Recent Responses
I'd like to challenge the validity of the "Ad Hominem" fallacy - it seems to rest on a certain metaphysics. At the very least, this metaphysics should be argued, not assumed, in my view. The separation of a person from his/her ideas strikes me as certainly not obvious. Isn't this the reason why we urge people not to discuss religion and politics with each other? Because their views, expressive of their very identities, can offend us?
Allen Stairs
September 10, 2009
(changed September 10, 2009)
Permalink
On the one hand, there is still a real fallacy of the sort we label ad hominem. The fallacy consists in claiming that a person's conclusion should be rejected because they have a bad character or have an ulterior motive. This is a fallacy because I don't have good grounds for saying that... Read more
While I don't have a firm opinion on the issue, I never understand many pro-life positions that state they are against abortion except in the case of rape or incest. Life is life. These babies are as innocent as others. The situation in which they were conceived should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed to be aborted. It is illogical.
Eric Silverman
September 12, 2009
(changed September 12, 2009)
Permalink
Perhaps, such positions concerning abortion are based on the idea that a developing fetus is very morally valuable, but not equal in moral value to a fully developed human being. Therefore, something like the great emotional pain involved in being forced to carry a child conceived as t... Read more
Why do most philosopher's talk in language incomprehensible to normal people? Do philosophers study 'the' because they know there are a few million other words that they can study afterwards, and therefore be philosophers forever?
Peter Smith
September 10, 2009
(changed September 10, 2009)
Permalink
Mitch and I posted our responses simultaneously! I agree very much with his ...
I'm not sure it is true that most philosophers talk in a way incomprehensible to non-professionals -- at least when they are trying to address them! After all, there are many, many, dozens of well-written, ac... Read more
Why do most philosopher's talk in language incomprehensible to normal people? Do philosophers study 'the' because they know there are a few million other words that they can study afterwards, and therefore be philosophers forever?
Peter Smith
September 10, 2009
(changed September 10, 2009)
Permalink
Mitch and I posted our responses simultaneously! I agree very much with his ...
I'm not sure it is true that most philosophers talk in a way incomprehensible to non-professionals -- at least when they are trying to address them! After all, there are many, many, dozens of well-written, ac... Read more
In your opinion which philosophical idea has had the greatest impact on Western thought? Do you think there are more deserving ideas that have received less attention? Jon T. Sussex
Lisa Cassidy
September 4, 2009
(changed September 4, 2009)
Permalink
Hi Jon,
This is a really difficult question! First I offer my short list, then I'll tell you which is the most important (to me, at any rate).
-The concept of the soul is certainly important in Western philosophy. Maybe related - or repackaged in different terms - would be the concept of... Read more
As a newbie to philosophy, I've been spending much time with a good friend who studied philosophy in college. It's been, thus far, a fascinating discussion on the ancient philosophers, the evolution of the different schools of thought, and a great introduction from which I hope to delve into more specific readings of many of them. We've gone from Socrates/Plato/Aristotle to Descarte, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Camus, and Nietzsche. Even with all of the fascination I have with these interesting minds from the past, I feel like I note a trend that many great philosophers build on, refine, or otherwise take inspiration from the ideas and works of those before them. So, then who are the modern philosophers alive and well today? My friend suggested two in particular who he feels are noteworthy - Kitcher and Quine - though Quine passed away in 2000. I also have read a bit by Peter Singer, who I find interesting and quite different, too. Perhaps I'm already in the company of a great many others here, but can I please have some suggestions of contemporary philosophers who may be interesting to read, especially in a sense that it will be fulfilling to see, yet further, the progression of philosophical argument and thought from those who laid the foundations before? Thanks!
Lisa Cassidy
September 4, 2009
(changed September 4, 2009)
Permalink
I have to say it is encouraging that you are interested in living philosophers. It reminds us that the great minds of the past don't get to have the last word.
The film "Examined Life" hit the arty cinemas here last year, and I believe it soon will be on DVD. There you will find Peter... Read more
Are logical laws such as the de Morgan's ones preserved under modalisations? For example, what are the truth conditions for the following sentences: Peter knows that Mary does not invite Paul and Peter. Peter knows that it is possible that Mary does not invite Paul and Peter.
Richard Heck
September 4, 2009
(changed September 4, 2009)
Permalink
I'm not sure precisely what is being asked here. The first sentence is true if the following is something Peter knows: Mary does not invite (both) Paul and Peter. Perhaps there is another reading under which it is true if the following are both things Peter knows: Mary does not invite Paul... Read more
I used to love my work and see it as a path to a virtuous happiness and sense of self-fulfillment. But working for someone else had changed all that; amidst the petty slights, status contests, and probably just far too many hours in the office working for people who don't treat me well (with no choice about when or what I work on), my work has lost all its meaning. I feel like I built up a false belief system about achievement, and it worked for 27 years, but it's now come crashing down. I know I listed some probable causes, but I'm sure it could be explained more philosphically and eloquently. I need to better understand in abstract terms - what causes meaning to erode? And what have philosophers suggested as cures for such existential crises?
Allen Stairs
September 3, 2009
(changed September 3, 2009)
Permalink
Sorry to hear of your distress. And I'm also sorry that I don't have a lot of insight to offer, except but of negative advice.
When you wonder what causes meaning to erode, there are two rather different sorts of things you might be asking. One is what sorts of reasons and arguments mig... Read more
How can you think that your opinion is worth anything when all your opinion is is a thought process that came to you as a result of everything that happened in your extremely unique life? If you look at all the other arguments that go against your own beliefs, the people saying them believe them as truth. So do you ever think that you're just as equal as they are, or do you actually think that you're more "on the right track" than they are? Finally, if I always understand and justify why people think the way they do regardless of the subject, then how can I think that my own opinion matters, if, again, my own opinion is only a result of how I see things in my mind, because of everything around me that led to me being who I am today.
Allen Stairs
September 3, 2009
(changed September 3, 2009)
Permalink
There are a couple of ways we might think about the questions you're raising. One is by trying to look for an Archimedean Point, so to speak, that provides some sort of absolute or incontrovertible answer. The other way is to look at how we actually think about these sort of things -- look... Read more
I am perplexed by Alexander George's recent posting (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2854). He says "Your observation that we sometimes take pleasure in beliefs even if they have been irrationally arrived at seems correct but beside the point: it speaks neither to the truth of (1) nor to that of (2)." (2), in this case, is "(2) that actions guided by false beliefs are not likely to get us what we want. " I believe the science of psychology has shown us that we form many beliefs entirely irrationally. The mechanism for their formation is often a defense mechanism. The purpose of their formation is often to hide some truth about ourselves from ourselves - to hide some unpleasant information that we would have gleaned had we formed our belief rationally. I just can't see how the above information is "beside the point". The point is: 1) I want to be happy. 2) My beliefs are formed irrationally in order to reach that desired end. Perhaps what is beside the point is that the belief-forming mechanism is unconscious or subconscious rather than deliberate. Professor George also seems to take offense at the questioner's tone. Perhaps this is why he ignores the questioner's question: has the site lost some of its rigor since the days of 8 responses when the panelists routinely qualified each other's positions and called each other out when answers were not sufficiently rigorous? Regarding this offense at the questioner's tone: wasn't Socrates put to death because people were offended by his questions? It seems anathema to philosophy to take offense at questions. That the questioner did not display enough rigor in saying that a panelist's position "seems utterly preposterous" is to be expected - after all, the questioner is not a trained philosopher! As a frequent visitor to this site for many years I can say that, to me, it resembles Democracy: a place that should welcome critics as patriots.
Peter Smith
September 3, 2009
(changed September 3, 2009)
Permalink
Just a footnote to Mark Collier's helpful post. I actually said that irrationally formed beliefs are not likely to lead to actions which get us what we want (rather than cannot get us what we want). And that claim is enough to explain why we should in general care a lot about forming our be... Read more