Recent Responses
I guess there is the following difference between ordinal and cardinal numbers: while zero is a cardinal number, there is no ordinal number that corresponds to it: it makes no sense to talk about a (or the) "zeroth" something. Curiously enough, I think that there are many occasions where it is meaningful to talk about negative ordinal numbers. If I am considering a sequence of weeks, for instance, and only the weeks after some moment have some relevant feature, it will probably be reasonable to number those weeks with positive ordinals and to numer the previous weeks with negative ordinals. What do you think?
Jonathan Westphal
March 4, 2010
(changed March 4, 2010)
Permalink
In physics there is the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, a transitivity of temperatures. If A and B have the same temperature, and B and C have the same temperature, then A and C have the same temperature. (A could be melting ice, B expanding mercury, and C bourbon at the correct temperature.) T... Read more
This is a twist on the "If a tree falls in the woods" question: Certainly there lived in the past a person, but the person in question has some very typical attributes: Nothing was written about or by this person. The person in question made no lasting contributions or left any tangible artifacts. No-one living has any memory of this person, nor are there any stories, legends, or tales being told. Did this person ever exist even with no known qualities, age, timeframe, or attribute other than "a human in the past?" There may well have been the faceless masses that are written about and populate historical accounts and ancient Greek plays, but what about specific but unspecified persons? They must have existed, but did they exist as individuals or only as a type?
Jean Kazez
March 4, 2010
(changed March 4, 2010)
Permalink
You exist right now, right? You have some specific number of hairs on your head, and your toenails are some definite shape, etc. Nobody's keeping track of any of these things, though. Now flash forward to the year 3000, when you've completely and totally faded into obscurity. There is no possibi... Read more
As a vegetarian, when I consider the prospect of having a child I must ask myself whether to bring her up on the same diet as mine. I have met people who resentfully continue to be vegetarians because their parents brought them up that way and they could never ingest meat properly. Is it fair for parents to treat a child in this way and would you answer that question differently if the majority of adults, but not children, had freely chosen to be vegetarians and were now asking themselves the same question?
Jean Kazez
March 4, 2010
(changed March 4, 2010)
Permalink
I've thought about this issue a lot, as a vegetarian with two children (now both 12). We decided it would be better to let them choose for themselves. My thinking was: if we raised them as vegetarians, they would inevitably come into contact with meat and feel curious, tempted, guilty. Out of con... Read more
As an individual that feels a sense of 'alienation' and a lack of meaning in the world, I still feel obliged to confer some kind of meaning to my own life to keep living a productive and composed life. However, existential thoughts about the possibility of not having existed before, then coming onto the stage of life and being confronted with a vivid reality and possessing tools to understand it and the imperative to act upon it while taking it to be the only reality one can ever understand, and then facing the paradoxical nature of death that will seemingly completely extinguish this effort and the identity of the individual, can be the most shocking and anxiety producing thoughts. Such thoughts makes it extremely challenging for an individual to find a sense of incontrovertible meaning that dissolves such contradictory thoughts (like the above) and also provide true meaning for the individual to act productively in their environment. How does one cope with this kind of a human condition?
Miriam Solomon
March 4, 2010
(changed March 4, 2010)
Permalink
Many philosophers, and many other kinds of thinkers, have grappled with this question, from the Epicureans through Heidegger, Sartre, and beyond. You could look at what they say, and/or at some accessible contemporary texts that draw on these ideas e.g. Havi Carel Illness: The Cry of the Flesh... Read more
As a vegetarian, when I consider the prospect of having a child I must ask myself whether to bring her up on the same diet as mine. I have met people who resentfully continue to be vegetarians because their parents brought them up that way and they could never ingest meat properly. Is it fair for parents to treat a child in this way and would you answer that question differently if the majority of adults, but not children, had freely chosen to be vegetarians and were now asking themselves the same question?
Jean Kazez
March 4, 2010
(changed March 4, 2010)
Permalink
I've thought about this issue a lot, as a vegetarian with two children (now both 12). We decided it would be better to let them choose for themselves. My thinking was: if we raised them as vegetarians, they would inevitably come into contact with meat and feel curious, tempted, guilty. Out of con... Read more
APOLOGIES FOR HISTORICAL EVENTS I have been concerned in recent years about the tendency of governments and other bodies to apologise for shameful events perpetrated by their predecessors. Instances that spring to mind are the Australian government's apology to the aboriginal population for their previous maltreatment, the British government's apology to the descendants of First World War servicemen shot for cowardice, and most recently, the British Prime Minister's apology to people who were displaced and sent to Australia as children to lives of abuse and hardship. The first thing that springs to my mind is that it's easy to apologise for something that you personally had no part in. It seems to me that it is most likely done for political enhancement rather than true remorse. Surely the only people who could legitimately apologise are those who perpetrated the act, and if they are long dead, then the time for true apologies has expired. The fact that the recipients of these apologies (usually the descendants of the victims), seem to take comfort from them makes me very uncomfortable. I can't help but feel that they have been short-changed and are settling for a pseudo-apology when the real thing is no longer possible. I have no problem with a modern government condemning the wrongdoings of its predecessors, but I think that these apologies are a cheap and cynical ploy to achieve political popularity. Don't you agree that the only person who can legitimately apologise for an injustice or atrocity is the perpetrator?
Oliver Leaman
March 4, 2010
(changed March 4, 2010)
Permalink
I don't agree. I think that societies often see themselves, rightly, as linked with those who came before them and to those who will come after, and feel that responsibility is similarly extendable. After all, those of us alive today benefit to a degree from the actions of our predecessors, and i... Read more
My question is about how we can value religion from a secular perspective. When it comes to thinking about the religion of Islam for example, there are a multitude of ways to rate the religion's value (or lack there of). It is evident that Islam gives meaning and hope to billions of people, but at what cost? The end result is that the believer is left with a worldview that is erroneous in relation to history, science and the very meaning and purpose of life. Should we base our valuation of Islam upon how closely its teachings cohere to reality, or base it on how much the religion positively effects those who follow it?
Oliver Leaman
March 4, 2010
(changed March 4, 2010)
Permalink
If we base our view on a religion on how closely its views cohere with reality we shall have a tough time of it indeed. The point about religions is that they think they have a more acute view of reality than does the secular thinker. It does not seem to me that Islam is any worse, or better, tha... Read more
I am doing a project for my philosophy class. When I google search for the ethically legitimate function of civil servants, I am finding zero. I am curious to find out if the code of conduct that civil servants follow applies to all professions (if there has every been just one code of conduct), also have these codes of conduct ever been revised. With more cultures and religious beliefs coming into play in society I am wondering if this has been addressed at all? Thank-You for your time, Becky J.
Lisa Cassidy
March 3, 2010
(changed March 3, 2010)
Permalink
Dear Becky,This sounds like a good project. I have some suggestions.First, you might want to change your research strategy. Instead of google, I would take advantage of your academic library. Part of your tuition goes to fund library subscriptions to databases, such as EBSCO or Lexus-Nexus. Th... Read more
Your company does work for a government-run enterprise. While waiting to be paid, the country suffers a massive earthquake. The enterprise is damaged but continues to run. Should the debt be paid or should the company write it off without any expectation of payment? The company is not a charitable organization.
Thomas Pogge
February 27, 2010
(changed February 27, 2010)
Permalink
Let me assume that the terms on which the company performed the work were fair and that the company actually delivered the work fully as agreed. In this case the company is really in the same position as other companies which are owed nothing by the country in question and perhaps never di... Read more
I have been thinking a bit about the so-called Intelligent Design argument for the existence of god and have wondered if the question I raise here is a viable criticism of the argument. I find the argument problematic, in particular, because of the idea or notion of “design” itself. It seems to me that “design” is a construct that human beings employ to explain what we perceive, or maybe infer from what we perceive, in observing the universe. We look at things and perceive order, or some kind of harmony and consistency to them; this is the way our minds happen to work. It is possible, however, that beings elsewhere in the universe observe it and have no conception of “design”, or see no such order or harmony. If design truly is an inference relative to human minds it seems like it would hardly point to the existence of a designer; from the premise that design is a human construct perhaps the most we can infer is that design is not a “feature” that is intrinsic, or built into the structure of the universe, it is just the way our minds work in apprehending it.
Nicholas D. Smith
February 25, 2010
(changed February 25, 2010)
Permalink
I don't think you have a valid criticism of intelligent design here. I actually find the very idea of beings who did not see order in the universe as rather more difficult to imagine than you seem to think--after all, it seems to me that they would have to see some degree of such ord... Read more