Recent Responses
Is there a point at which a person can rightly dismiss a philosophical statement or even an entire philosophical system because it originated with a person of dubious character or intent, but (here's the catch) without committing the ad hominem fallacy in doing so? I am thinking of extreme examples, such as (alleged) philosophical systems created by, say, New Age healers, cult leaders, etc. Or, conversely, would it be necessary even in these extremely examples to address only the philosophical claims made by these movements -- one by one -- instead of addressing the character of the founders themselves in order to avoid the ad hominem?
Charles Taliaferro
September 17, 2010
(changed September 17, 2010)
Permalink
Great question! I am afraid that at the end of the day one does need to consider the merits of the philosophical system or position on its own terms, however from a practical point of view time is precious and it is virtually impossible to fully assess all the claims that may come... Read more
Why don't philosophers clearly define their terms in relation to the "theist/atheist" debate. Surely before we begin a philosophical discussion we should clearly define our terms; but when it comes to the existence of "God"; both theists and atheists just assume that everyone knows what "God" refers to. Once we have established- when the debate takes place in a Christian context- that "God" refers to the mythological creator deity "Yahweh" of the Bible; is it logical for us to even debate his existence? I mean, we don't debate the existence of the creator deities of African mythology (who have similar properties to the Biblical deity). Could this be a large-scale unexamined cultural bias?
Eric Silverman
September 17, 2010
(changed September 17, 2010)
Permalink
Actually, many of the better philosophers take time to define the concept of God they have in mind. For example, in Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God you can find a 12 sentence, page long account of the God he has in mind (I believe it appears on page 7).
While I understand tha... Read more
Can you be blamed for not loving someone? For instance, it's not uncommon for children to accuse their parents of not loving them--and here, the claim is not simply that the parents didn't act appropriately (though this is typically part of the problem), but that they don't possess actual feelings of love or affection or care. While it's easy to appreciate the force of complaints like this, I wonder whether it's ultimately impossible to choose who you love, so that one cannot be blamed for failing to love another.
Oliver Leaman
September 16, 2010
(changed September 16, 2010)
Permalink
I think you are right, we cannot be forced to love someone and so cannot be blamed for not doing so. On the other hand, love is not necessarily a sudden emotion but can be acquired over time and both strengthen and weaken. So one might be justly blamed for not having taken the necessary... Read more
Why don't philosophers clearly define their terms in relation to the "theist/atheist" debate. Surely before we begin a philosophical discussion we should clearly define our terms; but when it comes to the existence of "God"; both theists and atheists just assume that everyone knows what "God" refers to. Once we have established- when the debate takes place in a Christian context- that "God" refers to the mythological creator deity "Yahweh" of the Bible; is it logical for us to even debate his existence? I mean, we don't debate the existence of the creator deities of African mythology (who have similar properties to the Biblical deity). Could this be a large-scale unexamined cultural bias?
Eric Silverman
September 17, 2010
(changed September 17, 2010)
Permalink
Actually, many of the better philosophers take time to define the concept of God they have in mind. For example, in Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God you can find a 12 sentence, page long account of the God he has in mind (I believe it appears on page 7).
While I understand tha... Read more
Dear Philosophers, I've been told the "dream girl" as the "dream job" as the "dream life" don't exist. I disagree, I found a wonderful partner and got married to her. It is not a dream, meaning not everything is perfect: I have my flaws and so has she. the question is I've been looking for a career, an activity, anything that can make me happy, energetic, feel alive. (find the job you love and you won't have to work for the rest of your life; find what you love and you will wake up early and go to bed late because without feeling tired, and so on). I've tried to go for the prestige, and worked in bank and multinationals without any results. I then decided to go for the skills, played guitar, surfed, snowboarded, read, did marathons, learnt languages and so on but couldn't get any money from this and evidently it is not my vocation/career. At last I thought I could be a good salesmen and applied for many job. I have a decent job, that for many could be a dream one, as a sales manager, but I hate it, it's stressful and it doesn't seem like a vacation at all. How can I find something that I love, devote entirely to this activity and get rich at the same time? I know it exists, I've tried everything, listened to my soul, do a list of activities I like and so on. NOTHING worked. I'm thirty years old and I feel like a hundred because of the energy that this deep search demands. Could you help me?
Miriam Solomon
September 16, 2010
(changed September 16, 2010)
Permalink
You are looking for a job that satisfies your three criteria (1) you love it (2) you can devote yourself to it and (3) you get rich. This isn't a mathematical puzzle with a definite answer; just like your search for the perfect mate, it may or may not exist i.e. is is contingent on th... Read more
Is there a difference between a number as an abstract object and as a metric unit used to measure things?
Richard Heck
September 14, 2010
(changed September 14, 2010)
Permalink
I would put the question slightly differently, if I understand it right: The question is whether the cardinal number 3, used to say how many of something there are, is the same or different from the real number 3, which is used to report the results of measurement. There is of course a d... Read more
This is the first sentence of Stanford Encyclopedia's article on rights: "Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states...." I checked my English dictionary, and it defines "right", in the relevant sense, as "entitlement", and "entitlement" as "right". In my own language (not English), there aren't even two different words for "right" and "entitlement", they must both be translated to the same word. I think we can conclude that "right" and "entitlement" are synonymous, as much as any two words can be. So do you think that there is any useful reading of that article's first three words? Thank you!
Thomas Pogge
September 13, 2010
(changed September 13, 2010)
Permalink
The author of the "Rights" article has now sent me a long response. If you want to see it and/or want me to put you two in touch, please send your e-address to thomas.pogge@yale.edu
Log in to post comments
Couldn't we take the "ontological proof" of God's existence to prove that there are many God-like creatures? For instance, imagine a creature that has all thinkable perfections except for the fact that it has dirty fingernails. If existence is a perfection, then this creature must have this perfection, since one can both exist and have dirty fingernails. And so, if the ontological proof proves that God exists, then it proves that dirty fingernails-God exists too. Doesn't it?
Jasper Reid
September 13, 2010
(changed September 13, 2010)
Permalink
I'm with Thomas Pogge on what the real issue is here. For what it's worth, I'm also no friend to the Ontological Argument. But let's see if a supporter of the argument might have something to say in response to this challenge...
First of all, what form of the argument are we going to cons... Read more
I have a question about whether individual lives are innately valuable. Say for example that genetic engineering reaches the point where all human beings could be engineered to be born without any disabilities. I know that this would be beneficial because it would alleviate the suffering of the person who would have otherwise been disabled and those who would have been responsible for him or her. However, does being free from a physical or mental disability make a human being more worthy than a person who is disabled? Or compare a multi-lingual person to a monolingual person. Is the value of a life dependent on the person's productivity and skills or is life innately valuable?
Thomas Pogge
September 13, 2010
(changed September 13, 2010)
Permalink
It is of value for someone to be free of suffering or disease. But in order for this to be valuable period, the being in question must have a certain intrinsic value. And this intrinsic value of persons, in virtue of which it is valuable that they be free of suffering or disease, is a va... Read more
Is there a difference between a number as an abstract object and as a metric unit used to measure things?
Richard Heck
September 14, 2010
(changed September 14, 2010)
Permalink
I would put the question slightly differently, if I understand it right: The question is whether the cardinal number 3, used to say how many of something there are, is the same or different from the real number 3, which is used to report the results of measurement. There is of course a d... Read more