Recent Responses
What is the difference between music and an aesthetically interesting grouping of sounds? I ask because I was listening to the opening of Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds and I while I found the sounds which were made to resemble a flock of birds to be very interesting and even quasi-musical sounding at times it didn't sound like music. It really is brilliant so why or why wouldn't it qualify as music? Listen to it yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0DeA6PPbMI/
Jennifer Church
September 2, 2010
(changed September 2, 2010)
Permalink
For a very extended, and musically informed discussion of your question, I would strongly recommend Roger Scruton's book The Aesthetics of Music. He develops a sophisticated account of the way that we use our imaginations to experience the notes as moving in dance-like ways.... Read more
I'm going to be a senior in high school and I've found philosophy podcasts to be a great way to sample the thoughts of famous philosophers without having to drudge through esoteric forests of essays. Between listening to Philosophy Bites and Nigel Wharburton's reading of his book Philosophy: The Classics, I've become familiar with a bit of Hume and Kant. It is probable that I have misunderstood much of the material of the podcasts, so the material of this question does not reflect in any way the reliability of the sources. As I understand, Hume proposed the a priori and the a posteriori, the latter constructed by experience. Kant then respected the two categories but divided them into analytic a priori, synthetic a priori (new after Hume), and synthetic a posteriori. What interests me is the problem of "the missing shade of blue." Because all ideas originate from experience, even simple ones like fundamental colors (or shades of them), then are not all colors a posteriori? For they cannot be a priori in the instance of a blind man. To reconcile the problem of whether one can imagine a missing shade of a color wheel, and furthermore define the means by which he may do this, might Kant have had an opportunity to further classify and suggest that experienced colors belong to the category of an 'analytic a posteriori' and imagined colors belong to the synthetic a posteriori (because they are 'produced' from the relations between two experienced impressions)?
Sean Greenberg
September 2, 2010
(changed September 2, 2010)
Permalink
Although Hume does not himself use the terms 'a priori' and 'a posteriori', those categories do, roughly, correspond to the distinction that Hume draws between relations of ideas and matter of fact in the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (The Enquiry Concerning Human Understandin... Read more
I have two questions about hunting and fishing: First, is it is ethical to use powerful machinery and high-technology to find and harvest fish and game? Second, is "professional" fishing ethical? It is unlikely that the human race would have survived without the dietary protein derived from hunting and fishing. At some point, hunters and fishers became "sportsmen" as well as providers, but still universally accepted the ethical principle that one must kill or catch only what would be used as food for the family. For my 70 years thus far on this earth, I have sought and caught fish to cook, and eat; and I have hunted and killed game birds and animals to cook and eat. Any excess has always been given to others for consumption or preserved for future meals. I regard this practice as ethical and in a proud human tradition dating from as far back as ancestry can be imagined. My hunting has always been on foot or horseback, sometime accompanied by a dog, and my fishing from the bank or in a small boat propelled by a paddle or a small outboard engine. As between my prey and myself, I have usually been the underdog, or, on a very productive day, we have been evenly matched. I do not pretend that my equipment has been primitive, but the contest has largely been a balanced one--matching my wits and ability and basic tackle and firearms with the instincts and wariness of the fish or game and the challenge of the elements. However, it disturbs me to see this balance upset by overpowering machinery, such as hunting winter animals from helicopters, trolling for big-game fish using hundreds of gallons of fuel to pull a lure through the water, or using high-technology such as pinpointing the location and depth of schools of fish using sonar. Although it is a fine line, I know, I regard giving the hunter or fisher this overpowering technical superiority as unethical. Do you have any thoughts or references on this issue? The second question raises an even more disturbing ethical issue for me.. How can it be ethical to have "professional" fishermen who catch as many fish as they possibly can, using all of the gadgets and gismos on the market to give them an advantage, not for the traditional goals of fishing, but for payments from sponsors and prize money, all in the name of entertainment? It is not unusual for hundreds of boats to enter "tournaments" where huge financial rewards are to be had by the professional fishermen who catch the most or the biggest of the targeted species of gamefish. Meanwhile, all of our game fisheries, fresh and salt, are being depleted by over-fishing, pollution, and other stresses. I regard so-called "professional fishing" as unethical. Do you have any thoughts or reverences on this issue. A related practice that I regard as unethical is "trophy" hunting and fishing, but in order not to make this question too long, I will save that one for another day unless you find that the answer is the same. Thank you.
Jean Kazez
September 2, 2010
(changed September 2, 2010)
Permalink
I think you would really enjoy a new anthology from Wiley-Blackwell--Hunting. It is written largely by and for hunters, and looks at the sort of ethical questions you raise in a way you will find hospitable.
I think hunting is extremely difficult to justify. Though once necessary to obtain... Read more
Has there ever been shown to be an effect without a cause? Is it even possible for there to be an effect without a cause? If this is not possible, does that prove determinism is true, at least what I believe is called "Hard Determinism?" And even if you can't prove that there can never be an effect without a cause, isn't probability justification enough to make any belief other than determinism ridiculous?
Eddy Nahmias
September 2, 2010
(changed September 2, 2010)
Permalink
It's not clear what it would mean (or what it would take) to show that there was an effect without a cause (unless we just define an effect as something that is caused, in which case there'd be nothing to show). We certainly have not shown (proven) that every event has a cause in the sens... Read more
We're told that all matter in the universe is "expanding", presumably due to residual energy release created by the "big bang". But what (or perhaps more importantly "where") is the universe expanding into? I'm not approaching this from an astrophysical perspective, but from an ontological one. Namely, if all matter in the universe is expanding into the vacuous nothingness, and the universe is surrounded by nowhere, then how can something (the universe) exist in nothing and nowhere?
Alexander George
September 2, 2010
(changed September 2, 2010)
Permalink
See here for some similar questions and their answers.
Log in to post comments
When I was a child, I wanted to know what forever was. I would sit and concentrate -- think and think and THINK -- until finally I felt what may have been a glimpse into something infinite. It was jarring, intense, and pretty incredible. What WAS that? Have other people had this experience?
Charles Taliaferro
September 2, 2010
(changed September 2, 2010)
Permalink
Philosophers have expressed wide ranging views on the infinite, and even distinguished different kinds of infinites. In terms of the 'infinite' standing for a sequence of events without end, then (just as there is no greatest possible number) it is difficult for someone to claim to... Read more
Duty, engagement, rules, living a life "conditioned" vs. one free, maybe unconventional, following our own inspiration even if it doesn't seem supported by what we call "common sense". Many of us live a life that often is the result of choices influenced by many different conditionings, sometimes unhappily. It is not easy for everybody to understand what one really wants for himself in this life, and strong moral conditioning prevents radical choices. Where I should find more about this topic ? Thank you.
Sean Greenberg
September 1, 2010
(changed September 1, 2010)
Permalink
There are a number of classic works that treat the sorts of issues that you raise. (Interestingly, for what it's worth, relatively few contemporary 'analytic' philosophers have engaged these issues.) Chief among them, perhaps--at least in the Western tradition--are Plato's Republic an... Read more
Is there a correlation between intelligence and morality? I can imagine an intelligent person giving a sophisticated analysis to a complex moral question before acting as warranted by his/her analysis. On the other hand, I can imagine a person of lesser intelligence acting in a moral and caring manner without much reflection, because he or she has been raised to be kind and considerate, and because kindness and consideration have always been part of the person's personality. Conversely, it is pretty easy to see examples of immoral behavior from both more intelligent and less intelligent people as well. It seems logical that intelligence would confer a greater ability to be moral, but everyday life does not seem to show any firm correlation between the two.
Sean Greenberg
September 1, 2010
(changed September 1, 2010)
Permalink
I think that how one sees the relation between intelligence and morality might well depend on how one conceives of morality. If one had a strongly intellectualist conception of morality--as, arguably, Plato and certain early modern Rationalists, such as Leibniz, had--then one might well... Read more
Does philosophy concerning music have any worth or substance? Or is music simply too abstract for there to be any meaningful philosophical insights gleaned from it?
Sean Greenberg
September 1, 2010
(changed September 1, 2010)
Permalink
Treatments of music have long been a part of aesthetics: perhaps precisely because music is as abstract as it is--that is, it is not representational, or at least not obviously so--consideration of music raises questions about meaning, and human responses that are very different from tho... Read more
Should we teach philosophy to younger children? Would it help them in anyway, or would it be harmful in later life?
Gordon Marino
September 9, 2010
(changed September 9, 2010)
Permalink
Children are natural philosophers in that they are naturally filled with wonder. And very early on in life, they have all kinds of pressing issues about justice. In that sense, I don't think it could hurt to talk with them about philosophy. It depends on where the child is calling from, w... Read more