Recent Responses
If an arbitrary length of time is infinitesimal in comparison to infinity then it would seem then that it would be absurd to say that any length of time is long or short. So why then do some lengths of time such as a decade feel "long" where as other lengths of time such as a second feel "short"? Length and height are also relative to infinite length but in those cases judgments about how long or short something is can be determined by comparison to different objects but with duration their is no outside reference for comparison. (I hope that made sense.)
Marc Lange
May 20, 2010
(changed May 20, 2010)
Permalink
Granted, 10 years in comparison to infinity is as short as 10 seconds is in comparison to infinity. But it does not follow that 10 years and 10 seconds are equally long (or short). In comparison to any finite span of time, 10 years is longer than 10 seconds. The same applies to lengths and heights.
I... Read more
What is it that seems constantly to put philosophers in a position where they are compelled to justify their work? Even if we accept such asinine criticisms as that philosophy is impractical, say, why aren't people similarly critical of literature or other fields in the humanities? What is it about philosophy in particular that seems to get under peoples' skin?
Louise Antony
May 20, 2010
(changed May 20, 2010)
Permalink
Well, of course, everyone on this panel loves philosophy, so we're probably not the best people to ask. But here are some speculations. First of all, philosophy deals with questions that a lot of people find tremendously important: what happens after death? what gives life value? is there a God... Read more
Do grades during high school and university show the ability of a person to think? Can someone who does not have immaculate grades still be an excellent philosopher? Or is the success of a student in school directly related to their ability to think in a critical way that is required by philosophers?
Louise Antony
May 20, 2010
(changed May 20, 2010)
Permalink
Strong performance in a rigorous college-level philosophy class is a good positive indicator of philosophical talent, but poor grades, whether in college or in high school, cannot generally be taken as evidence that a person lacks philosophical talent. The reason is that there are just way too m... Read more
I have two questions about fairness and value in relation to achievement. Suppose student A works very hard for his exam results and gets the grades he wanted. Suppose also that student B is much lazier, putting in significantly less effort, but achieves the same results due to their greater "natural" ability. Firstly, which student's achievement, if any, is of greater significance or greater value? Secondly, is it fair that student B achieves the same results as student A without putting in the same level of effort (albeit the same level of effort was not required from student B due to his greater "natural" ability)?
William Rapaport
May 20, 2010
(changed May 20, 2010)
Permalink
Although the question is framed in terms of justice, fairness, and value, I would like to consider it in terms of attitudes towards knowledge and learning.
According to the psychologist William Perry's "Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development", students who have what he called an "early m... Read more
Is it possible to prove that something cannot be derived (considering only well-formed-formulas) in a natural derivation system? I mean a premise P cannot yield the conclusion Q since there isn't any logical rule that justifies the inference but how can someone prove this?
Peter Smith
May 24, 2010
(changed May 24, 2010)
Permalink
We can also sometimes prove non-derivability results by purely "combinatorial" arguments. Here's a well-known toy example, due to Douglas Hofstadter.
Consider a derivation system which uses just the symbols M, I, and U which can be combined to produce strings of symbols in any way you like, e.g. MI,... Read more
Hello, Can someone please help me. Years ago, I took an intro into philosophy course. We studied Kant, Hume and DesCartes and Plato. I cannot remember who said (indirectly quoting): There is a face with beautiful eyes. If we removed the eyes from the face and put them on a table, would the face or eyes still be beautiful? Does anyone recall which philosopher made this discourse? Many Thanks! Azalee
Alexander George
May 20, 2010
(changed May 20, 2010)
Permalink
Not sure this is what you had in mind, but Wittgenstein in his Remarks on Colour wrote: "A colour 'shines' in its surroundings. (Just as eyes only smile in a face)."
Log in to post comments
I have two questions about fairness and value in relation to achievement. Suppose student A works very hard for his exam results and gets the grades he wanted. Suppose also that student B is much lazier, putting in significantly less effort, but achieves the same results due to their greater "natural" ability. Firstly, which student's achievement, if any, is of greater significance or greater value? Secondly, is it fair that student B achieves the same results as student A without putting in the same level of effort (albeit the same level of effort was not required from student B due to his greater "natural" ability)?
William Rapaport
May 20, 2010
(changed May 20, 2010)
Permalink
Although the question is framed in terms of justice, fairness, and value, I would like to consider it in terms of attitudes towards knowledge and learning.
According to the psychologist William Perry's "Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development", students who have what he called an "early m... Read more
There's an exciting election coming up over here in the UK. I'm not sure if I'll vote because I honestly don't feel I know enough about the key issues. I wouldn't want to vote on which medication should be used for which illness, because I'm not a doctor. Equally, I don't feel able to choose between policies on defence, the economy or foreign policy because I lack expertise in these areas too - areas where making the wrong decisions have arguably greater consequences than medicine. One might say I have a responsibility to learn about these issues, but I would respond by pointing out that that's why we have experts! I'm also not convinced that choosing not to vote is somehow offensive to people who fought for my right to vote (I don't want to give up my right, I just don't want to exercise it) or that it's a dereliction of some duty that goes with being a civilian. The way I see it choosing not to vote because I recognise my ignorance is the right thing to do - particularly when the three main parties all consist of reasonably sensible and decent people and there is no risk of someone truly awful getting in. I expect all main parties consist of people with a high capacity for decision-making on the basis of evidence and reason. Choosing between what they have decided - as reflected by their policies - is beyond me. I don't think most people in our country understand the issues to the required level of depth. I don't see how adding in my ill-informed tuppence is going to resolve this! I expect I don't even know enough about the issues involved in choosing whether to vote or not - I'd be grateful for any advice or corrections to my reasoning!
Thomas Pogge
May 17, 2010
(changed May 17, 2010)
Permalink
I am sorry that I saw this question too late. My answer would be, in brief, that some people do indeed have a reason not to vote of the kind you describe: they can conclude on solid grounds that the remaining voters are no less committed and more competent to get it right. But judging from your ques... Read more
Why is a person responsible for crimes they have committed in the past? How can we be certain that a person who commits an act at one moment in time has the same moral status as they had at another moment of time. So a person who murders a person at one moment may actually be a person who has a benevolent and charitable disposition the next moment. Wouldn't it be wrong to harm a benevolent and charitable person just because of what they did in the past when they held values that are different than what they currently hold?
Thomas Pogge
May 17, 2010
(changed May 17, 2010)
Permalink
Yes, I think it is wrong to harm a benevolent and charitable person just because of what they did in the past when they held values that are different than what they currently hold. But we cannot run a legal system so as to avoid this wrong. Just imagine that juries, to convict, would have to find b... Read more
I have two questions about fairness and value in relation to achievement. Suppose student A works very hard for his exam results and gets the grades he wanted. Suppose also that student B is much lazier, putting in significantly less effort, but achieves the same results due to their greater "natural" ability. Firstly, which student's achievement, if any, is of greater significance or greater value? Secondly, is it fair that student B achieves the same results as student A without putting in the same level of effort (albeit the same level of effort was not required from student B due to his greater "natural" ability)?
William Rapaport
May 20, 2010
(changed May 20, 2010)
Permalink
Although the question is framed in terms of justice, fairness, and value, I would like to consider it in terms of attitudes towards knowledge and learning.
According to the psychologist William Perry's "Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development", students who have what he called an "early m... Read more