Recent Responses
What sort of logical arguments might be used to support metaphysical naturalism? Is it simply an assumption based on the lack of evidence for the supernatural? Also, do the majority of philosophers today advocate this view? Thanks for your answers.
Peter Smith
August 12, 2009
(changed August 12, 2009)
Permalink
There's no settled usage for the term "naturalism" in philosophy. But I guess that most of those who think of themselves as naturalists would say that we should recognize the sciences as the best way of finding out about the world and "refuse to recognize the authority of the philosopher who cl... Read more
After reading Douglas Burnham's response where he mentioned Deleuze, I tried reading the Stanford Encyclopedia's entry on Deleuze, with little understanding. Could someone please explain what "difference" is in Deleuze and what preeminence of "identity" he is trying to undermine?? And/or recommend further (comprehensible) reading on the matter? Much appreciated.
Douglas Burnham
August 9, 2009
(changed August 9, 2009)
Permalink
Hi -- I guess you are referring to an answer I wrote about Nietzsche and the notion of 'eternal recurrence'. I wish I could help you directly, but Deleuze is not one of my areas of specialisation. However, I've always found 'Nietzsche and Philosophy', an early book of his, to be quite readabl... Read more
I've noticed, perhaps incorrectly, that many philosophers and ethicists regard logical coherence as an integral component of forming and defending moral positions. While I can understand why logical coherence would be necessary for, say, a scientist who is trying to describe how something works, I do not seem to see why logical coherence would be needed for ethics -- where, presumably, there are no objectively right or wrong answers.
Peter Smith
August 8, 2009
(changed August 8, 2009)
Permalink
Suppose I think (a) that it is normally wrong to kill humans, because so doing deprives them of a future life. But I also think (b) women have a "right to choose", and it is permissible to have at least a reasonably early abortion.
Then I seem to be in trouble. For by (a) killing a very young hum... Read more
Partially inspired by some responses on this website, I am currently pursuing teaching licensure toward the eventual end of teaching philosophy at the secondary school level. However, a cursory canvass of philosophy professors from the local university and some on the internet via their blogs has left me slightly disheartened about my future career choice. They argue that philosophy cannot (or perhaps should not) be taught to pre-college-aged students because their abstract reasoning faculties are not yet adequately developed. In other words, they claim that philosophy could never be effectively taught at the secondary level because students (for the most part) are not yet biologically ready for philosophy. How do I go about discovering whether this objection is sound or not? And can the panelists specifically share some of their own experiences with teaching pre-college-aged students about philosophy in regards to the aforementioned objection?
Eric Silverman
August 8, 2009
(changed August 8, 2009)
Permalink
I certainly think that high school juniors and seniors can learn the basics of critical thinking, ethics, and philosophy. I have breakfast semi-regularly with a teacher from a private high school who teaches philosophy to his students. He'll be teaching Plato's Republic to his seniors this yea... Read more
I've noticed, perhaps incorrectly, that many philosophers and ethicists regard logical coherence as an integral component of forming and defending moral positions. While I can understand why logical coherence would be necessary for, say, a scientist who is trying to describe how something works, I do not seem to see why logical coherence would be needed for ethics -- where, presumably, there are no objectively right or wrong answers.
Peter Smith
August 8, 2009
(changed August 8, 2009)
Permalink
Suppose I think (a) that it is normally wrong to kill humans, because so doing deprives them of a future life. But I also think (b) women have a "right to choose", and it is permissible to have at least a reasonably early abortion.
Then I seem to be in trouble. For by (a) killing a very young hum... Read more
Imagine I have a phD in philosophy; nothing special, just your run-of-the-mill doctorate in philosophy from a University with a decent philosophy program. How difficult would I find it to land any lectureship at any University, even if I am willing to move to anywhere in North America or Europe? I would like the same question with regard to community colleges and liberal arts colleges (whatever they are???) as well. For instance, is it a lot easier to get a professorship at a Community College than a University?
Peter Smith
August 7, 2009
(changed August 7, 2009)
Permalink
Eric Silverman's reply, if anything, sounds over-optimistic. Certainly, in the UK, there is a now a very significant over-supply of completing philosophy PhDs. I'm afraid that "average decent" doesn't cut it on the job market. Good perhaps for the future of philosophy, but tough on a large number... Read more
Imagine I have a phD in philosophy; nothing special, just your run-of-the-mill doctorate in philosophy from a University with a decent philosophy program. How difficult would I find it to land any lectureship at any University, even if I am willing to move to anywhere in North America or Europe? I would like the same question with regard to community colleges and liberal arts colleges (whatever they are???) as well. For instance, is it a lot easier to get a professorship at a Community College than a University?
Peter Smith
August 7, 2009
(changed August 7, 2009)
Permalink
Eric Silverman's reply, if anything, sounds over-optimistic. Certainly, in the UK, there is a now a very significant over-supply of completing philosophy PhDs. I'm afraid that "average decent" doesn't cut it on the job market. Good perhaps for the future of philosophy, but tough on a large number... Read more
Can somebody oppose physical pain (felt by other people) and be indifferent to other kinds of suffering without being irrational? I'm affraid that the answer is "yes": you can hate or dislike anything without hating or disliking anything else, and these are perhaps the best grounds for opposing something. But on the other hand I can't help seeing here some kind of contradiction... What do you say?
Miriam Solomon
August 6, 2009
(changed August 6, 2009)
Permalink
What is it to "oppose physical pain" as you put it? Do you mean try to prevent physical pain? But why would you do that? Usually the answer is something like "because it causes suffering". So the reason for trying to prevent physical pain will also be a reason for trying to prevent other f... Read more
As in literary or film criticism, often some aspects or compositions are "over-analyzed." I mean this in the same way that a metaphor can be belabored. Could such a thing be true of philosophy? Can a work of philosophy be "over-analyzed" or belabored? Is there any theory or treatment of the problem of "over-analysis" or do you think this could never possibly be a problem since analysis is always good. N.B.
Eddy Nahmias
August 6, 2009
(changed August 6, 2009)
Permalink
My answer will exemplify my answer: Yes, some philosophical problems and texts can (and have been)over-analyzed; no, I don't think there are any theories that treat this problem (it has been under-analyzed); no, analysis is not always good. I won't belabor these points! (But good question.)... Read more
Can you please suggest some good or essential readings on necessity as a concept? Or where it is useful to start as a beginner?
Peter Smith
August 6, 2009
(changed August 6, 2009)
Permalink
As it happens, I recently had to update the reading list for the logic paper of the first-year of the Cambridge Philosophy Tripos. One of the topic-headings is "Necessity" (see foot of p. 8 to top of p.10). That's a modest introductory list, concentrating on the notions of logical necessity and a... Read more