Recent Responses
Why does someone believe you when you say there are four billion stars, but check when you say the paint is wet?
Peter Smith
June 27, 2010
(changed June 27, 2010)
Permalink
Isn't it just that typically not much hangs on answers about the numbers of stars, but you can e.g. ruin your clothes by getting it wrong about the paint?
But if it matters (say, to win a competition with a big cash prize), I bet you would double check my statement about the number of stars, and... Read more
Philosophy is well known for its inquisitive, critical nature. Naturally, we as philosophers strive to see clearly the basis of common beliefs, while rejecting prejudices and stereotypes that are without justifiable foundation. Now this all sounds fine, if we were diving into some debates or books. But, the common way of life outside is wrought with statements and beliefs that are at best grounded in some transient trends or local culture. Take, for example, when we engage in social interactions (perhaps in a college student's perspective). People are seen swayed by their emotions, possessed by gossips, some wearing extreme makeups and perfume, some drenched in alcohol, making horrid comments on someone the moment without his presence, blurting their prejudices and misconceptions, and so on. Of course, these are very narrow generalizations, yet I am convinced one cannot easily deny that these make up a big part of people's social lives today. As I study through various philosophers and their thoughts, I became increasingly agitated, eager to avoid all 'superficial' social relationships. But that, in turn, takes toll on my life because, let's face it, life is tough without company. No one to praise your effort, share your sorrow. No one to explore new possibilities with (you might say that a real philosopher needs none of this.). If I consider myself to be with some philosophic disposition, I cannot say for sure if that is, if not the major, the sole cause of anti-socialism or solitary lifestyle. However, if philosophy is really about exercising one's reason and becoming inquisitive and critical, can philosophers ever be in harmony with an active social lifestyle without making everyone their enemy? Or, do philosophers put up with shallow social interactions because they are necessary for other ends? Your points of view are much appreciated.
Peter Smith
June 27, 2010
(changed June 27, 2010)
Permalink
"If philosophy is really about exercising one's reason and becoming inquisitive and critical, can philosophers ever be in harmony with an active social lifestyle without making everyone their enemy?" Well, exercising one's reason and being inquisitive and critical is hardly the unique province of p... Read more
My teacher claims that he is utterly emotionless; according to him, he isn’t clouded by emotions of any form, and has no emotional desire. He argues that any emotions he appears to possess are simply superficial occurrences, with the purpose of manipulating others. He argues that he is utterly objective and consequently, completely exclusive from any form of bias. My question is that surely somebody who objectively chooses to use logic over any form of emotional guidance and has “no emotional desire whatsoever”, is therefore exhibiting a desire in itself? Surely, if one assumes logic as their only form of reasoning, the logic must be based upon basic desires and principles, therefore denoting an emotional presence? I would be grateful if somebody could enlighten me!
Andrew Pessin
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
I worry that framing the question this way begs the question -- you seem to assume that any 'choice' comes from or out of 'desire', but isn't that precisely what's at issue? I think we'd need to get a lot clearer on what a 'desire' is before we could answer the question in a satisfactory way ...... Read more
I was wondering whether in his writings on natural language Wittgenstein adverts to Plato's theory of forms. I'm thinking in particular of his essay on defining the word "Spiel."
Andrew Pessin
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
I'm no Wittg. expert -- that said, if all you mean by 'advert' is 'refers to', then it wouldn't be at all surprising if Wittgenstein did, since (I gather) crucial aspects of Wittgenstein's theory of meaning would be critical of a competing "Platonic" theory -- ie, part of his point in introducing... Read more
Why are there so many atheists in philosophy? Is this evidence that religion does not stand up to philosophical scrutiny?
Charles Taliaferro
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
Thank you to replies by Peter and Eric. I do agree with Eric and take note that more and more theists are in play, certainly more than when I started grad school in 1975. In typing in the names of current well known theists, I mangled a few names:Lynne Adams should be Lynne Baker. She is... Read more
Why are there so many atheists in philosophy? Is this evidence that religion does not stand up to philosophical scrutiny?
Charles Taliaferro
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
Thank you to replies by Peter and Eric. I do agree with Eric and take note that more and more theists are in play, certainly more than when I started grad school in 1975. In typing in the names of current well known theists, I mangled a few names:Lynne Adams should be Lynne Baker. She is... Read more
Why are there so many atheists in philosophy? Is this evidence that religion does not stand up to philosophical scrutiny?
Charles Taliaferro
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
Thank you to replies by Peter and Eric. I do agree with Eric and take note that more and more theists are in play, certainly more than when I started grad school in 1975. In typing in the names of current well known theists, I mangled a few names:Lynne Adams should be Lynne Baker. She is... Read more
Why isn't Husserl mentioned in introductory classes on existentialism? I recently took a course on existentialism at a university and his name never came up. Many introductory texts on existentialism don't mention him either despite his enormous influence on the subject. Maybe if I took a course at Harvard I would have gotten a better survey of the subject.
Charles Taliaferro
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
When I was at Harvard, there was no course on existentialism, but perhaps things have changed! In any case, I encourage your reading of Husserl independently. In defense of your introductory class and the average text dedicated to existentialism, Husserl is more closely linked to phenomeno... Read more
Would society be better off if no one could inherit money? If everyone had to make their own start in life?
Charles Taliaferro
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
An affirmative answer might put us on a rather slippery slope. What about the gift of money prior to death? Would you prohibit a parent paying for a child's education? And why just money? Would you prohibit all inheritance, from a farm to a sentimental photograph? It seems that in a gen... Read more
What is an interest? I mean it in the sense in which I have an interest in having an answer from you.
Charles Taliaferro
June 24, 2010
(changed June 24, 2010)
Permalink
Great question! Someone else will be better at replying to this, but I will take a first shot to get the ball rolling. I do not think the term "interest" has a standard, clear usage, though I think it is probably most generally equated with a preference or perhaps a desire. So, your havin... Read more