Recent Responses
If you alter someone's brain (by surgery, head injury, drugs, etc.) so that their personality changes markedly as a result, is there a sense in which you've effectively killed her?
Sean Greenberg
September 1, 2010
(changed September 1, 2010)
Permalink
The answer to this question depends on what one's criteria for personal identity are, as well as the nature of the changes in personality brought about by the envisioned brain manipulation. If, for example, one took personal identity to consist in psychological continuity, understood to... Read more
I have one question concerning about lines in mathematics. My teacher told me that two lines of different lengths are made up of the same number of points. he told me that if we placed one above the other and join its end points and extend it they will meet at a point (for eg.) R. he told me that we can prove that by joining one point of the longer line to the shorter line and then to the point R and by continuing doing the same. If we do so we will feel that it is made up of the same number of points. But in my view if we place one line above the other and join its end points then both the line would be slanting towards each other (because one is longer than the other). If we remove those points and the line that we joined then equals will be left because we are removing the same number of points. If we continue doing this by drawing parallel lines then both of them will meet at a point on the centre of the shorter line and if we stii continue drawing then the lines will meet at a point such that it does not lie on the shorter line. This shows that the longer line has more number of lines than the shorter one. Please clarify my doubt.
Peter Smith
September 1, 2010
(changed September 1, 2010)
Permalink
On the standard account, given two finitely long lines, even of different lengths, their pointscan indeed be matched up one-to-one, e.g. by the kind of projection theteacher indicated. And the possibility of that kind of one-to-one matchingis just what we mean when we say the two lines "con... Read more
How can philosophy be applied and/or related to engineering? I have a passion for both philosophy and the application of the general sciences (which is done through engineering...). I was wondering how a person can use philosophy in order to enhance his productivity and skill in engineering. (I am sorry if this question is a bit vague.)
William Rapaport
August 28, 2010
(changed August 28, 2010)
Permalink
There are 2 ways to interpret your question. One way is as a request for information about the philosophy of engineering. If that's what you're asking, I can suggest two good books to start with:
Florman, Samuel C. (1994), The Existential Pleasures of Engineering, 2nd edition (New York:... Read more
Somewhat late in life, I have come to the conclusion that I should have studied philosophy in college - not as a career mover, but as a means of improving my mind and developing greater insight into fundamental questions that all of us deal with, to some extent. Recently, I have begun to do some reading on my own, and I am wondering whether there are particular readings or other resources that you might suggest to a serious beginner with a strictly amateur, part-time interest. Thanks to Peter Smith's recommendation, in response to a previous question I posted here, I am currently reading and enjoying "Philosophers Without Gods". Previously, I have read and appreciated Peter Singer's Practical Ethics". These reflect particular interests, but I'd like to start a broader study. Any suggestions? Thanks again. Neil
Sean Greenberg
August 27, 2010
(changed August 27, 2010)
Permalink
Another relatively recent, good, general introduction to a variety of philosophical issues is Thomas Nagel, What Does it All Mean?, which I myself read in my first year of graduate school and found most illuminating. Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy is a classic from relatively... Read more
My question has to do with the idea of God’s omniscience and whether God as an omniscient being could somehow exist in time. It seems hard to imagine how any sentient being could exist knowing exactly what will happen to itself in virtually any and every single moment. The concept of time, I realize, is one fraught with philosophical debate; but perhaps we could say, at least for the purposes of this question, that time is defined as the gap between the realization of events that occur between one moment, say Moment A, and Moment B (I realize this may be a bit of a problematic definition of “time”; but I can let it stand for this question). If we are to believe that there is an omniscient being, it appears that there could be no time for it (so defined), no unknown, between Moment A and Moment B for itself as an entity realizing or actualizing events.
Sean Greenberg
August 27, 2010
(changed August 27, 2010)
Permalink
The question of God's omniscience is a deep one that has received considerable attention from philosophers. Your formulation of the issue, I think, raises three distinct questions: whether (divine) omniscience is compatible with temporal existence; whether (divine) omniscience can be achiev... Read more
Is it moral to use brain-enhancing drugs that have no negative consequences?
Gordon Marino
August 27, 2010
(changed August 27, 2010)
Permalink
A well known neuro-pharmacologist once explained that there are no free rides with drugs-- no brain enhancing drugs that don't have serious negative consequences but if there were I can't imagine what would be morally wrong with using them. Suppose, for instance, that these positive effects f... Read more
Why do we, psychologically/philosophically speaking, put such an emphasis on things being "real"? What got me thinking about this question is the nature of our memories - while I can certainly recall some "half-memories" which probably never actually happened or even simply fabricate some, why do we place less value on these memories than "true" ones, even though they could theoretically have the effect on us?
Andrew Pessin
August 26, 2010
(changed August 26, 2010)
Permalink
great question ... we might make some useful distinctions -- whether memories, beliefs, etc. are 'true' does NOT make an immediate difference to the individual, psychologically: we act on what we think, believe, remember etc., and in that sense the false thoughts/memories are just as 'valuab... Read more
Somewhat late in life, I have come to the conclusion that I should have studied philosophy in college - not as a career mover, but as a means of improving my mind and developing greater insight into fundamental questions that all of us deal with, to some extent. Recently, I have begun to do some reading on my own, and I am wondering whether there are particular readings or other resources that you might suggest to a serious beginner with a strictly amateur, part-time interest. Thanks to Peter Smith's recommendation, in response to a previous question I posted here, I am currently reading and enjoying "Philosophers Without Gods". Previously, I have read and appreciated Peter Singer's Practical Ethics". These reflect particular interests, but I'd like to start a broader study. Any suggestions? Thanks again. Neil
Sean Greenberg
August 27, 2010
(changed August 27, 2010)
Permalink
Another relatively recent, good, general introduction to a variety of philosophical issues is Thomas Nagel, What Does it All Mean?, which I myself read in my first year of graduate school and found most illuminating. Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy is a classic from relatively... Read more
Is there something fallacious/illogical about how the theist/atheist debate in the west is currently framed? Let me illustrate my point with an example. Consider the Irish legend of Fionn mac Cumhaill. In making sense of this legendary figure we could start by analysing arguments for and against his existence. We could count, for example, the "Giant’s Causeway" in N.Ireland to be evidence in favour of his existence. But this approach seems slightly misguided. We have jumped right into debating his physical existence without first looking at the sources of the Fionn mac Cumhaill tale. A knowledge of Celtic mythology and folklore would reveal to us the mythological nature of this figure and it consequently becomes illogical for us to debate his actual physical existence. Is the same true of the existence of the Biblical god "Yahweh"? Once we analyse the sources of the Bible, particularly noticing the influence of Near-Eastern mythologies and the development of monotheism from its henotheistic context, we can clearly recognise the mythological nature of the god Yahweh; so is it illogical for us to then give arguments for and against his existence?
Andrew Pessin
August 26, 2010
(changed August 26, 2010)
Permalink
great point -- I think I largely agree -- but there may, still, be some disanalogy between the two cases (the Irish legend v. 'God') -- namely once you begin describing God's various attributes (omnipotence, creator, goodness, etc.) then it may well be plausible to seek independent/direct evi... Read more
Is it illogical to be agnostic (as defined as someone who thinks the existence of "God" is unknown or unknowable)? My problem with it is that it seems to lack historical perspective and in particular a knowledge of how other cultures conceive of the divine. For example, an agnostic from a western country typically claims that she doesn't know whether "God" (as conceived of in Judeo-Christian theology) exists. But what about someone who was born into the Buddhist tradition? It wouldn't make much sense for them to claim that they are "agnostic" in the sense that someone from a Christian country is; because Buddhism has no god. Perhaps a "Buddhist agnostic" would be uncertain about the truth of reincarnation. So does being an "agnostic" show that the person is still thinking from a Christian mindset?
Allen Stairs
August 26, 2010
(changed August 26, 2010)
Permalink
My little bit of googling suggests that the word "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley in the mid-19th century. Huxley had grown up in a largely Christian society, but it seems that what he meant by the word was not tied to Christianity; it seems that he was describing a skeptical attitude to... Read more