Recent Responses
Does involving the word 'love' alongside sex in a relationship make it worse to cheat than if it involves just 'sex' alone? I recently discovered my husband had a 7-month affair while working away during the week and he claims it is forgivable because he did not love her and it was 'merely sex'.
Nicholas D. Smith
October 30, 2008
(changed October 30, 2008)
Permalink
I think the problem with cheating is the cheating part. You and your husband made an agreement, presumably in good faith, that you would not do the very thing he did. I doubt if at the time he stipulated that he might have "merely sex," but would abstain from sex + love. So...he viol... 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
Can self-regarding acts be unethical? I realize some seemingly self-regarding acts could well affect dependents (e.g. an alcoholic parent), so let's assume there are no dependents on the person. Thanks.
Nicholas D. Smith
October 23, 2008
(changed October 23, 2008)
Permalink
I think most ethical theorists would say that some acts whose effects are only on the agent can be unethical, but it will depend upon what you take "ethical" to consist in--on how you understand what it takes to be ethical.
For example, the ancient Greeks (at least mostly) subscribed... Read more
Is "you should..." synonymous with "it is rational for you to..."?
Nicholas D. Smith
October 23, 2008
(changed October 23, 2008)
Permalink
Some philosophers would derive the former from the latter--Kant, for example, is generally supposed to think that obligation derives directly from rationality. But I think it is going to depend upon what specific notions of responsibility ("should") and rationality are at work. I thin... Read more
Are animals self aware?
Gabriel Segal
November 6, 2008
(changed November 6, 2008)
Permalink
It is true that a number of psychologists treat intelligent use of mirrors as evidence of self awareness. But I am not convinced. Animals can gather information about their own bodies via various forms of perception, including, of course, vision. Some can also use a mirror - extending t... Read more
When did secular philosophy departments, as opposed to theology faculties, first appear in universities?
Allen Stairs
October 23, 2008
(changed October 23, 2008)
Permalink
I don't know (and my guess is that my co-panelists don't either.) That, I'm assuming is why it's taken so long for anyone to respond even with such a useless answer. But in defense of myself and my colleagues, most people who belong to a profession, I'd guess, have a relatively scant knowled... Read more
How can politicians across the globe get away with saying that they support a 'War on Terror'? How can terrorism possibly be something that can be defeated? We don't try to preemptively stop violent offenders in the developed nations, so why are 'terrorists' people that can be so easily branded and fought against?
Giovanna Borradori
October 23, 2008
(changed October 23, 2008)
Permalink
I believe that the meaning of the expression "war on terror" contains a metaphor and a judgment, neither of which is explicitly presented as such. This double equivocation has grave political consequences. Let me address each fold of the equivocation separately.
The Metaphor of "War."... Read more
Why is there such a rigid division between the Western Tradition of philosophy and Eastern philosophy? Early and Medieval Indian philosophy was just as rich, and varied, and deep as the Greek tradition. They addressed similar problems, often with slightly different trajectories of thought. And we now have justification to believe that there was cross-cultural intellectual "pollination" between the two. So when I read something from the Western canon that presents itself as novel, I stop and say to myself "Gee, I thought Dharmakirti said that a few hundred years ago." Sure, the Western philosopher may have done a more thorough exploration of the idea, but it's hard to resist the urge to go, "Duh!" One piece of advice that someone once gave me as encouragement to study philosophy was no matter how brilliant or novel or unique something I was thinking about seemed to me, someone else has probably already thought of it. So to rephrase my question, in an age where information and communication are global, why do the traditional divisions between the Occident and the Orient remain? Why don't I find any Western philosophers taking up Nagarjuna's treatise on Sunyata and examining it critically? Why isn't anyone looking into Buddhist phenomenology (which IMHO has some unique insights into the mind/body problem)? And if this is happening, where is it happening?
Jasper Reid
October 23, 2008
(changed October 23, 2008)
Permalink
First of all, let's distinguish two issues that seem to be interwoven in your question: what do/should historians of philosophy study, and what do/should actual working philosophers study? Taking the latter first, it is very true that Western philosophers tend to give little or no thought to... Read more
Is it always worse to be unfaithful by action (having an affair) or by thought (fantasising about a person)? An affair can last for a while without the adulterer's partner ever even knowing about it and when it's over the adulterer may, in some cases, have a more favourable regard for his/her spouse. However fantasising about a person can go on indefinitely and the spouse is then always compared unfavourably with the love object - and the person fantasising is perpetuating an "in love" state which will keep him/her somewhat detached from reality. What are your views?
Amy Kind
October 22, 2008
(changed October 22, 2008)
Permalink
Following up on what Prof. Solomon says, you might want some way to assess each case on its merits. So you might think about what makes an affair wrong. Is it the betrayal of the spouse, or the effects that the affair has on the spouse? Some people might think: if my spouse had an affair, th... Read more
Who can direct me to the philosopher whose work addresses the relationship between knowledge and emotion?
Amy Kind
October 21, 2008
(changed October 21, 2008)
Permalink
One book you might be interested in is Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain by Antonio Damasio (although Damasio is a neurologist, not a philosopher).
Log in to post comments