Recent Responses
I'm certain that if we could go back in time and undo mistakes, our lives wouldn't be any better. But I can't figure out why this is so. Why then are mistakes so hard to live with if undoing them doesn't make things any better?
Miriam Solomon
August 26, 2010
(changed August 26, 2010)
Permalink
Your question takes off from your certainty that if we could go back in time and undo our mistakes our lives wouldn't be "any better." I'm asking you to critically reflect on that certainty.
Let me ask you a question: are you certain that if we could go back in time and undo our mistake tha... Read more
What does philosophy say about the repetitive nature of experience? For instance, say I have five grapes that I could eat but they are not necessary for my nutrition. I would be eating them purely for pleasure. I have three choices: 1) do not eat them, 2) eat some of them, or 3) eat all of them. I have memories of eating grapes, so I could just rely on the memories to experience the pleasure of eating a grape (a pale substitute for the real thing). Or, I could eat one of them, which would allow me to experience the taste and texture of a grape in the present. Or, I could eat more than one grape which would prolong the experience but not really add more taste or texture to the experience of eating just one. However, after eating one or more grapes, I would only have another (fading) memory of eating grapes which would not really add to my previous stock of memories of eating grapes. If much of life has this repetitive nature to it, is there any value to doing anything more than once (assuming that there is a value in doing it the first time)?
Nancy Bauer
August 26, 2010
(changed August 26, 2010)
Permalink
The reason we do things more than once is that we value doing them more than once, either because we find the things pleasurable or otherwise valuable in and of themselves or because doing them advances other values of ours. (Here, I am using "value" pretty loosely; I simply mean that we perce... Read more
I am 1 living thing. I am made up of 10 trillion cells, which are also living things. If I am alone in a room, how many living things are in the room? 1? 10 trillion? 10 trillion and 1?
Donald Baxter
August 23, 2010
(changed August 23, 2010)
Permalink
Some philosophers would say that there are 10 trillion and 1 (at least). After all, you are a person and none of your cells is a person, so you are a distinct thing from each of them, and so an additional thing to all of them. Other philosophers would say that "living thing" is not a count no... Read more
I aced a basic logic class in college that covered both sentential and predicate logic. I am interested in furthering my skills in symbolic logic, but I don't know how. My school doesn't offer any upper-level logic courses. I'm thinking I would like to buy a simple textbook for a more in-depth study of the more advanced concepts (I've heard the term "modal logic" thrown around, but I don't know what that is). Can you suggest a good text or author I should investigate?
Richard Heck
August 23, 2010
(changed August 23, 2010)
Permalink
Peter might also have mentioned his book, An Introduction to Gödel's Theorems, and the similarly targeted book by George Boolos, John Burgess, and Richard Jeffrey, Computability and Logic. Both are standard texts used in intermediate logic courses.
Log in to post comments... Read more
I am from a developing country, a poor country, a very populated country. We live a hard life here. People often say westerners have a life while we only do the living, or according to one of my friends, we only do the breathing. I still remember a line from a popular song here: are we changing the world or changed by the world? And my friend gave me the answer: being an American means one is changing the world while being a non-American means one is changed by the world. So what is the meaning of life for a man living in a developing country anyway?
Thomas Pogge
August 23, 2010
(changed August 23, 2010)
Permalink
In terms of income, the panelists on this site by and large belong to humanity's top ventile (5%) -- where the average income is 9 times the global average. This is roughly 300 times more than what is available to people in the bottom quarter, where average income is about 1/32 of the global a... Read more
What is the purpose of Government? If the purpose of Government is to take care of its citizens? One would think that being well feed and sheltered is more important than being educated. So why is it that the government can provide free and mandatory education but not give free mandatory food, shelter, and health care to children?
Thomas Pogge
August 22, 2010
(changed August 22, 2010)
Permalink
I think part of the answer is that education can be well targeted on the children in need. By contrast, it's hard to provide food and shelter to children in ways that are not exploitable by their caretakers. So the worry is, for example, that, if we institute the mandatory provision of shelter... Read more
If a newspaper receives letters to the editor taking a position that has been proven factually inaccurate, is it nevertheless the editor's responsibility to print one or more of these letters? Is it more important to demonstrate that others hold a different point of view, however inaccurate, or to convey only accurate information? (Maybe this example is too political or specific, but this came up in regards to the subject of where President Obama was born.)
Thomas Pogge
August 22, 2010
(changed August 22, 2010)
Permalink
I believe editors have no such responsibility to print known falsehoods that some want to see in print. In fact, I believe editors have a responsibility not to print such letters. If editors practiced such misconceived "even-handedness," then this would provide a powerful incentive to determin... Read more
Suppose there is an infinitely long ladder in front of me. I do not know that this ladder is infinitely long, only that it is either a very long (but finitely long) ladder, or an infinitely long ladder. What kind of evidence would I need to give me reasonable assurance (I don't need absolute certainty) that this ladder is indeed infinitely long? I could walk a mile along the ladder and see that it still shows no signs of stopping soon. But the finitely long ladder would still be a better hypothesis in this case, because it explains the same data with a more conservative hypothesis. If I walk two miles, the finitely long hypothesis is still better for the same reasons. No matter what test I perform, the finitely long hypothesis will still better explain the results. Does this mean that, even if infinite objects exist, empirical evidence will never provide reasonable assurance that they exist?
Thomas Pogge
September 2, 2010
(changed September 2, 2010)
Permalink
In relation to my earlier answer, the following article from the Economist may be of interest. It's advertised as follows: "Can the laws of physics change? Curious results from the outer reaches of the universe." The link is
www.economist.com/node/16941123?story_id=16941123&fsrc=nlw|h... Read more
Perhaps someone will be able to settle this argument between me and my friend once and for all. Whenever I whine about some unfortunate happening or circumstance in my life, my friend will remind me that I'm better off than, say, poor starving children in Ethiopia. However, I think this is a faulty apples vs. oranges comparison. If I were to compare myself to others, shouldn't I compare myself among those who are in similar circumstances? That is, if I were to draw valid comparisons between myself and others, wouldn't it make more sense to compare across socioeconomic strata, rather than to compare myself to someone who is clearly more unfortunate or more successful simply because they were born in extraordinary circumstances different from my own? (Essentially, what my friend is trying to tell me is to not take things for granted. But I find that to be empty advice, especially since I don't think that it's a valid comparison and therefore not a valid argument.) Thanks for your time! --MJ
Gordon Marino
August 22, 2010
(changed August 22, 2010)
Permalink
I think you are right to take issue with your friend. On his or her account, the only person in the world who can legitimately complain is the person who is worst off in the world. Of course, we should be grateful for many things in life - but life is also filled with a great deal of sadness... Read more
Seeing the devout passion of sports fans I've often wondered if sports today are a substitute for war. People root for their hometown team and despise people from other towns because of their sport teams. This also isn't just an American thing and it seems as if this is the case all around the world. Since most people in non-third world countries at least are not constantly at war and fighting traditional country against country wars I've wondered this. My question is this: do we use sports as a substitute for war?
Gordon Marino
August 22, 2010
(changed August 22, 2010)
Permalink
It depends what you mean by "substitute." If by that you mean function symbolically than yes, I think sports can work as a substitute for war. Just consider some of the lingo in football. The long pass is the bomb and we talk of an offense as having a lot of weapons and of the qb as a general... Read more