Recent Responses
Setting aside the sort of lies told by parents to children, are there any lies which, in the panelists' view, it would benefit people in general to believe? (For instance, you might think that although there is no god, religious belief is so beneficial as to outweigh a strict concern for truth.) Or is it the case that there is no lie worth believing?
Jean Kazez
March 6, 2009
(changed March 6, 2009)
Permalink
There are some ideas in ethics that I consider it valuable for people to believe, even though I'm not sure that they are strictly true. For example, the ideas in the UN declaration of human rights are not so much true as approximations to the truth. Jeremy Bentham might have been correct when he... Read more
Is there any knowledge/wisdom/insight that cannot be expressed as a proposition?
Peter Smith
March 4, 2009
(changed March 4, 2009)
Permalink
One thing I know is the difference between the taste of sangiovese and pinot nero -- a bit of wine-wisdom I've acquired over the years. But I certainly would be very hard put to express that knowledge in propositional form, at least in any informative way that could usefully convey my knowledge to... Read more
I've been reading philosophy for some time, and I've seen something I couldn't understand however hard I try. There've been a number of comments that some ideas are too sceptical. There've also been attempts to defend philosophers from accusation of being sceptics both by themselves and their defenders. Therefore, it seems to me that Scepticism (or being sceptical) is generally considered somehow negative. But why is it so? I simply can't see anything wrong with Scepticism. I am aware of possible cases when defended ones are mistakenly considered as sceptics, but there's possibility that those defended may indeed express sceptical views as well.
Allen Stairs
March 1, 2009
(changed March 1, 2009)
Permalink
There's limited and local skepticism, based on serious reasons for doubt. That can be a very good thing. (One ought to be skeptical of what politicians or advertisers say, for example; we've got plenty of evidence that they're often less than reliable sources of information.) But then there's more... Read more
I'm thinking about relative position (left, right, up, down, ahead, behind). My general question is whether you think that these three oppositions (left/right, up/down, ahead/behind) have the same "status". For instance, for every point moving on a straight line, there is a meaningful and precise difference between ahead and behind, but not necessarily between left and right or up and down. Another example: for any (physical) object on the surface of a planet, the difference between up and down is clear, but not the remaining two oppositions. Another one: if it is settled, in a given 3D situation, what is left and right, then it is also necessarily settled what is ahead and behind, and what is up and down, but this does not (always) work the other ways around. What do you say? And do you think that the opposition between inside and outside has some relation to the other ones?
Allen Stairs
March 1, 2009
(changed March 1, 2009)
Permalink
Offhand, it's not clear why we'd think there's a difference in status among these oppositions. Once we fix a point on a line as the "origin," it's still up to us which direction counts as ahead and behind. What's up where I am on earth is down from the point of view of folks across the center from... Read more
How do philosophers (or academics in general) justify their choice of profession? How is it defensible to be studying esoteric ideas with relatively few (if any) implications for the greater good, rather than devoting one's life to solving the much more practical problems that burden so much of the world's population? I realize that some philosophical ideas have had important worldwide impacts and have directly improved people's lives, but I doubt that almost any philosophers working today would say that that's what they expect to come out of their analyzing a particular view of Wittgenstein's or whatever. (I think this question ought to be asked of most professions, but it seems that philosophers would be thinking about this sort of thing much more so than would, say, investment bankers.)
William Rapaport
February 28, 2009
(changed February 28, 2009)
Permalink
How does anyone (not just philosophers or other academics) justify a choice of profession? One does what one is good at and what one likes to do.
Academics in particular (philosophers included) need not apologize for their choice; we are, after all, teachers (in addition to being [p... Read more
Kant believed that Space and Time were synthetic a priori concepts that our mind imposes on experience. From this, he claimed that we can only know objects as they appeared to us, mainly as occuring in Space and Time. So, only phenomenon can be known, not the noumenon, or the thing-in-itself. My question is this: If Space, Time, and their product Causality, are concepts provided by the mind, and objects are independent of our existence (as Kant believed) then does this mean that reality is structured so the second it is perceived? Is the universe, then, chaotic the second we turn our backs to it? I basically wish to know if Kant addressed this consequence of his assertion--provided I have properly understood his assertion. I hope you can address my question for there is no one that I can ask in person, nor have I come across any mention of this problem from Kant's writings. Thank you in advance.
Douglas Burnham
February 28, 2009
(changed February 28, 2009)
Permalink
Let me add a short note to Andrew's fine answer. Imagine thefollowing reasoning:
The mind 'imposes' space and time upon the empirical world. Theconcepts 'at the moment of' and 'before' have meaning only because ofthat imposing. Therefore, it makes no sense to ask what empiricalreality w... Read more
How can we prove that the Newton's law of Gravity is correct and how can we confirm that the Gravity is really exist?
Allen Stairs
February 28, 2009
(changed February 28, 2009)
Permalink
The best answer to your first question, I think, is that we do it that way we check scientific hypotheses in general: we make predictions, do experiments, etc. The details, of course, are best left to the physicists, but unless the worry is a skeptical question about scientific knowledge i... Read more
I'm passionately interested in Darwin and evolution, but have been bashing my head against the wall recently, over the objection that 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology. The answers to this that I've read state that 'fitness' doesn't mean: "those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency" [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html]. But then the reply to this seems to be: "This charge is not repelled by substituting "most adaptable" or "best designed," etc., for "fittest," because these too are determined by survival. (That is, how do we determine that a species, or members of a species, is "most adaptable" or "best designed"? By the fact that it survived.)" [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl3.html] As an aside following on from this, I know that you can then say that there is a lot of evidence. But isn't this evidence for evolution, not the specific theory of natural selection? My question is: is there a logical rebuttal to the statement that it is a tautology, and therefore apparently 'devoid of explanatory power'? I'm actually rather worried about this, having based much of how I view the world on natural selection. Thanks, and sorry if the answer is very obvious to you!
Douglas Burnham
February 28, 2009
(changed February 28, 2009)
Permalink
My understanding of the supposed tautology to which you refer isthis:
In the theory of evolution, only the most fit organisms survive.
But the fitness of an organism can only be determined by the fact that it survived.
So, we conclude: 'In the theory of evolution, only those th... Read more
Kant believed that Space and Time were synthetic a priori concepts that our mind imposes on experience. From this, he claimed that we can only know objects as they appeared to us, mainly as occuring in Space and Time. So, only phenomenon can be known, not the noumenon, or the thing-in-itself. My question is this: If Space, Time, and their product Causality, are concepts provided by the mind, and objects are independent of our existence (as Kant believed) then does this mean that reality is structured so the second it is perceived? Is the universe, then, chaotic the second we turn our backs to it? I basically wish to know if Kant addressed this consequence of his assertion--provided I have properly understood his assertion. I hope you can address my question for there is no one that I can ask in person, nor have I come across any mention of this problem from Kant's writings. Thank you in advance.
Douglas Burnham
February 28, 2009
(changed February 28, 2009)
Permalink
Let me add a short note to Andrew's fine answer. Imagine thefollowing reasoning:
The mind 'imposes' space and time upon the empirical world. Theconcepts 'at the moment of' and 'before' have meaning only because ofthat imposing. Therefore, it makes no sense to ask what empiricalreality w... Read more
I read the other day that 48% of people over the age of 85 suffer from senile dementia, and that this number increases steeply as people age. Sufferers have difficulty remembering events and people. Even in its early stages, it impacts on decision making and one's ability to form short and long term plans. My question is, one of the reasons for having a voting age is because we believe that children and young people are cognitively unable to understand the full implications of voting. While this isn't true for all children, it is for the majority of kids, justifying an arbitrary, blanket voting age. If there is a point at which a majority of elderly people are cognitively unable to understand the implications of their vote, does this mean we should create an upper voting age limit? Thanks :)
Lisa Cassidy
February 27, 2009
(changed February 27, 2009)
Permalink
I suspect you are right on many fronts. However, we (in the United States) have a ignoble history of blocking adults from voting, e.g., denying suffrage to women and non-whites. I think ought to make us skeptical of movements to disenfranchise people.
Another way to go, of course, is to... Read more