Recent Responses
Are there any moral arguments against non-coercive incest between adults?
Peter Smith
June 16, 2010
(changed June 16, 2010)
Permalink
A footnote to Peter Fosl's sensible response.
The trouble, of course, is in the talk of 'non-coercive' incest. Where different generations are concerned -- father and adult daughter, for example -- it would be naive to suppose that the younger party, who may think she is freely consenting, isn't in... Read more
Are there any moral arguments against non-coercive incest between adults?
Peter Smith
June 16, 2010
(changed June 16, 2010)
Permalink
A footnote to Peter Fosl's sensible response.
The trouble, of course, is in the talk of 'non-coercive' incest. Where different generations are concerned -- father and adult daughter, for example -- it would be naive to suppose that the younger party, who may think she is freely consenting, isn't in... Read more
Given that that most people would agree with 1 and 2 that: 1. Causing great suffering is wickedness if done in the absence of qualifying conditions. For example bombing a city is generally wrong since it causes suffering but if bombing that city ends a war then that is a qualifying condition which may absolve the wrongness of that act. and 2. Eating animals causes great suffering. How can meat eaters see themselves as anything other than wicked people? Certainly eating meat causes great suffering so the only thing that would keep it from being wicked would be the presence of a qualifying condition. What is the qualifying condition in the case of meat eating? That is tastes SO YUMMY?
Gordon Marino
July 28, 2010
(changed July 28, 2010)
Permalink
Many see themselves as in need of protein and or without the time to go vegetarian. They also regard their own lives as much more valuable than the lives of say chickens. Some also argue that animals eat one another and that the food chain is part of a natural process. I do not agree with this lo... Read more
Are there good philosophical reasons for taking drugs? Michel Foucault, Aldous Huxley and Sam Harris are examples of people who have experimented with drugs for creative purposes and in order to gain insight. Given that one is destined to live their entire life in sobriety (which is just one state of consciousness), do they have an inherent right to experience other consciousnesses which completely alter their understanding of reality? In this sense, can people who have not taken drugs but criticize them, be considered ignorant in that they have no experience of drugs?
Peter S. Fosl
June 16, 2010
(changed June 16, 2010)
Permalink
Yes, I agree with you. There are good philosophical reasons for experimenting with mind altering drugs, the same reasons that make it desirable to experience travel, different kinds of people, different cuisines, different art, etc. Now, of course, the benefits of mind-altering drugs must be bala... Read more
Does the brain contain the mind or does the mind extend beyond the brain?
Amy Kind
June 15, 2010
(changed June 15, 2010)
Permalink
Hmmm... did you submit your question via the new iPhone app by any chance? I ask because some philosophers have recently argued that the way that we use certain tools, like iPhones for example, extends our cognitive processing, and thus the mind, out into the world. Is there really a difference betw... Read more
Why have philosophers presented themselves as asexual in their writings? Derrida asks this question in 'Derrida', but I have not seen it answered anywhere.
Peter Smith
June 14, 2010
(changed June 14, 2010)
Permalink
Here are some philosophical questions that I happen to be interested in (or have been interested in, in the past). "Are beliefs functional states?", "What makes our knowledge of our mental states particularly authoritative (if it is)?", "What is the best formulation of a causal theory of reference?... Read more
My question concerns Nietzsche's Anti-Christ, section 44. He's talking here about how the Gospels (and Christianity generally) have been historically read as "the Book of Innocence". The part which puzzles me reads:"The whole of mankind, even the finest heads of the finest epochs (with one exception who is perhaps merely a monster) have allowed themselves to be deceived." (A.44) My question is: Who is the "monster" who Nietzsche is here referring to?
Douglas Burnham
June 13, 2010
(changed June 13, 2010)
Permalink
The word translated 'monster' in the edition you cite is 'Unmensch' -- thus, 'inhuman' is probably better, because it captures the very Nietzschean ambiguity between concepts of 'animal', 'monster' and 'overhuman'. Anyway, I've not done a really thorough study of late period Nietzsche so I'm n... Read more
Does the brain contain the mind or does the mind extend beyond the brain?
Amy Kind
June 15, 2010
(changed June 15, 2010)
Permalink
Hmmm... did you submit your question via the new iPhone app by any chance? I ask because some philosophers have recently argued that the way that we use certain tools, like iPhones for example, extends our cognitive processing, and thus the mind, out into the world. Is there really a difference betw... Read more
I am a junior in high school and am already well into the college process. I would consider myself to be smarter than average, but will not hesitate to admit that I am not of the most elite caliber (some would say I am more 'street smart' than 'book smart'). During the college process I am looking at schools that would be considered tremendous stretches for my academic profile, however, connections I have at these schools may make up for this gap and allow me to coast on in. Should I feel guilty that I am receiving all of this help? What if I really do like the schools that are outside my profile? The whole point is to end up at the best school you possible can, right? Is there a difference between my possible best and the possible best of myself and connections combined?
Andrew Pessin
June 10, 2010
(changed June 10, 2010)
Permalink
Hm, are you asking an ethical question here? (ie it might be wrong to use your 'connections' to get into a 'better' school than you 'deserve'? I put all that in scare quotes because I think a lot of work would have to go into posing that question clearly, as an ethical question.) Or are you re... Read more
Is it possible that a person of modest intelligence could learn the whole history of philosophy, in terms of knowing every notable philosopher (from Thales to, say, Rorty), having read a few of their books or at least knowing and being able to expand upon their positions ... or is it simply outside the scope of a person, any less than a genius to have the time to gain such knowledge? It seems to me that there is not more than a couple of hundred such philosophers, and as such could be accomplished, at least superficially. Or is it more efficient to decide outright to miss some philosophers out?
Charles Taliaferro
June 10, 2010
(changed June 10, 2010)
Permalink
Great question! By the way you pose the question (Thales to Rorty) I assume you mean western philosophy. Yes, I think you can carry out such a project, reading a bit of each of the major philosophers and then relying on a good history as a guide. I would highly recommend Anthony Kenny's m... Read more