Recent Responses

Is death without afterlife really all that bad? I mean, it could be worse, right? Of the plethora of possibilities the human mind can imagine, quiet, peaceful oblivion seems to me like not such a terrible thing.

Amy Kind October 29, 2009 (changed October 29, 2009) Permalink I'm not sure that it's right to describe death without afterlife as "quiet peaceful oblivion." If there is no afterlife, and you cease to exist at death, then there is no you to experience the peace and quiet. If you've ceased to exist, then you have no experiences at all. It's precisely for... Read more

Education

I recently found out that a cousin of mine, about 15, is being brainwashed by his parents into accepting all sorts of religious dogma and nonsense. Now, personally I don't have anything against religion in principle, and I even think the Intelligent Design argument is, well, intelligent (or at least clever). But for a 15 year old to be indoctrinated like that bothers me. Is there anything I can say (or books I can recommend to him) to him that would not be insensitive to him or his family but would at least get him thinking about things in a slightly more independent manner? Thanks!

Lisa Cassidy October 28, 2009 (changed October 28, 2009) Permalink I believe you when you say you don't give a fig what educational agenda is being pushed on the cousin. I think your objection speaks to a long standing debate in the philosophy of education: just where is that line between indoctrination and education? The purpose of an education is to help... Read more

Language

I'd like to hear what you - dedicated to answering questions - have to say to the following: 1) Philosophers and scientists seem to believe that a) problems are shared (by people), i. e. are the same (identical?) for every man b) each attempt to solve a problem produces its own solution. Here's my first question: If we think there are as many solutions to a problem as there are written papers, what makes us believe it's different with the problems? What are the criteria for the interpersonal identity of a problem? 2) Relating to the first: If two people refer or at least pretend to refer to the same problem (in solving or just discussing it), and given the thesis that in some way we must understand the problem or at least its verbal expression: What is it, that we know, when we understand a problem? Or, a bit less heavy-weighted:What kind of semantics of questions would enable us to understand how it comes that the problems questions articulate are real and shared by people, while the answers and solutions differ relating to the person giving them? Looking forward to your answer Peter R. from Munich, Germany

Douglas Burnham October 27, 2009 (changed October 27, 2009) Permalink An extremely sophisticated question, and one I'm not sure I could address in its entirety. However, I will start and perhaps one of my colleagues can take things much further than I can. I take it that the core of your question is this: why do we assume that problems are 'one' while answe... Read more

Art

How do we say something that is recognizably artistically meaningful? It seems that in order for it to meet that standard, it would have to play on themes that have already established; in order to create something fantastically profound, one would have to create something truly new. But then art experts wouldn't recognize it as such since it wouldn't contain any reference to standards created by previous stuff. So suppose we take the mindset that we are writing for future audiences who will recognize it as a timeless classic. But why does the possible acceptance of our work in this way by future audiences guarantee its profundity? Why should they be favored over the intelligent audiences of today?

Douglas Burnham October 27, 2009 (changed October 27, 2009) Permalink An excellent question. The relationship between art, standards or rules, andoriginality has been discussed on this site before. But I'll wade in with a fewcomments. First, if we think of rules or standards as being heavy-handed in theirdetermination, then that causes problems in many more... Read more

Mathematics Philosophy Profession

How good does one need to be in mathematics to do good work in philosophy of mathematics? Does one need to be able to do original math research, or just read and understand math research, or neither? Or does the answer depend on the topic within philosophy of math? If so, which topics are those in which math knowledge is most useful, and in which is it least useful?

Peter Smith October 26, 2009 (changed October 26, 2009) Permalink You certainly don't need to be able to do original research in maths to be able to work on the philosophy of maths. But you will need to be able to follow whatever maths is particularly relevant to your philosophical interests. How much maths that is, which topics at which levels, will depend... Read more

Animals Ethics

There is much written on veganism and vegetarianism and the morality of eating animals. The human animal is an omnivore; eating is basic to survival; our dentition and digestive tracts are adapted for meat as well as plants. This is our condition. There is an answer excusing peoples from agriculturally poor countries (and I would add the Inuit) yet, lacking suitable abattoirs, their trapping and/or killing of animals would be seen as cruel by our delicate western standards. If this is morally acceptable, what is "unacceptable suffering"? To whom is is unacceptable and what changes that it becomes acceptable? A vegan questioner suggested her omnivorous friend should witness the killing of an animal if he wished to eat meat. If he did and continued eating meat, would he then be exculpated? If so, where is the morality? Why should the vegan's morality be superior to the omnivore's? Should the vegan witness the grinding poverty and backbreaking work of 3rd world child agricultural labourers before eating their produce? Why would morality come into eating meat? It is perfectly natural for human animals to eat other animals as well as vegetation, and some minerals. Finally, 100 years ago, in what was a less sensitive time, very few would have given a thought to eating meat and many people slaughtered their own stock. This is a common enough practice in many countries less fortunate than our own. Where was the morality then? Sometimes it is possible to perform an action and state that there is no moral question.

Jean Kazez October 23, 2009 (changed October 23, 2009) Permalink There is an answer excusing peoples fromagriculturally poor countries (and I would add the Inuit) yet, lackingsuitable abattoirs, their trapping and/or killing of animals would beseen as cruel by our delicate western standards. If this is morallyacceptable, what is "unacceptable suffering"? To... Read more

Animals Ethics

There is much written on veganism and vegetarianism and the morality of eating animals. The human animal is an omnivore; eating is basic to survival; our dentition and digestive tracts are adapted for meat as well as plants. This is our condition. There is an answer excusing peoples from agriculturally poor countries (and I would add the Inuit) yet, lacking suitable abattoirs, their trapping and/or killing of animals would be seen as cruel by our delicate western standards. If this is morally acceptable, what is "unacceptable suffering"? To whom is is unacceptable and what changes that it becomes acceptable? A vegan questioner suggested her omnivorous friend should witness the killing of an animal if he wished to eat meat. If he did and continued eating meat, would he then be exculpated? If so, where is the morality? Why should the vegan's morality be superior to the omnivore's? Should the vegan witness the grinding poverty and backbreaking work of 3rd world child agricultural labourers before eating their produce? Why would morality come into eating meat? It is perfectly natural for human animals to eat other animals as well as vegetation, and some minerals. Finally, 100 years ago, in what was a less sensitive time, very few would have given a thought to eating meat and many people slaughtered their own stock. This is a common enough practice in many countries less fortunate than our own. Where was the morality then? Sometimes it is possible to perform an action and state that there is no moral question.

Ethics

Pet lovers seem to be taking their pets along for 'alternative' therapies for their ailments- e.g. homeopathy, acupuncture, indian traditional medicine, etc. Given there is no scientific basis for these treatments- isn't this sort of thing tantamount to torture? (PETA doesn't think so.) Humans who voluntarily submit themselves to painful treatments are at least getting the 'placebo' given their belief that the treatment will work. I'd imagine that it'd be hard to give a pet a placebo!

Allen Stairs October 22, 2009 (changed October 22, 2009) Permalink If I set my pet up for a treatment that I know won't cure my pet and won't make the animal feel any better, then that might be somewhere in the ballpark of torture, though depending on what we have in mind, "torture" might be too strong a word. But that's not the typical case, is it? First,... Read more

Ethics Value

Why do so many equate 'natural' with 'good?' It seems to me as though there are loads of cases stating the very opposite. So is what is natural always what is good?

Eddy Nahmias October 22, 2009 (changed October 22, 2009) Permalink To answer your second question first, you are correct that what is natural is not always good (though of course we need to know what we mean by "natural" and "good"). For instance, if we mean by "natural" what humans have strong desires to do, presumably in part because of our evolutionary... Read more

Death

Is death without afterlife really all that bad? I mean, it could be worse, right? Of the plethora of possibilities the human mind can imagine, quiet, peaceful oblivion seems to me like not such a terrible thing.

Recent Responses

Pages