Recent Responses
I have a question on how to study philosophy; that is, should I start from the text or from the lectures? Is it better to listen to lectures and look at summaries/webpages before going on to the text, or to struggle with the text in the beginning and start from the concepts that arise from it? Thanks - from a Junior; student of philosophy
Peter Smith
July 8, 2009
(changed July 8, 2009)
Permalink
Perhaps there are three different issues hereabouts,
There's the question of whether the best route in for beginners is via texts (written material) or via lectures and other media.
There's the question of whether first to struggle with "original" texts (meaning articles or books which were/are supp... Read more
Is the phrase "All people are equal" true in any ethically relevant sense? Certainly not all people have equal abilities. Nor do we consider all people equally when making ethical judgements. So what do people mean when they say "all people are equal"?
Sally Haslanger
July 6, 2009
(changed July 6, 2009)
Permalink
I think it is useful to consider the claim in historical context. The idea that there is a (metaphysical?) hierarchy of human worth or value has been very influential at times. People born into certain groups have, by virtue of that very fact, been considered more worthy or valuable than others... Read more
It has been suggested that the practice of Bonsai is an expression of animal chauvinism and does great harm to a tree by 'stunting' it. But aren't trees not sentient beings, and therefore the excising of branches, shoots and roots such that the tree thrives albeit substantially smaller than its genetic potential, is no different to the continual loss of roots, shoots and branches that occur under natural conditions?
Jonathan Westphal
July 2, 2009
(changed July 2, 2009)
Permalink
There is the fact that it is possible to treat something badly or to damage it, whether or not it is sentient. A pair of shoes can be badly or well looked after, and it is wrong not to look after a good pair of shoes properly. A living thing like a hedge can be properly maintained or attended... Read more
I have a very vague understanding of Goedel's famous Incompleteness theorem, but I know enough to know that I see it constantly interpreted in what seem like bizarre ways that I am sure anyone who really knew the relevant math or logic or philosophy would find ridiculous. The most common of these come from "new age" sources. My question is, for someone who knows something about the theorems, what is it about them that you think attracts these sorts of odd and (to say the least) highly suspect interpretations? I mean you don't see a lot of bizarre interpretations of most technical theories/proofs in math, logic, or philosophy.
Peter Smith
July 2, 2009
(changed July 2, 2009)
Permalink
You are quite right that Gödel's (first) incompleteness theorem attracts all kinds of bizarre "interpretations". Various examples are discussed and dissected in Torkel Franzen's very nice short book, Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use and Abuse, which I warmly recommend.
My guess is that... Read more
Is it immoral to commit adultery in a marriage when one of the spouses doesn't fulfill the other spouse?
Allen Stairs
July 2, 2009
(changed July 2, 2009)
Permalink
"Fulfill" is a bit of a weasel word, isn't it? Suppose one partner would like to make love every night. The other, less libidinous spouse is more a two-or-three time a week type. We might say that the first spouse is "unfulfilled," but that sounds like a really poor excuse for adultery.
If the lack... Read more
According to Karl Popper, a hypothesis is scientific if it can be observationally falsified, not, if it can be verified. One instance not in accordance with a supposed law refutes the law, but many instances in conformity with the law still do not prove it. Accepting this falsification test, we may remark that the idea of the divine existence either could, or could not, be falsified by a conceivable way of observation. If it could not, then science in no position to test theism. Please comment. Thanks
Peter Smith
July 2, 2009
(changed July 2, 2009)
Permalink
I'm not as confident as Peter Fosl about the testability issue: perhaps we need to know a bit more about what counts as "the theistic hypothesis".
After all, a lot of theistic hypotheses look perfectly testable by ordinary scientific standards. Take, for example, the claim that Zeus exists. I take it... Read more
I have a question about Rawls' theory of justice. Part of his difference principle stipulates that "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all." I understand part (b), but part (a) I have some problems with. If I'm interpreting this right, there's a "safety net" so that the least-advantaged members of society don't go below. Thus, it takes care of the poor people, but what do the rich get out of it? After all, part (a) says that it's to everyone's advantage. But what advantage do the rich have by giving up something so that the least-advantaged members benefit?
Thomas Pogge
July 2, 2009
(changed July 2, 2009)
Permalink
What you are citing is not the principle Rawls is actually defending as his second principle of justice, it is merely a principle he considers along the way. In its canonical formulation, the second principle reads: "Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to... Read more
In the probability thread, multiple philosophers mention examples of zero-probability events that aren't necessarily "impossible" (like flipping an infinite number of heads in a row). Arriving at a probability of zero in these instances relies on saying that 1/infinity = 0. But this math seems misleading. Don't mathematicians rely on more precise language to avoid this paradoxical result, by saying that "the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0," rather than simply "1/x = 0"? I feel like there must be some way to distinguish (supposedly) zero-probability events that are actually possible and zero-probability events that are impossible. Thanks!
Daniel J. Velleman
July 1, 2009
(changed July 1, 2009)
Permalink
To answer this question, it may be helpful to say something about the mathematical formalism usually used in probability theory. The first step in applying probability theory to study some random process is to identify the set of all possible outcomes of the process, which is called the sampl... Read more
If being gay is in the genes, like some other mental illness, is it unethical to make a gay pill to suppress the urge and make a nonprocreating human into a procreator.
Eddy Nahmias
June 29, 2009
(changed June 29, 2009)
Permalink
There's a lot of subtext in your question--you seem to be suggesting that if there are genes that influence whether one is homosexual or heterosexual, that indicates that being gay is a mental illness. That would be a very strange argument, since the fact that there are genes that influence trait... Read more
Can an all powerful God make a square triangle?
Peter Smith
June 29, 2009
(changed June 29, 2009)
Permalink
No.
But that's no limitation on such a god's power. We're not saying that there is some possible task that this god fails to be able to pull off. We're saying that there isn't any task that is coherently describable as "making a square triangle".
For consider: what could possibly count as making a... Read more