Recent Responses
Hello, everyone. I have a question about my situation. I am a senior a UCLA, and my major is mathematics of computation. My GPA is 3.0. The reason for low GPA is because I spend much of my time pursuing my own study. I love to learn, but i tend to not like to be feed what I need to know. Plus, I realized what I wanted to be only at this quarter! I WANT TO BE A PHILOSOPHER THAT SPECIALIZES in the philosophy of mathematics and physics. Here is the thing: I want to apply for graduate school in philosophy of science, but it depresses me how I am going to do it. I want to go to the best school in the philosophy of science. I don't have enough philosophy courses to get a minor, and this is my last quarter at UCLA. So here is my solution: 1. Get top grades in the GRE general, and GRE math. 2. Get into a not so good master degree program, and rise my GPA. 3. Get some good rapport in my master degree program. (I.e.: letter of recommendation.) From 1, 2 and 3, I want to get into the best Graduate degree in philosophy of science... What do you guys think?
Eddy Nahmias
November 30, 2009
(changed November 30, 2009)
Permalink
Your plan sounds reasonable. I would suggest a few things. First, try to get your GPA as high as possible in your remaining semesters (don't let it slip below 3.0), perhaps doing a little less of your own study this year and focusing on your classes. Yes, try to get high GRE scores. B... Read more
I absolutely recognise the primacy of logic. But logic isn't always, at least obviously, the best tool with which to attack an issue. For example animal rights, and culturlal relativism. For instance, I believe it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to cause suffering to any creature, irrespective of for what reason, or in what culture. To what extent do philosophers/does philosophy allow for instinct, or gut feelings?
Andrew N. Carpenter
November 30, 2009
(changed November 30, 2009)
Permalink
Your question raises interesting issues about philosophical methodology and also about some specific content areas.
With respect to the methodology, yourquestion may falsely assume that using the tools of logic throughreasoning means paying no attention to your intellectual or moral... Read more
Is it logically possible to have a dream within a dream? Or is there, as it were, only one "level" of dreaming?
Jonathan Westphal
December 4, 2009
(changed December 4, 2009)
Permalink
If I dream that I am in Lisbon, it does not follow that I am, and I may not be. Nor does it follow that I am not, of course. But if I say that I dreamed that I was in Lisbon last night, this may be one way of saying that I was not in Lisbon. If then I say that I dreamed (in a "ground-fl... Read more
Why do we consider the death penalty immoral in a situation where a sadist (a very immoral person) commits heinous crimes and is sentenced to life imprisonment where he is protected from lynch mobs, given access to education, therapy (which has proved not only to be non effective in rehabilitating sadists but frees them from responsibility for their actions), medical care, food, clothing, televison, gym, etc. all at the taxpayers expense and one of his victims (a child) who has survived the trauma and torture inflicted is sentenced to a life of physical and psychological disability, in later life unable to work or pay for his ailments and who lives in constant fear that the sadist will be released and come and get him again? Is it possible that our reluctance to inflict the death penalty is out of fear but that we simply rationalize this as morality as that is the more palatable excuse. Are we just moral cowards? Wouldn't we all be relieved if the sadist suddenly dropped dead of a heart attack? And if yes, does this not mean that our concern is not about his life which we obviously do not value at all but of our own fear of doing a scary thing, i.e., inflicting the death penalty?
Mitch Green
November 28, 2009
(changed November 28, 2009)
Permalink
Thank you for your message. I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind when you presuppose, in your first sentence, that "we" consider the death penalty immoral in the situation you describe. So far as I can tell, at least in the U.S., a good many people consider the death penalty in such... Read more
When we deliberate, we often make note of pertinent constraints as we form our opinion. For instance, a jury member might arrive at a different recommendation than she would have otherwise if she observes a judge's instructions to ignore a particular piece of testimony. Does the ability to determine our beliefs by considering some factors and not others show we can in some sense control what we believe?
Jennifer Church
November 28, 2009
(changed November 28, 2009)
Permalink
I agree with Mitch Green's response with regard to the possibility of controlling our beliefs indirectly. But in the case of a jury member instructed to ignore certain evidence, it is not really belief that is at issue. The jury member is asked to reach a conclusion following certain... Read more
Hello Philosophers, Does an act of betrayal have to produce harm to the person or group of people being betrayed? For instance a man Bob promises to his wife Mary that he will quit smoking. Mary believes that Bob has not smoked for over a year when in fact he has been smoking the whole time without her knowing. Would this be considered betrayal even though his smoking is causing no harm to Mary as she is unaware? would it be considered betrayal only when she finds out?
Oliver Leaman
November 28, 2009
(changed November 28, 2009)
Permalink
It clearly would be betrayal since Bob is regularly doing something he tells his wife he is not doing, and deception is part of betrayal. She does not know but to argue that as a result she is not harmed is like arguing that if I steal from someone and they never know, then I am not harmi... Read more
A lot of people think we shouldn't conduct stem cell research or cloning based on the idea that man shouldn't 'play god.' My response; why not? Now, I'm an atheist, but even if we were to assume the bible were literal truth, why should we not try to emulate god if he is so perfect and wondrous? Is there any logic behind the playing god argument? What logic *can* be attributed to religion, at any rate...
Miriam Solomon
November 27, 2009
(changed November 27, 2009)
Permalink
I think you are right to discern that the "playing God" objection to stem cell research/cloning is not what it seems to be. Those who offer this objection seem quite comfortable with the idea of "playing God" in well proven medical interventions e.g. appendectomy for appendicitis, C-sec... Read more
Is it wrong to desire power?
Oliver Leaman
November 27, 2009
(changed November 27, 2009)
Permalink
Not necessarily, I suppose one might want it to do good things and so on. On the other hand, if the desire is for power just for the sake of being in control, or dominating others, then this would be problematic. Why would one want to do this, unless one had a suspect moral nature? We are... Read more
Is it logically possible to have a dream within a dream? Or is there, as it were, only one "level" of dreaming?
Jonathan Westphal
December 4, 2009
(changed December 4, 2009)
Permalink
If I dream that I am in Lisbon, it does not follow that I am, and I may not be. Nor does it follow that I am not, of course. But if I say that I dreamed that I was in Lisbon last night, this may be one way of saying that I was not in Lisbon. If then I say that I dreamed (in a "ground-fl... Read more
What is the difference between sensation and perception? Can you have perception without a sensation?
Jennifer Church
November 25, 2009
(changed November 25, 2009)
Permalink
There are no agreed upon answers to your questions, but here are some possibilities:
Some philosophers (including myself) think of sensations as as a special class of perceptions -- namely, perceptions of one's own internal bodily states. When I perceive (versus infer) that my stomach... Read more