Recent Responses
Two weeks ago, a caterpillar wove a chrysalis, and turned into a butterfly. There was no butterfly two weeks ago, only a caterpillar. Nonetheless, can I still point to the butterfly and say "that buttefly existed two weeks ago"?
Allen Stairs
August 6, 2009
(changed August 6, 2009)
Permalink
This is one of those cases where as long as we're clear on what we mean, there's not much of an issue. It would be perfectly in order to say "that creature existed two weeks ago; it was a chrysalis then." It's like saying that you existed lo so many years ago, though you were a toddler at that t... Read more
Hi, this may seem very strange but what do you love about philosophy (not specific areas, I mean essentially)? What is it to you? Please answer! Oooh I'd be so interested. I'm not trying to waste anyone's time!
Peter Smith
August 6, 2009
(changed August 6, 2009)
Permalink
I used to be very interested in the philosophy of mind. And the fascination was in trying to understand how our ordinary talk about the mind ("folk psychology" as we sometimes say) fits together with what explorations in neurobiology, cognitive science and artificial intelligence tell us.
These... Read more
Atheists often deride theism -- and Christianity in particular -- for the lack of empirical evidence supporting it. Interestingly, however, the very type of God Christianity advocates -- one which values faith -- is not likely the sort to leave behind any scientifically demonstrable proofs that such people are looking for. If he were to, people could potentially know He exists, and the faith He is claimed to value so highly would become superfluous. It is often noted that the lack of empirical evidence for God suggests he does not exist. But consider: a world without physical evidence for God's existence is precisely the type of universe many Christians would expect. Why, then, is this considered to be such a coup de grâce to the theist? Keep in mind: I'm not saying that we should believe in God because there is no evidence. Such a position is clearly absurd. Instead, I'm merely pointing out that attacking theism on evidentiary bases seems unconvincing to a Christian who posits a God who wants people to believe in Him as a matter of faith because such a God is not likely to leave behind such evidence. Should atheists perhaps reconsider the use of this argument?
Peter Smith
August 6, 2009
(changed August 6, 2009)
Permalink
It isn't right to say that Christianity, per se, advocates a god that values what you might call blind faith, i.e. faith which is not grounded in reasoned argument. Perhaps that's true of some sects, but certainly not all. Catholic tradition has it that the existence of God is rationally demonstr... Read more
Has the "epistemology project" failed? I tell students that you cannot make any knowledge claims without begging the question, falling prey to the problem of the criterion, or getting stuck on an infinite regress. The only way of escape is to make dogmatic assumptions regarding basic beliefs, coherence, and corrsepondences about reality...I still enjoy the study of logic and epistemology but acknowledge its limitations and flaws. As philosophers I am sure you're not willing to dismiss epistemology this quickly.
Allen Stairs
August 2, 2009
(changed August 2, 2009)
Permalink
Initial disclaimer: I am no epistemologist. But I'm not sure I quite understand. First, why are all assumptions about basic beliefs, etc. dogmatic? Are you perhaps demanding that one must be certain of such things? Why isn't it good enough to say "I know Peter was at the meeting because I was t... Read more
Are women more "emotional" than men and if so is this a bad thing?
Jennifer Church
July 31, 2009
(changed July 31, 2009)
Permalink
I am not sure why you use quotation marks around the word "emotional". Certainly there are cases where one person is more emotional than another -- in a given situation, or in general -- so there is nothing suspect about the word. Perhaps you are marking the fact that "emotional" can be used as... Read more
Hi, this may seem very strange but what do you love about philosophy (not specific areas, I mean essentially)? What is it to you? Please answer! Oooh I'd be so interested. I'm not trying to waste anyone's time!
Peter Smith
August 6, 2009
(changed August 6, 2009)
Permalink
I used to be very interested in the philosophy of mind. And the fascination was in trying to understand how our ordinary talk about the mind ("folk psychology" as we sometimes say) fits together with what explorations in neurobiology, cognitive science and artificial intelligence tell us.
These... Read more
Could a robot, imbued with artificial intelligence, feel emotion? And could it feel the desire to improve its lot in life - e.g. if it was a servant robot, could it feel the desire to overthrow its master, escape the humiliation of being a servant, and possess things for itself?
Eddy Nahmias
July 31, 2009
(changed July 31, 2009)
Permalink
I don't see any reason that a robot could not, in principle, be built that would be conscious and feel emotions. Some people (John Searle, most famously) disagree, at least about an artificial system that does not replicate our brains' "causal properties". However, I don't think we have any good... Read more
The recent conflict in Gaza resulted in what has been described as a high civilian casualty number. (Although, considering that in the Gulf War coalition forces killed over 3000 civilians and 3000 people die ever week in the Iraq War, I’m not sure several hundred constitutes as a high casualty rate.) But, I do think that there was an issue. Human Rights Watch claims to have investigated and discovered that most of the civilian deaths resulted from misuse of unmanned aircrafts, white phosphorus, and cluster missiles. The more I think about it the more I feel that weapons like these should be banned. Their lack of precision seems to be the main cause of civilian deaths in all three of the mentioned wars. For example, a bunker with 400 civilians (many children) was hit by a US stealth bomber during an air raid in the Gulf War. What is the UN’s stance on such methods of war and how would one go about influencing these in such a way that puts strict regulations on the usage of weapons that are so indiscriminate?
Eric Silverman
July 31, 2009
(changed July 31, 2009)
Permalink
A traditional component of the 'just warfare doctrine' emphasizes the importance of 'discrimination' between soldiers and civilians in carrying out a 'just war.' While often ignored, this requirement was easier to fulfill before technology changed the nature of warfare over the past couple centu... Read more
The recent conflict in Gaza resulted in what has been described as a high civilian casualty number. (Although, considering that in the Gulf War coalition forces killed over 3000 civilians and 3000 people die ever week in the Iraq War, I’m not sure several hundred constitutes as a high casualty rate.) But, I do think that there was an issue. Human Rights Watch claims to have investigated and discovered that most of the civilian deaths resulted from misuse of unmanned aircrafts, white phosphorus, and cluster missiles. The more I think about it the more I feel that weapons like these should be banned. Their lack of precision seems to be the main cause of civilian deaths in all three of the mentioned wars. For example, a bunker with 400 civilians (many children) was hit by a US stealth bomber during an air raid in the Gulf War. What is the UN’s stance on such methods of war and how would one go about influencing these in such a way that puts strict regulations on the usage of weapons that are so indiscriminate?
Eric Silverman
July 31, 2009
(changed July 31, 2009)
Permalink
A traditional component of the 'just warfare doctrine' emphasizes the importance of 'discrimination' between soldiers and civilians in carrying out a 'just war.' While often ignored, this requirement was easier to fulfill before technology changed the nature of warfare over the past couple centu... Read more
This question is for anyone who has read the works of German philosophers in their original language. I'm learning German at the moment in the hopes that I will be able to better understand the works of German philosophers, Heidegger's especially. But I'm wondering if learning German will actually help. So, I just want to know hear from someone's experience on this matter. Thank you.
Oliver Leaman
July 31, 2009
(changed July 31, 2009)
Permalink
Knowing the original language of any author one is reading is helpful, but do not expect Heidegger to become suddenly clear once you can read him in German. He puzzles just as many Germans as he does everyone else!
Log in to post comments