Recent Responses
As an Englishman, I share a dilemma with many of my countrymen that we do not have a strong sense of English (rather than British) nationality - in contrast to say the Scots, the Welsh etc. My question is what are the moral arguments for and against the establishment of a clear English national identity. My question is definitely not one geared towards a backward-looking (and hence white Anglo-Saxon) identity, but one that can unite the inhabitants of the country in a sense of pride. If the team prefer to answer with reference to other nationalities then this is fine - it is more the moral principles that I am seeking to understand. Thank You
Miriam Solomon
February 5, 2009
(changed February 5, 2009)
Permalink
For what purposes is a countrywide "sense of pride" useful? English pride was high during the German bombing in WWII, and served the effort to win that terrible war. National pride may serve useful motivating functions in similar circumstances. Provided the purposes are morally worthy,... Read more
Is it morally wrong to go to high school if you know for a fact that you are not being taught any relevant information for living morally and responsibly, you know that the assignments are absolutely pointless, and you have the opportunity to benefit the world through becoming a Buddhist monk and through the extensive studying of relevant fields of religion, philosophy and science? Would it be wrong to drop out and join a monastery if you have this opportunity? Please help me.
Allen Stairs
February 5, 2009
(changed February 5, 2009)
Permalink
This answer may not be quite what you want to hear, but if someone is convinced "for a fact" that nothing they're learning in high school is relevant to anything that matters, then one of two things is likely: (a) this is a very unusual high school, or (b) the person making the judgment isn'... Read more
Is it possible for thoughts to be evil or in some way criminal. For example, suppose I think about committing a crime. I plan it in my mind, and even fantasize about committing the crime. Is this wrong? Is intent to committ a crime wrong?
Allen Stairs
January 30, 2009
(changed January 30, 2009)
Permalink
A footnote here. The intent behind the act counts. But fantasizing and planning purely in the brainpan doesn't count as criminal. The closest the law comes is conspiring to commit a crime. Nonetheless, conspiracy calls for more than idle thought or even idle talk of the "Boy, wouldn't it be... Read more
Is there a reason why caviar and wine are considered finer than cheeseburgers and soda pop?
Peter Smith
January 30, 2009
(changed January 30, 2009)
Permalink
I suspect Oliver Leaman has to be teasing. Good wine is -- of course -- a lot more expensive than soda pop because it is a very great deal finer (and that takes effort to produce!), not finer because it is more expensive.
The long cultivation of vines over many seasons at a good estate in th... Read more
Is there a clearcut difference between "thought" and "feeling" in the sense that they stem from or appear in different areas of consciousness?
Jennifer Church
January 30, 2009
(changed January 30, 2009)
Permalink
You ask about different areas of consciousness. If you mean different areas of the brain, that is a question that should be answered by neurologists rather than philosophers; and neurologists have tended to think that thought is more correlated with activity in the cerebral cortex while... Read more
How can there be romantic love when the formula for attraction is selfishness? Psychologists and pick up artists know that women are attracted to men who sturdy frame and material assets. Conversely, men are attracted to women if she has a nubile body. I know there are other factors but the point is nobody decided who they will marry by asking "what kind of person needs me the most?" It's always "What kind of person do !I! want to be with?" So how can married people really love each other?
Eddy Nahmias
January 30, 2009
(changed January 30, 2009)
Permalink
You seem to be beginning with the assumption that romantic love must be essentially unselfish, that people must be motivated to love their lovers for the sake of their lover (only?) and not themselves (at all?). I'm not sure why we should think that's true.
Perhaps it seems that way becau... Read more
Is there a reason why caviar and wine are considered finer than cheeseburgers and soda pop?
Peter Smith
January 30, 2009
(changed January 30, 2009)
Permalink
I suspect Oliver Leaman has to be teasing. Good wine is -- of course -- a lot more expensive than soda pop because it is a very great deal finer (and that takes effort to produce!), not finer because it is more expensive.
The long cultivation of vines over many seasons at a good estate in th... Read more
Is it possible for thoughts to be evil or in some way criminal. For example, suppose I think about committing a crime. I plan it in my mind, and even fantasize about committing the crime. Is this wrong? Is intent to committ a crime wrong?
Allen Stairs
January 30, 2009
(changed January 30, 2009)
Permalink
A footnote here. The intent behind the act counts. But fantasizing and planning purely in the brainpan doesn't count as criminal. The closest the law comes is conspiring to commit a crime. Nonetheless, conspiracy calls for more than idle thought or even idle talk of the "Boy, wouldn't it be... Read more
"I love you but I am not in love with you". Sometimes I understand what this means, other times it doesn't make any sense. Can you love someone and not be in love with them? If so, what does this "I love you" mean?
Oliver Leaman
January 30, 2009
(changed January 30, 2009)
Permalink
I have always thought it meant that I used to love you but I still have vestiges of my earlier feelings for you, which are now thoroughly diminished. It sort of acknowledges that once one has been in love with someone it is difficult to reduce the relationship to mere friendship (much easie... Read more
I often find the word 'individuation' used in philosophy of mind, i.e., "individuation of beliefs". Yet, I have a very vague idea of what 'individuation' means. Moreover, it seems that different philosophers use the word in different ways. The closest explanation of the aforementioned phrase I have seen is: "a way to taxonomize beliefs". But on what basis does this taxonomy rest?
Saul Traiger
January 29, 2009
(changed January 29, 2009)
Permalink
Individuation is the process of picking out individuals. We do this all the time in ordinary life. For example, if we were in a parking lot, we could individuate the cars in the lot. That is, from the group of objects in the lot, we could distinguish the individual cars. We wouldn’t have a d... Read more