Recent Responses
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
Are dreams experiences?
Charles Taliaferro
June 10, 2010
(changed June 10, 2010)
Permalink
Great question! Some philosophers have denied that they are. Norman Malcolm is probably the most famous for claiming dreams are not experiences. It has been jokingly said that, for Malcolm, dreams are simply lies we tell each other over breakfast. The problem is that if you are a materia... Read more
Wittgenstein once said that the world is the totality of facts. It seems to me that at least in the case of color this theory doesn't apply. What facts can be said about the "redness" of a red object. Perhaps no facts can be said about "redness" precisely because what is being experienced in an encounter with red isn't a "fact". Do we apprehend that redness through a fact or through an experience of consciousness? It seems to me that the fact that red exists and the actuality of red are two different things since saying "red exists" doesn't say anything about what red is when it is experienced. So maybe Wittgenstein is wrong?
Jonathan Westphal
June 10, 2010
(changed June 10, 2010)
Permalink
Why should the redness of a red object not be a fact? We say of this tomato here, "Look, it's red." We know this proposition is true because we can see that the tomato is red, just as we know that the tomato is heavy - heavy for a tomato, anyway - because we can weigh it in our hand. The same... Read more
Wittgenstein once said that the world is the totality of facts. It seems to me that at least in the case of color this theory doesn't apply. What facts can be said about the "redness" of a red object. Perhaps no facts can be said about "redness" precisely because what is being experienced in an encounter with red isn't a "fact". Do we apprehend that redness through a fact or through an experience of consciousness? It seems to me that the fact that red exists and the actuality of red are two different things since saying "red exists" doesn't say anything about what red is when it is experienced. So maybe Wittgenstein is wrong?
Jonathan Westphal
June 10, 2010
(changed June 10, 2010)
Permalink
Why should the redness of a red object not be a fact? We say of this tomato here, "Look, it's red." We know this proposition is true because we can see that the tomato is red, just as we know that the tomato is heavy - heavy for a tomato, anyway - because we can weigh it in our hand. The same... 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
My father once told me: "do not expect anything from anyone, then you will live an easy and happy life". Is it true? Would I really live an easier life and would I be happier if I don't expect from a friend to call me from time to time or if I don't expect from my cousin to invite me to his birthday or going to extremes if I don't expect from my children to love me? I have thought about this a lot. Sometimes it makes things easier if I don't expect anything but can we generalize his statement?
Charles Taliaferro
June 10, 2010
(changed June 10, 2010)
Permalink
Great, classic question that goes back to Ancient Greece. Stoics and some others taught that we should seek out a life that is free from passion about the future. They thought we should seek out what they called (in Greek) apatheia (from which we get the term apathy). Famously, Buddhists... Read more
I'm under the assumption that given enough time anything that can happen will happen, because the universe is always changing. If the universe begins from a singularity and then a big bang, if this is allowed to occur over and over forever, eventually the same exact events will occur. The events that have taken place since the big bang have allowed My Consciousness to exist, once I die, given enough time it would exist again, also I could have existed before. I don't know if any of this is true, or even makes sense, it's just something I've been thinking about and haven't been able to talk about with anyone, nobody knows what the hell I mean to say. If this is right, in the personal experience, as soon as one dies they are alive again, forever. Is this wrong? I've got a feeling it is but I've never heard or read this being discussed before.
Charles Taliaferro
June 10, 2010
(changed June 10, 2010)
Permalink
Interesting! Philosophers have long wrestled with the concept of infinity, and some in the ancient world and today find the concept of infinity problematic. They allow it to have a well defined role in mathematics (e.g. there is no greatest possible number, an infinite set is equal in numb... Read more
Doesn't the fact that prostitution is illegal imply that pleasure is not a considered a legitimate and significant moral good? Prostitutes are said to be people who provide nothing of value to society. Nothing of value? Really? Perhaps this is because our society has a deontological system of values? In a utilitarian standpoint wouldn't it not only be moral to make prostitution legal wouldn't it in fact be extremely immoral to make it illegal since sex is extremely pleasurable and in a utilitarian calculus more pleasure equals more good?
Eric Silverman
June 8, 2010
(changed June 8, 2010)
Permalink
I don't think the illegality of prostitution has direct implications for whether or not we think pleasure is a moral good. We might think that pleasure is a moral good, but might ban an activity that promotes short term pleasure because we think (rightly or wrongly) that it results in a long term... Read more
Do Catholic hospitals have a right not to perform abortions?
Richard Heck
June 4, 2010
(changed June 4, 2010)
Permalink
Just a brief comment, which is that, even if one always does have a moral right not to do things one regards as morally objectionable, it does not follow that one has a legal or political right to do so, i.e., that one cannot legitimately face legal consequences for not doing so. It is fairly easy t... Read more
I have a series of questions about Time, motion, and space. Or maybe they are the same question expressed different ways in an attempt at clarity. Is the concept of "Time" possible apart from the concept of "Change"? In what ways are the two concepts different? Is it possible for "Time" to exist apart from "Change"? Can anything truthful be said about "Time" that does not also apply in an identical way to "Change"? Is "Change" possible without "Motion" of some kind? If even at an atomic level? Could time exist if nothing moved? How is the concept of time possible without the concept of motion? How is it in anyway different? How can space be conceived apart from the relation we refer to as 'distance' between two or more objects? If there was only one object in the universe how would space be conceived or possible? The same question applies to motion, how is it conceivable unless there is movement in relation to some other body? I am not a philosopher. I'm a high school drop out and construction worker. However, I can't stop thinking about these questions and I cannot not think of any way that time, space, and motion are in any way different concepts. I FEEL that they are different, but when I try to THINK about them, I can't think of them in any way except as identical concepts with different names. It is like trying to think about the concept of 'elevation' as something distinct from "UP" or "Down". In fact it's like trying to conceive of "UP" without conceiving of "Down". It is like Space, Time and Motion are part of a relation whose relating parts are inconceivable except in the terms of the relation itself. I feel I clearly understand the reality in my own mind, but I am confused because everyone else talks about these things as if they are distinct parts of reality.
Charles Taliaferro
June 4, 2010
(changed June 4, 2010)
Permalink
You may be a high school drop out, but you have a genius for asking great questions! Let me try to break up the questions a bit. There is a difference between motion and change insofar as motion appears to involve physical objects and events. If there is motion, there is change, but some ph... Read more