Recent Responses
My cousin recently gave birth to her first child. There were some complications, however, and the baby had to be delivered through a cesarean section four weeks early. At first she seemed healthy, but within seconds of the delivery the effort of crying was apparently too much for the premature baby and they had to put her on a special machine. Now, what interested me about K. (that’s her first name,) is that even though she was working her way to be two months early she still seems completely human. K. even smiled and giggled whenever they played with her. As far as I can tell she’s completely human. She laughs, cries, reacts to pain, even seems to have formed a bond with her mother who she’s only seen a few times. Recently there was a great outcry because late term abortion doctor George Tiller was assassinated by pro-life extremists. (Doesn’t that seem ironic?) Anyway, he apparently aborted fetuses within days of the delivery date. 32, 33, 34 week old fetuses. Now, what caught me about this is that K. isn’t even as old as some of these fetuses he’s killing. So, if he were killing premature baby is like K., that’d be essentially the same thing. Early term abortion can be understood, but honestly it seems to me that this man did a terrible thing as worthy of death as anything else, more than once. He was continuing to do so unchecked until he was assassinated. I don’t agree with civilians taking justice into their own hands, but how can people feel so urged to defend this man when these very same people would be praising the killer if the abortion ‘doctor,’ instead took the life of Kimberly-Prudence? How can any modern or progressive individual possible support late term abortion or disagree that somebody murdering a fully developed child is anything other than evil?
Sally Haslanger
July 30, 2009
(changed July 30, 2009)
Permalink
There are a few points that may be relevant to your thinking:
1) There is a substantial difference between 32 weeks and 36 weeks in terms of development, long term prognosis, etc. It is also uncommon for a newborn to be as responsive to social cues as you suggest. Typically "social smiling" d... 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
Since intelligence is defined as a person's 'mental capacity', and what might be seen as 'mental capacity' to one person might be very different to another person depending on their 'mental capacity', doesn't this mean intelligence is relative to the person observing it? If it is relative, does that make it impossible to determine intelligence absolutely through measures such as IQ tests?
Jennifer Church
July 30, 2009
(changed July 30, 2009)
Permalink
There are many different definitions of intelligence (the ability to solve problems quickly and accurately, the ability to generate creative responses to new situations, the ability to synthesize diverse information into a coherent whole, ...), many different measures of intelligence (tests tha... Read more
How do you know that you are consciously making the decision and not just consciously acknowledging the pre-determined direction give to your body by your brain depending on the factors which are affecting it.
Eddy Nahmias
July 30, 2009
(changed July 30, 2009)
Permalink
This is an interesting question, and one that has been discussed quite a bit by philosophers and by scientists, some of whom suggest that there is evidence for the sort of picture you describe--i.e., first the brain initiates a decision and only then do we become aware of having made a decision.... Read more
If one is not a college student and yet still seeks a deep and professional knowledge in the field of philosophy but lacks methodology, how shall he acquire one !?
Eric Silverman
July 28, 2009
(changed July 28, 2009)
Permalink
I think it is difficult for most people to learn much philosophy without the benefit of some sort of class structure. Your best strategy would probably be to find a mentor or a group of philosophical inclined friends with some grasp of philosophy who would be willing to read and discuss importan... Read more
I have recently stumbled upon a short book written by the Catholic theologian named Peter Kreeft. He deductively argued for Jesus’ divinity through an approach he summarized as “Aut deus aut homo malus.” (Either God or a Bad Man.) Basically, his argument works only on the assumption made by most historians. Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed. So, assuming this is true he says Jesus must’ve been one of three things. One possibility is that he was a liar. He said he was divine even though he knew it was not true. Another possibility is that he was insane. He believed he was divine even though he wasn’t. The final possibility is that he was telling the truth and he was correct. He was divine. He goes through and points out that Jesus shows no symptoms of insanity. He had no motive for lying. In fact, he was executed because of his claims. That gives him a motive to deny his divinity, which he apparently was given a chance to do by according to the Jewish and Roman sources on the issue. (Only the Ebionites, who wrote the bible, paint his trial as unfair. The Jews and Romans say that they gathered evidence for forty days. The Pharisees say he wasn’t crucified but rather hung.) Anyway, since he has no motive to lie and there’s no evidence that he was lying there’s no logical reason to make this conclusion. Since he shows no symptoms of insanity there’s no logical reason to think he was insane. He must be divine, according to Kreeft. He argues with a sort of ‘Ocham’s Razor,’ type approach, you see? Working on his assumption that the historical information claiming that he Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed, showed no signs of insanity, and had no motive for lying is there any counter for his argument?
Eric Silverman
June 23, 2010
(changed June 23, 2010)
Permalink
Thanks to Charles Taliaferro for resurrecting this interesting question (which I was too swamped to answer when it came around the first time). It is important to remember that like many philosophical arguments it has a specific audience in mind. Let's call the intended audience 'the agnostic ge... Read more
I have recently stumbled upon a short book written by the Catholic theologian named Peter Kreeft. He deductively argued for Jesus’ divinity through an approach he summarized as “Aut deus aut homo malus.” (Either God or a Bad Man.) Basically, his argument works only on the assumption made by most historians. Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed. So, assuming this is true he says Jesus must’ve been one of three things. One possibility is that he was a liar. He said he was divine even though he knew it was not true. Another possibility is that he was insane. He believed he was divine even though he wasn’t. The final possibility is that he was telling the truth and he was correct. He was divine. He goes through and points out that Jesus shows no symptoms of insanity. He had no motive for lying. In fact, he was executed because of his claims. That gives him a motive to deny his divinity, which he apparently was given a chance to do by according to the Jewish and Roman sources on the issue. (Only the Ebionites, who wrote the bible, paint his trial as unfair. The Jews and Romans say that they gathered evidence for forty days. The Pharisees say he wasn’t crucified but rather hung.) Anyway, since he has no motive to lie and there’s no evidence that he was lying there’s no logical reason to make this conclusion. Since he shows no symptoms of insanity there’s no logical reason to think he was insane. He must be divine, according to Kreeft. He argues with a sort of ‘Ocham’s Razor,’ type approach, you see? Working on his assumption that the historical information claiming that he Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed, showed no signs of insanity, and had no motive for lying is there any counter for his argument?
Eric Silverman
June 23, 2010
(changed June 23, 2010)
Permalink
Thanks to Charles Taliaferro for resurrecting this interesting question (which I was too swamped to answer when it came around the first time). It is important to remember that like many philosophical arguments it has a specific audience in mind. Let's call the intended audience 'the agnostic ge... Read more
Hello, my name is Conner and I’m a political science major here in Oklahoma. It is my personal opinion that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, in which case I call upon Judith Jarvis Thompson’s argument. However, there’s something I was wondering about. Assuming that abortion is acceptable in other areas, would it be in –this- strictly hypothetical situation: A woman, let’s call her Stacy, is physically weak. She wants to have a baby but her body simply doesn’t have the strength to deal with a pregnancy. She and her husband then agree to ask her sister, Brittany, to carry the child for them. Brittany agrees at first and even signs a contract. Some time into the pregnancy, however, she decides that she doesn’t feel like being pregnant anymore and decides to get an abortion. Is she allowed to do so? Should she be allowed to do so? Could a real life case like this be taken to the Supreme Court?
Oliver Leaman
July 24, 2009
(changed July 24, 2009)
Permalink
Well, it is just this sort of case that gives surrogacy a bad name, of course. It depends on whether a contract in these circumstances is valid or not, and that is a legal not a moral issue. I suppose it would also be relevant to know what carrying someone else's child actually meant in this case... Read more
I'm 13 years old and I honestly don't know what to believe and it is literally driving me crazy. My mum says to stop thinking and relax but the problem is I can't, it's as if I stop thinking I'll, well, die. Knowledge is a part of me and I can't bear to let it go but I'm not sure whether there is a God and I think the only reason I ever believed is because I was afraid of what would happen to me after life. I don't fear death anymore but I hope that you will give me some answers and if Atheism is the answer.
Peter Smith
July 23, 2009
(changed July 23, 2009)
Permalink
If you want to try something rather more accessible than the heavy-duty books that Eric Silverman suggests, then try Richard Dawkins The God Delusion. Sure, it's shallow in places, and a bit crass in others, but it will certainly be an enjoyable read that gets you thinking hard.... Read more
If we are to agree with Kant that "the things which we intuit are not in themselves what we intuit them as being," wouldn't this leave us suspended in an anthropomorphic description of reality, in which what reality itself is, is forever beyond our knowledge? Wouldn't this also suggest that because we comprehend ourselves as individuals, we place this comprehension as a mirror in front of our eyes, and so conceive nature and reality in individual terms?
Jennifer Church
July 23, 2009
(changed July 23, 2009)
Permalink
There are several different ways to read the sentence that you quote from Kant:
1. The way that we experience things as being is totally unlike the way things really are.
2. The way that we experience things as being is somewhat different from the way things really are.
3. The way that we expe... Read more