Recent Responses
Doesn't time travel involve space travel too? If I travel back in time one year, say, in order to be in the same 'place' as I started, I'd need to travel across countless millions of miles of space, since the planet has moved during the last year. Since such instant space travel contradicts Einstein, how come so many philosophers seem to think it's possible? Martin, Wales, UK
Donald Baxter
August 25, 2009
(changed August 25, 2009)
Permalink
Nice conundrum. Here is a stab at it. If, in the example, time travel is traveling back one year of time in an instant of another time dimension--call it metatime--then Einstein has not been contradicted. He is silent about how much space can be covered in an instant of metatime. So time trav... Read more
Was it Socrates who first said we should all question authority?
Nicholas D. Smith
August 20, 2009
(changed August 20, 2009)
Permalink
Socrates said that "the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being" (Plato, Apology 38a) and plainly applied that maxim in questioning everyone he encountered, often those in positions of authority (see Plato, Apology 21b-e). As far as I know, he never expicitly said "question... Read more
What does it take to write a scholarly journal article in philosophy? In other fields you have to do research. How does research look like when it comes to philosophy? Do you just have to form an argument in an original way, or come up with an idea or a thougt experiment? How would you suggest someone with no experience start with trying to accomplish this task?
Nicholas D. Smith
August 20, 2009
(changed August 20, 2009)
Permalink
Professional publications in philosophy are always embedded within a context of contemporary controversy in some subfield of philosophy. Except in experimental philosophy, philosophers don't do research by conducting experiments, but we do still have to do research--keeping up with the c... Read more
Are those Republican criticism against women's studies and black studies programs valid at all? Are there "real" philosophers arguing for their abolition?
Nicholas D. Smith
August 20, 2009
(changed August 20, 2009)
Permalink
"Real" philosophers argue for nearly every position articulable! But I think the kind of issue that is most likely to come up among philosophers and other academics about such programs is more likely to be about resources. Resources for higher education right now are extremely limited,... Read more
Should people who engage in health damaging choices like smoking, drinking, drug abuse, overeating be denied organ transplants if their organs where to fail as a result of their actions?
Nicholas D. Smith
August 20, 2009
(changed August 20, 2009)
Permalink
I don't see why. If there is reason to think that these bad choices would continue in such a way as to make the transplant likely to fail, then I can see having them be a factor. But if a patient needs a transplant, then it does not seem to me to be up to the medical profession to deny... Read more
Say there is a music band whose members engage in frequent illegal/immoral acts, e.g. drunken driving, drug use, prostitution, rape, assault, etc. I want to buy their latest album, but I know that the money they receive from me will end up fueling their criminal behavior. Knowing this, is it wrong for me to buy the album?
Allen Stairs
August 20, 2009
(changed August 20, 2009)
Permalink
You've given some good reasons for not buying the album. And since it's hard to make the case that you need this particular album, the reasons seem pretty strong - strong enough to convince me, at least.
That said, there's a larger and harder issue here, and I'm guessing you may have it in the... Read more
Peter Smith wrote recently (Question 2823) that "facts aren't the sort of thing that are rational or irrational". But that isn't true, is it? The first definition of the word "rational" on dictionary.com is "agreeable to reason". Certain facts offend reason - and the questioner's example (while not the best, in my view) of death seems to be a fact that is not agreeable to reason. That is to say, if reason ruled the world or, put another way, if God created everything in accordance with reason, we would not die. There is no rational explanation or reason for our death. Certainly there is a sense in which I understand Peter Smith's statement that facts aren't rational or irrational, but there seem to be plenty of definitions of "rational" for which it makes perfect sense to say that facts are rational or irrational. What's more - and I don't mean to be contentious - Peter seems to focus on this aspect of the question to the detriment of the spirit of the question. The questioner seems perturbed by the apparent flippancy with which language (s/he says "philosophers" but perhaps s/he is just referring to the philosophic language s/he's encountered on this site) treats issues that are very solemn indeed. Maybe we can rephrase his/her question thus: is it possible that philosophic language cannot do justice to the solemnity of the issues philosophy deals with?
William Rapaport
August 19, 2009
(changed August 19, 2009)
Permalink
I thought that Peter Smith's reply was fine, too, until I read this new question and Prof. Stairs's reply. So I went back and re-read the original question (2823) and Smith's answer, and I wonder if this isn't all a tempest in a teapot. My reading of Smith's original answer was that he w... Read more
Peter Smith wrote recently (Question 2823) that "facts aren't the sort of thing that are rational or irrational". But that isn't true, is it? The first definition of the word "rational" on dictionary.com is "agreeable to reason". Certain facts offend reason - and the questioner's example (while not the best, in my view) of death seems to be a fact that is not agreeable to reason. That is to say, if reason ruled the world or, put another way, if God created everything in accordance with reason, we would not die. There is no rational explanation or reason for our death. Certainly there is a sense in which I understand Peter Smith's statement that facts aren't rational or irrational, but there seem to be plenty of definitions of "rational" for which it makes perfect sense to say that facts are rational or irrational. What's more - and I don't mean to be contentious - Peter seems to focus on this aspect of the question to the detriment of the spirit of the question. The questioner seems perturbed by the apparent flippancy with which language (s/he says "philosophers" but perhaps s/he is just referring to the philosophic language s/he's encountered on this site) treats issues that are very solemn indeed. Maybe we can rephrase his/her question thus: is it possible that philosophic language cannot do justice to the solemnity of the issues philosophy deals with?
William Rapaport
August 19, 2009
(changed August 19, 2009)
Permalink
I thought that Peter Smith's reply was fine, too, until I read this new question and Prof. Stairs's reply. So I went back and re-read the original question (2823) and Smith's answer, and I wonder if this isn't all a tempest in a teapot. My reading of Smith's original answer was that he w... Read more
In one answer to a question posted on your forum on 30 July 2009 on the issue of human collaterals of wars (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2794), one 'philosopher' panelist remarked that it's not always practical to take the moral grounds when faced with a war situation like in Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq and that in reality a choice has to be made of the better of unpleasant alternatives. In my opinion, it is precisely this kind of rhetoric that gives license to killing innocent people and waging indiscriminate wars. How would the author react if one of his fellow mates or beloved ones was caught as an innocent hostage and had to be killed as collateral? The UN role in establishing peace is important, difficult and at times hypocritical but the role of civil society and agents such as 'philosophers' to continue to teach freedom and critical reasoning based on experienced truth, one that is lived by the agents themselves, cannot be overshadowed by notions of skepticism. Wars are unfortunately part of the human condition but they have become more indiscriminate and erroneously justified. I refer the panelist to the work of my organization (UNESCO) in the field of philosophy and human rights.
Thomas Pogge
August 18, 2009
(changed August 18, 2009)
Permalink
I think Leaman is right that, in war and elsewhere, one must often choose between morally unpalatable alternatives. For example, the only way to protect innocent people from being massacred may be an intervention that risks killing other innocent people. And then your question (how would you f... Read more
My impression about philosophers, at least from reading this site, is that they all seem cheery. Is this not the case? Questions come in and the respondents seem positively to delight in the cleverness of their responses. Fine distinctions are drawn, the question is rephrased and then rephrased again - and all of this seems to be done with the utmost optimism. It is as if the philosophers, in receiving a question, have been given a play-thing, like silly putty, that they can mold indefinitely, or like a kaleidoscope through which they can view the thing from different angles and with different colors. Often the questions seem to me of the utmost seriousness, but a serious response doesn't seem fashionable. Is it unprofessional? It is a fact that we die; what's more, this fact - one which has an enormous, even decisive impact - on how most of us conduct our lives - is entirely irrational. We cannot deduce any necessity for it from the axioms of mathematics, say. This fact disturbs us in our sleep and waking hours - it urges us to complete certain actions, ask for certain people's forgiveness before time expires. Yet while our lives are guided by this thorough irrationality, we employ reason as our mechanism for doing philosophy. Philosophy, which asks the big questions about the meaning of life, etc., uses as its main tool a mechanism that is the opposite of what is most important to us. Would you agree with this characterization?
Peter Smith
August 17, 2009
(changed August 17, 2009)
Permalink
"Often the questions seem to me of the utmost seriousness, but a serious response doesn't seem fashionable." The implication seems to be that serious answers aren't much in evidence here. Which is an extraordinary thing to say. For there is a really remarkable amount of good, patient, serious,... Read more