Recent Responses
If "saying" refers to an action, and "believing" to a mental state, what is "asserting"? It seems to require an action (i.e. you have to say something) and it also seems to require a mental state (you need to believe what is said).
Mitch Green
July 13, 2010
(changed July 13, 2010)
Permalink
Thank you for your question! Saying is indeed an action, and believing is a mental state as you say (though just what a "mental state" is is no easy question). Asserting is an action, too: it is something we do at will, something we can refrain from, something we can be held responsible for, some... Read more
Is it conceivable that something finite can become infinite? Isn't there an inherent conceptual problem in a transition from finiteness to infinity? (My question comes from science, but the scientists don't seem to bother to explain this, such as in the case of gravity within a black hole -- a massive star collapses into a black hole and gravity in it rises to infinity? The more interesting example to me is the notion that the universe may well be infinite, but the main view in cosmology is that it began as finite and even had a definable size early on in its expansion. How could an expanding universe at some point cross over to have infinite dimensions?)
Peter Smith
July 13, 2010
(changed July 13, 2010)
Permalink
A few comments on Hilbert's Hotel (since Charles Taliaferro has brought that up) and "actual infinities":
If you want a standard presentation of the usual Hilbert's Hotel "paradox", which has nothing to do with money, then check out Wikipedia's good entry. The "paradox" just dramatizes the basic fa... Read more
I find that a very common discussion that I have with friends and family is about which sport (baseball, football, soccer, etc.) is the "best" or which sport is "better." As my quotations may indicate, I find this discussion rather fruitless. For instance, I love baseball (watching or playing) but dislike soccer. But I do not know of a way--and am skeptical that there even is a way--to objectively measure the quality of a sport. Although they may share the common, but rather vague and general, attribute "sport," they nonetheless seem incommensurable with one another. At the same time, I am always wary of becoming a full-blown relativist, no matter the topic. So my question is whether or not there are fruitful ways to have an inner-sports dialogue that attempts to answer the question as to what sport is "better," "more praiseworthy," "more sophisticated," and so on? Or is our conception of what makes a sport good so tied up with our culture and (perhaps) our own athletic abilities that, in this case, we would do well to accept relativism and halt the debate entirely?
Eddy Nahmias
July 12, 2010
(changed July 12, 2010)
Permalink
Soccer (futbol) is the best sport, and the World Cup is the best sporting event.
I believe this is as true as any normative truth can be, but I may be biased... and I may be suffering WCW (World Cup Withdrawal).
Log in to post comments
How should one best go about selecting a career that suites their personality, values, current realities? Is it best to go with intuitive "gut" urges or try to do as much research as possible on certain careers? If the latter, how much research would be enough before simply diving into a career. I guess my question is this: a making a career choice matter of faith, methodical research and thinking, both, or something else? -T.R.S
Charles Taliaferro
July 10, 2010
(changed July 10, 2010)
Permalink
Unfortunately or fortunately, there is no pat answer to your question from a philosophical point of view. There are, however, a few general points that might be of use:Socrates admonished the people of Athens for spending their lives in the ambitious pursuit of wealth and power rather than... Read more
I hear a lot of talk about how "the people are correct" and the saying "one million people can't be wrong." However, there has to be some absolutist force present some of the time to keep anything and everything from becoming chaotic. For example, when sending soldiers off to a war that will violate human rights, but which is widely supported by the people, some would argue that makes it the right thing to do. On the other hand, imagine the pickle the world would be in if people had taken that standpoint towards Nazi Germany, and no one had stepped in. Can the masses truly be morally wrong, or does widespread belief of something make it right absolutely?
Charles Taliaferro
July 10, 2010
(changed July 10, 2010)
Permalink
Yes, the majority can be wrong about any number of issues from ethics to philosophy or religion. Perhaps only some form of conceptual or moral relativism (in which X is right is defined in terms of a society approving of X) or providential theology (e.g. God would not allow the majority of... Read more
I'm not too sure if you can help me out. Here goes. It seems to me that there is a general agreement on the necessity of the nation state. The whole war in Afghanistan is premised on the necessity of the state. Is civilization, whatever that is, premised on the state? Can humanity exist without the state? Are we living in a period in which humanity cannot be without the state?
Charles Taliaferro
July 10, 2010
(changed July 10, 2010)
Permalink
This is a huge question about the philosophy of human nature and values. It is difficult to imagine anything like civilization (cities or some kind of coordinated form of life with surplus agriculture enabling there to be markets, safety, public gatherings, religion, and so on) without a sy... Read more
For much of my life, I have defined myself through my intellectual pursuits. I loved learning, reading, and poetry. Thinking held a genuine excitement for me, and I craved academic and literary challenges. Within the past few months, for no reason that I can discern, all of that changed. I am not an unhappy person aside from the fact that I have lost this part of my identity (so I don’t think that I am clinically depressed), but I have become lazy. I still read a little, but I no longer enjoy it. When I try to do the things I loved, they now seem boring or, at least, like work. And I like the person I was then much better than the person I am now. She was more thoughtful, had higher standards for herself, and was searching for her purpose in life. And it also feels kind of like, if I am not an intellectual, then what good am I? My sense of morality, my worldview, and my desire to achieve all came from my intellectual concept of the world. How do I bring back this “spark”? Is there a way to fall back in love with learning?
Charles Taliaferro
July 10, 2010
(changed July 10, 2010)
Permalink
Perhaps you can bring back that loving feeling by choosinng a middle path. In your question, it seems that you are representing two persons:An intellectual who loves reading, is excited by inquiry into the purpose of life, someone with a passion for literary and academic challenges, a commi... Read more
This is more of a sociological question *about* philosophers than it is a strictly philosophical question, but what is the general view, if there is one, among philosophers concerning political pundits, political television and radio shows, and what may more broadly be called media-politics? I am interested in knowing how big the gulf is between such "everyday" politics and the politics of academics. I, for one, notice an enormous gulf such that most of what I hear on television and radio shows has little to do with political theory--and rarely if ever even makes reference to it--and is much more focused on empty rhetoric and party-love and hate. Am I in good company?
Charles Taliaferro
July 10, 2010
(changed July 10, 2010)
Permalink
I don't think there is a general philosophical point of view on "media politics" though historically and today philosophers have tended to oppose the kind of one-way rants that one hears in which no objections are considered or, if they are entertained, they are shouted down (this is based o... Read more
In general, it seems that an action is considered morally wrong when it harms a person (or animal). Is there anything morally wrong with profanity? To clarify, I do not mean swearing at someone, but profanity in general. E.g.: I spent my whole &*@&#$ night writing that %*@&# paper! Sure, it may be "tasteless", but is there any basis on which to call it wrong?
Charles Taliaferro
July 9, 2010
(changed July 9, 2010)
Permalink
Great question. In replying to a question on vulgarity earlier this week, I offered a minor defense of swearing, suggestiing that it might be essential in expressing the passionate nature of one's convictions (e.g. the classic case is the law case over whether wearing a shirt with the words "... Read more
Does it put me in any particular philosophical camp to believe that most questions taken as philosophical questions could be made more tractable by first settling (or agreeing not to settle) issues of definition and acceptable evidence?
Charles Taliaferro
July 9, 2010
(changed July 9, 2010)
Permalink
You would be in very good company, as the pursuit of careful definitions was key to Socrates' philosophical dialectic. Great care for the definition of words is also a key part of Confucius' philosophy. In the 20th century, the practice of focussing on definitions and conceptual clarity was... Read more