Recent Responses
Is it animal abuse to spay/neuter an animal? Most people justify spay/neutering by pointing out that if we sterilize animals, there will be fewer needier animals. But if that's true, why not forcibly sterilize people in third world countries (at least in areas with population problems)?
Jean Kazez
April 17, 2009
(changed April 17, 2009)
Permalink
I agree with the you that spaying/neutering raises difficult moral questions. On its face, it's abusive, since sterilization probably lowers quality of life for animals. So why do animal protection groups like the Humane Society encourage it? Because sterilizing animals lowers the number of unw... Read more
What does one must be in order to be called "a philosopher"? For example, Are those from psychoanalysis tradition - Zizek, for example, has been influenced by Jacques Lacan - are legitimately called "a philosopher"? If this is the case, what is a - or, is there a - boundary between those who ask "philosophical" questions and those who ask "phychoanalysis" questions?
Lisa Cassidy
April 16, 2009
(changed April 16, 2009)
Permalink
If I remember correctly, the first department of psychology in the United States came from the basement of Harvard's philosophy building (or so one story goes). Today it is not uncommon in Britain to find physics departments of universities still identified as departments of 'natural philos... Read more
All things being equal, should I care for my brother more than a stranger?
Lisa Cassidy
April 16, 2009
(changed April 16, 2009)
Permalink
Yes. The reason is that when it comes to human relationships, "all things" are never equal. I mean that we are not equally positioned to strangers and siblings. We have more connection to our siblings than to strangers. Notice this does not mean we automatically have satisfying relationships... Read more
Do you think that etiquette is a proper subject of philosophy? I wonder why the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has several articles on morality and law but none on etiquette.
Oliver Leaman
April 16, 2009
(changed April 16, 2009)
Permalink
You should ask the Stanford Encyclopedia, but it is certainly up there as a significant topic in the thought of Aristotle and Confucius, for example, and continues to be one of the areas of ethical discussion much debated by everyone. I suppose there is a tendency for etiquette to be seen as tr... Read more
In sports, what exactly do gender divisions accomplish? Why shouldn't women simply compete with men?
Louise Antony
April 16, 2009
(changed April 16, 2009)
Permalink
The idea behind many sporting competitions is to equalize the physical attributes of the competitors as much as possible, so that skill can be the deciding factor. This is why there are weight classes in wrestling and boxing, and handicapping in horse racing and in golf. Since women are, on a... Read more
I have a question concerning the relation between "semantics" and "pragmatics". I know that there is disagreement among philosophers about what that relation is, but I hope my question does not concern debated issues. As far as I know, "semantics" concerns something like the meaning of words taken by themselves, while "pragmatics" concerns how we use words for our purposes and how we react to other people's uses of words. Now, apart from societies where there are linguists and dictionaries, I think that in social and psychological reality language is nothing more than our uses of words and our reactions to the uses of words by other people. My question is: what is there left for semantics?
Mitch Green
April 16, 2009
(changed April 16, 2009)
Permalink
Good question. I have qualms about your claim that in societies lacking linguists and dictionaries, language is nothing more than our uses of words and our reactions to those uses by others. However, I think we can leave those qualms aside and assume this is correct. Even so, the aforemention... Read more
Can the mind "feel" things even though nothing has happened? If so how does this work? For example, someone swung a textbook at my head playfully, and even though he did not hit me, I still felt something where he would have hit.
Eddy Nahmias
April 16, 2009
(changed April 16, 2009)
Permalink
The brain and nervous system "combine" information from different sensory modalities, so it is quite likely that when you visually perceive that you are about to be hit, other parts of your brain respond, including perhaps sensory systems that normally perceive pain in that part of the head and/... Read more
How do thoughts interact with the physical universe? Our movements and actions seem to be simple responses to the signals from our brain, but what triggers those neurons? I mean, we –chose - to act. We think “do I want to do this, yes.” Then do it. How is that possible? If it’s possible for immaterial things like thoughts with no apparent location in the physical universe to interact with our neurons then why isn’t it possible for imaginary concepts to interact with other physical catalysts?
Eddy Nahmias
April 16, 2009
(changed April 16, 2009)
Permalink
You are raising really interesting questions that philosophers debate under the headings of "mental causation," "theory of action," and "free will." One way the problem gets generated is by assuming, as you do, that thoughts (including decisions or intentions) are immaterial things. That's wha... Read more
I attempted to define 'Truth' today and so far the best I can come up with is: In order to really understand and analyse exactly what truth is; we first need to explore the idea of truth in its purest form. The Compact Oxford English dictionary suggests that Truth is 'that which is fact or can be accepted as true.' In this sense, I would first suggest that, philosophically, truth falls more aptly into the area of faith and belief as opposed to anything definitive. This is due to the fact that nothing can be proven to be precisely accurate without error for an infinite amount of time. In fact, even if something were theoretically created at a point in time that was, at that point in time, precisely accurate it cannot be proven to be accurate for an infinite amount of time as, by definition, you would need to test the theory or creation infinitely. We can thus resolve that, despite common definition, truth is a label given to an abstract, repetitive belief specifically in relation to the human condition and human behaviour. I'd be interested in some philosophical critique of my brief definition. Plus I love a good argument ;)
Peter Smith
April 14, 2009
(changed April 14, 2009)
Permalink
Evidently something is going pretty badly wrong here. Here's a truth: my laptop computer is right now on my lap as I'm typing this. It doesn't need "precise accuracy without error for an infinite amount of time" to establish that. It's a rough-and-ready proposition about the here-and-now: precise... Read more
I have a question about separation of religion and politics,especially about French "laïcité". My understanding is that laïcité is removing religion from public places. But what is religion? For example, female Moslems living in France are not allowed to wear scarves in public schools because it is tought to be a symbol of Islam, a religion. However, also some morals (like loving your neighbors or helping out each other) are part of religion as it is written in Bible and Qur'an. As long as they are acting according to God's lesson, is it impossible to secularize any public places?
Peter Smith
April 14, 2009
(changed April 14, 2009)
Permalink
The Bible tells us all sorts of things -- e.g. that wheat ripens later than barley (Exodus 9:31-33). Now, when farmers arrange their work so the barley gets harvested first, then I suppose you might say that they are acting according to what the Bible says about crops. But of course, they don't a... Read more