create a global flood "x" years in the future. If omniscience is perfect he MUST do that action and is powerless to do otherwise, lest he compromise his knowledge. If he does exercise his power and not flood the earth then he was previously wrong and his omniscience is compromised. Therefor no single entity can be all knowing and all powerful. Is this a good argument? I have never heard it used or refuted in a public debate/piece of literature.
Thomas Pogge
October 2, 2010
(changed October 2, 2010)
Permalink
It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's quite compelling. Your argument assumes that God is in time in much the same way we take ourselves to be in time: experiencing only the present and acting only in the present. But, being omniscient, God would really be experiencing all times at... 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
What is the best way to decide between opposing opinions? So many issues are argued from the most extreme positions; there seems to be no middle ground. Such as: atheists vs. Evangelical/Fundamentalists; or the prevalence of sex addicts vs. some expert opinions that there is no such thing as "sex addiction". Thank you if you can accept my question.
Mitch Green
September 30, 2010
(changed September 30, 2010)
Permalink
Thank you for your good and important question. The extreme and contradictory positions we often hear proposed about difficult issues can make for a lot of confusion, and it's natural to wonder whether there is any rational way to adjudicate such disputes. Now, you asked what is *the* b... Read more
Yesterday I and one of my friends had a discussion about doing plastic surgery for nose, hair or other parts of the face or body in order to make one's physical appearance more beautiful. We didn't come to a common point of view regarding rightfulness of this action. What is your idea?
Sean Greenberg
September 30, 2010
(changed September 30, 2010)
Permalink
It's not clear to me that the question of whether one should undergo plastic surgery even falls within the scope of morality. (Following certain recent philosophers, such as Robert Adams, T. M. Scanlon, J. B. Schneewind, and Susan Wolf, I am inclined to think that the scope of moralit... Read more
Why do you think philosophers act like they are qualified to answer questions about physics, psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience when they have studied none of these?
Eddy Nahmias
October 2, 2010
(changed October 2, 2010)
Permalink
Just to add to Prof. Greenberg's response, the question suggests that philosophers regularly make claims about physics, psychology, anthropology, neuroscience, and other sciences without studying those fields. That is false. Few philosophers do so. Many who write about the sciences or use i... Read more
Why do some philosophers say that how something feels, what it is like to be something, cannot be identical with any physical property, or at least any physical property which we know anything about?
Sean Greenberg
September 30, 2010
(changed September 30, 2010)
Permalink
One might argue for this conclusion as follows: the way things look, sound, taste, feel, etc.--what some philosophers call 'secondary qualities'--cannot be identical to any physical properties, because physical properties of things are either what philosophers have called 'primary qual... 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