Recent Responses
We can only live in this "here&now moment"...in fact, there is no way we can ever live out of "IT"...is it not?
Jonathan Westphal
March 19, 2009
(changed March 19, 2009)
Permalink
'We can only live in this "here and now" moment . . . in fact , there is no way we can ever live out of it . . . is it not?'
I am not sure what is supposed to meant by living in the present instant ("moment" I think has more to do with action). Living at an instant seems as impossible as li... Read more
We can only live in this "here&now moment"...in fact, there is no way we can ever live out of "IT"...is it not?
Jonathan Westphal
March 19, 2009
(changed March 19, 2009)
Permalink
'We can only live in this "here and now" moment . . . in fact , there is no way we can ever live out of it . . . is it not?'
I am not sure what is supposed to meant by living in the present instant ("moment" I think has more to do with action). Living at an instant seems as impossible as li... Read more
Having grown tired of reading secondary material in my study of philosophy, I have decided to read primary texts in a chronological, rather than thematic, order. I have started with Plato and have read most of the works I can find online or at my library. Before I move on to Aristotle, I would like your advice. Do you think a chronological approach is a good idea for someone untrained in philosophy? Do you think I should read every work by a given philosopher, or are there 'key' works that serve as their primary contribution to the field? If the latter, are there any lists that you are aware of that state what those key works are?
Jean Kazez
March 16, 2009
(changed March 16, 2009)
Permalink
If you do decide to take the chronological approach, then I think you should definitely focus on key works--in fact, in many cases just chapters of key works. I think it would make sense to choose a history of philosophy as your guide, staying away from anything overly voluminous or idiosyncratic... Read more
Having grown tired of reading secondary material in my study of philosophy, I have decided to read primary texts in a chronological, rather than thematic, order. I have started with Plato and have read most of the works I can find online or at my library. Before I move on to Aristotle, I would like your advice. Do you think a chronological approach is a good idea for someone untrained in philosophy? Do you think I should read every work by a given philosopher, or are there 'key' works that serve as their primary contribution to the field? If the latter, are there any lists that you are aware of that state what those key works are?
Jean Kazez
March 16, 2009
(changed March 16, 2009)
Permalink
If you do decide to take the chronological approach, then I think you should definitely focus on key works--in fact, in many cases just chapters of key works. I think it would make sense to choose a history of philosophy as your guide, staying away from anything overly voluminous or idiosyncratic... Read more
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the Reformed Epistemology idea of the proof of God, but I am a total novice at this and I can't figure it out. As far as I can tell by the article "Without Evidence or Argument" by Kelly James Clark, the proof is 1) We should believe that God exists only with sufficient proof that God exists 2) We cannot get sufficient proof that God exists, because every argument would have to be justified by another argument infinitely Therefore, we do not need proof that God exists. I am completely baffled by this, and I'm pretty sure I'm reading it all wrong. I could really use a hand. Am I even understanding the premises at all?
Allen Stairs
March 15, 2009
(changed March 15, 2009)
Permalink
Reformed epistemologists, as I understand them, are saying that we could know that God exists even if we were utterly unable to give a proof. That's because on their view, knowing something isn't a matter of being able to give reasons for believing it. Knowing something is a matter of being conn... Read more
I know that there are some serious problems concerning the idea that mathematics is grounded on logic. But computers can perform mathematical operations, and computers use logic, so I think that at least for practical purposes we can use logic to support mathematics. Am I right? My second question is this: can we infer that 2+2=4 from the principle of non-contradiction? Thank you!
Peter Smith
March 14, 2009
(changed March 14, 2009)
Permalink
You need to distinguish the claim that mathematics is grounded on logic, and the claim that mathematics uses logic.
The weaker second claim is evidently true, at least in this sense. Mathematical reasoning is a paradigm of good deductive reasoning. And standard systems of logic explicitly aim to... Read more
Peter Singer has popularized the term "speiciesism." It's the idea that we are biased or prejudiced towards our own species. Therefore, the argument says, we should have equal consideration for animals. However, this won't apply to animals. The lion will still eat the gazelle, the sharks will eat the dolphins, and any carnivore will eat any animal. I can imagine Singer replying that animals don't have the rational capacity to do ethics. The ideas that Singer presents only applies to us humans. But if this is the case, isn't that a form of speciesism?
Jean Kazez
March 14, 2009
(changed March 14, 2009)
Permalink
Peter Fosl says "it makes no sense to characterize the conduct of a being that's not a moral agent in moral terms." I wonder about this. If a child's not a moral agent yet, can we not say she does something wrong, though not blameworthy? It's hard to say why that wouldn't be the right way to ta... Read more
Suppose that a neuroscientist is studying love, and she discovers that romantic infatuation is caused by high serotonin levels, while attachment is caused by oxytocin. Has she actually learned anything about love? More generally, what is the significance of discovering neural or hormonal correlates to particular human emotions or behavior?
Peter Smith
March 13, 2009
(changed March 13, 2009)
Permalink
An interesting question. Of course, our neuroscientist has learnt something about love, for she has learnt something about the neural causes of certain feelings bound up with love. But you might well feel that there is a sense in which her discoveries don't help us understand what really matters... Read more
Suppose that a neuroscientist is studying love, and she discovers that romantic infatuation is caused by high serotonin levels, while attachment is caused by oxytocin. Has she actually learned anything about love? More generally, what is the significance of discovering neural or hormonal correlates to particular human emotions or behavior?
Peter Smith
March 13, 2009
(changed March 13, 2009)
Permalink
An interesting question. Of course, our neuroscientist has learnt something about love, for she has learnt something about the neural causes of certain feelings bound up with love. But you might well feel that there is a sense in which her discoveries don't help us understand what really matters... Read more
In social, political and economic discourse it is common to hear people discussing a concept like wealth as if what constitutes real, actual, or true wealth was both a clear and a settled matter. Both the term and the concept, wealth, are a close relative to the term and concept, value. In conventional and nearly ubiquitous usage, value and wealth are considered to be measurable or at least determinable in units of currency, or money. Yet careful examination reveals that a person, community, or nation can grow its stash of cash (money) while diminishing other social, ecological, spiritual (etc.) goods in this same persuit. Such goods are treated as "externalities" by economists and societies, and thus-and-therefore some economists have sought to measure these apparently incommensurables in monetary units, in order to gear our economy toward valuing these. My question is, isn't this whole project in a thousand ways doomed?
Peter S. Fosl
March 13, 2009
(changed March 13, 2009)
Permalink
Yes, it's doomed. And, moreover, in many ways it's pernicious. It's pernicious because it biases the direction of social policy and even personal conduct in the direction of things measurable in monetary terms and thereby arguably misallocates resources. For example, consider one of the most... Read more