Recent Responses
Does it make sense to talk of unconscious IDEAS? I know psychoanalysts often talk of unconscious ideas, but am puzzled by their supposed status. Many of our physiological processes are unconscious to us, but ideas? If there were unconscious ideas, how would we identify them, and how would they relate to our conscious ideas? A fan of Hume
Saul Traiger
November 8, 2009
(changed November 8, 2009)
Permalink
I am also a fan of Hume, and it's easy to see how the issue you raise may appear to be particularly difficult for Hume. For Hume, ideas are copies of impressions. Impressions are sensations (or reflections - feelings) that we are aware of. Ideas are less lively, but still present to mind. So... Read more
Do some people believe their own lies?
Mitch Green
November 7, 2009
(changed November 7, 2009)
Permalink
Good question. I suspect that the answer is 'yes', but we need to be clear that there are some puzzles about so-called 'self-deception' that need to be avoided. It's not plausible that I could lie to myself, fully knowing that I'm doing so, and also believe what I'm telling myself. Instead... Read more
Why are some things so difficult to express verbally? In the words of Lao Zi, "The Tao that can be can be expressed is not the eternal Tao". Do we lack the ability to define these sort of things, like art and such, or are the they simply impossible to define? Or do we just lack the appropriate understanding and 'vocabulary' to really say definitively and indisputably what these verbally ambiguous terms are? Is it a question of linguistics, or human limitations?
Mitch Green
November 7, 2009
(changed November 7, 2009)
Permalink
Thank you for your question. It is not exactly clear to me what sorts of things you are concerned about. Is it about expressing things verbally, or is it defining words or phrases? Your question touches on both issues. However, I'll first just discuss the issue of defining words and phra... Read more
Something occurs to me: Different people understand the same words differently. So, for example, to my parents, "therapy" might be a self-indulgent activity that only weak people engage in. To me, therapy might be a meaningful activity designed to strengthen myself. Now, if my parents ask me: "are you in therapy", and I knew their understanding of the word, it occurs to me that I would not be lying by saying "no". No - I am not engaged in a self-indulgent activity that only weak people engage in. Now, if what I've said is true, it would seem to have implications for logic. The "if p then q" universe seems threatened or at least loosened if neither "p" nor "q" meant the same thing to everyone. 1) To what extent would my presuppositions entail a weakening of the importance of logic? 2) To what extent are my ideas correct? 3) Is there any reading I can do on this topic?
Mitch Green
October 29, 2009
(changed October 29, 2009)
Permalink
Thanks for your thoughtful question. People often have different conceptions of the same phenomenon. This doesn't prevent them from talking about one and the same thing. One person might think that Venus is a star while another think that it is a planet. In spite of these wildly divergent... Read more
Hello philosophers, there is a vast philosophical literature that defends animal rights and vegetarianism, but the opposite camp doesn't seem to have produced much. What is the equivalent of Singer's "Animal Liberation" in the "meat eating" camp? Or is this a dead subject among philosophers, where those who care write books about the defense of animals, while those who don't simply go ahead and eat their steaks? Thanks in advance for your valuable insight.
Jean Kazez
October 29, 2009
(changed October 29, 2009)
Permalink
I really don't think there's an equivalent of Animal Liberation on the other side. That's a classic because it's very clear and philosophically acute, very accessible to the public, full of information, and broad in scope. There are books on the other side, but they tend not to have all thos... Read more
How long is a instant? please answer!
Marc Lange
October 29, 2009
(changed October 29, 2009)
Permalink
Thank you for your question. The standard answer is that an instant lasts for no time at all. That is to say, the start of an instant and the end of an instance occur at exactly the same time. An instant is indivisible; it has no separate beginning, middle, or end. You might think of time as l... Read more
Why are philosophers so dodgy when asked a question? It seems like I can never get a straight answer from the few philosophers I know. Is this the philosophers' fault or a fault in the questions being asked?
Jennifer Church
October 29, 2009
(changed October 29, 2009)
Permalink
I'm sure that some philosophers, like many non-philosophers, are dodgy when asked a question. This tendency can be fueled by worries about unpopularity or future recriminations, for example.
I'm also sure that some questions deserve dodgy answers. If you ask me whether you should give... Read more
Why are some emotions considered 'negative,' like hate and envy while others are held as the pinnacle of human achievement, like happiness or love? Who is to say happiness is any better than fear or rage or sorrow? Is it merely a question of personal choice, or are we naturally or artificially inclined towards one emotional state over another?
Jennifer Church
October 29, 2009
(changed October 29, 2009)
Permalink
Usually, when philosophers identify certain emotions as negative emotions, they are referring to emotions that include or result from a negative judgment -- such as the judgment that something is bad, or unjust, or harmful. Since there are many things that are bad, or unjust, or harmful,... Read more
Is it plausible the theory of "occam's razor". Could a complex answer be the right one?
Miriam Solomon
October 29, 2009
(changed October 29, 2009)
Permalink
You ask an important question. Some philosophers (realists) argue that simpler theories are better confirmed by the data and therefore more likely to be true. Other philosophers (anti-realists) argue that simpler theories are psychologically easier to work with and therefore more conveni... Read more
Hello philosophers, there is a vast philosophical literature that defends animal rights and vegetarianism, but the opposite camp doesn't seem to have produced much. What is the equivalent of Singer's "Animal Liberation" in the "meat eating" camp? Or is this a dead subject among philosophers, where those who care write books about the defense of animals, while those who don't simply go ahead and eat their steaks? Thanks in advance for your valuable insight.
Jean Kazez
October 29, 2009
(changed October 29, 2009)
Permalink
I really don't think there's an equivalent of Animal Liberation on the other side. That's a classic because it's very clear and philosophically acute, very accessible to the public, full of information, and broad in scope. There are books on the other side, but they tend not to have all thos... Read more