Recent Responses
Why is Philosophy research considered less respectable study than researches in the empirical sciences?
Andrew N. Carpenter
October 9, 2008
(changed October 9, 2008)
Permalink
I forgot to add: There is a long and extremely interesting account of why scientific inquiry has become so valued in our culture -- an important source the thought that empirical inquiry is more respectable than philosophical inquiry is a more general attitude that treats the fruits and... Read more
Why is Philosophy research considered less respectable study than researches in the empirical sciences?
Andrew N. Carpenter
October 9, 2008
(changed October 9, 2008)
Permalink
I forgot to add: There is a long and extremely interesting account of why scientific inquiry has become so valued in our culture -- an important source the thought that empirical inquiry is more respectable than philosophical inquiry is a more general attitude that treats the fruits and... Read more
I am a recent vegetarian, as well as a lifetime determinist with an anxiety disorders, which typically manifests itself in obsessions with my health and my obligation to myself to maintain physical health without unnecessary detriment to my mental health and the lives of other animals and the environment. Since becoming a vegetarian, I find myself in a bind regarding the amount of stress that has been placed on me, in concern for my health, compared to the rather small impact my vegetarianism has on the environment. I CANNOT, in keeping with my principles, eat a terrestrial animal that suffers as I do. However, my reasons for not eating fish are mostly environmental. Since my stress would be mostly alleviated by the inclusion of fish oil in my diet, over say flax---which, like soy, messes up my estrogen levels, thereby exacerbating other psychological problems, and the alternative (flax instead of fish) has such a minimal effect on the fishing industry and the environment, is it ethically justifiable for me to take fish oil, though it seems to support the notion that we need to cause suffering and harm the environment to live healthy lives?
Eddy Nahmias
October 8, 2008
(changed October 8, 2008)
Permalink
You cannot live an impact-free life. Our actions affect the environment, often for the worse. The goal should be to minimize detrimental impact. Another goal should be to try to influence others to minimize their detrimental impacts. You sound like you are doing a lot towards both of these... Read more
Having just read Dawkins's The God Delusion I was appalled to learn how reviled atheists are in America. In Europe a person's stance (including politician's) on religion is largely irrelevant unless they draw attention to it. What is going on in America? What should skeptics and atheist philosophers do there to point out that atheism is a reasoned and logical viewpoint that doesn't presuppose immorality, etc.? It beggars belief that all presidential aspirants have to (in some cases as Dawkins remarks) probably pretend to be Christians in order to have any chance of being elected. I know of the Atheist's Wager, acceptance of which seems braver to me than blindly accepting the religious promises of heaven as dictated by those who brought you up. And what place do 'faith-based initiatives' have in an ostensibly secular government where church and state are separate under the constitution?
Richard Heck
October 11, 2008
(changed October 11, 2008)
Permalink
The clarification is welcome, but the reason for my remark was simply that I was putting these two remarks together: (i) "I think that an avowed atheist would have absolutely no hope ofelection to President or likely to any major office in any (or almostany) state, regardless of his or her o... Read more
Having just read Dawkins's The God Delusion I was appalled to learn how reviled atheists are in America. In Europe a person's stance (including politician's) on religion is largely irrelevant unless they draw attention to it. What is going on in America? What should skeptics and atheist philosophers do there to point out that atheism is a reasoned and logical viewpoint that doesn't presuppose immorality, etc.? It beggars belief that all presidential aspirants have to (in some cases as Dawkins remarks) probably pretend to be Christians in order to have any chance of being elected. I know of the Atheist's Wager, acceptance of which seems braver to me than blindly accepting the religious promises of heaven as dictated by those who brought you up. And what place do 'faith-based initiatives' have in an ostensibly secular government where church and state are separate under the constitution?
Richard Heck
October 11, 2008
(changed October 11, 2008)
Permalink
The clarification is welcome, but the reason for my remark was simply that I was putting these two remarks together: (i) "I think that an avowed atheist would have absolutely no hope ofelection to President or likely to any major office in any (or almostany) state, regardless of his or her o... Read more
Is telepathy possible or is this just a magician's trick? If the latter how do you account for apparent telepathic occurrences -- do you believe that these are just coincidences?
Allen Stairs
October 2, 2008
(changed October 2, 2008)
Permalink
I suspect that it's not possible, but it's not a question that armchair reasoning will let us answer. There certainly are magician's tricks that simulate telepathy. There are also experiments that are suggestive of something more, though they hardly amount to full-blown proof. The most interes... Read more
Is it correct to say that square circles (and other incoherent ideas) do not exist? Or would it be more accurate to say they neither exist, nor don't exist?
Peter Smith
October 1, 2008
(changed October 1, 2008)
Permalink
You need to be careful to distinguish things and ideas here. Is the question about square circles or about the idea of a square circle?
Compare: there are no such things as unicorns. It would plainly be wrong to say that they "neither exist nor don't exist": unicorns definitely don't exist! B... Read more
What is the most effective way to learn the core issues of contempory philosophy? Thank you.
Peter Smith
September 30, 2008
(changed September 30, 2008)
Permalink
Read some good introductory books. Here's a list that I really must get around to updating.
Log in to post comments
Good morning, As a foreign PhD student in Philosophy, I need some technical hints about how to choose an Anglo-American magazine to send an article in analytic philosophy. First, I’d like to know, is the Impact Factor system as important in philosophic, as in scientific research? If so, where can I find evaluations about journals? Apart from that, I can imagine there are thematic criteria to choose a magazine: of course, you won’t send a paper in logic to a magazine that only publishes papers in ethics. That’s obvious. But is there anything else I should consider? Thank you to anybody who will reply. Stefano - Italy
Peter Smith
September 29, 2008
(changed September 29, 2008)
Permalink
A while back, I wrote a piece for our grad students about getting published that others working to publish a paper might find useful.
Log in to post comments
Good morning, As a foreign PhD student in Philosophy, I need some technical hints about how to choose an Anglo-American magazine to send an article in analytic philosophy. First, I’d like to know, is the Impact Factor system as important in philosophic, as in scientific research? If so, where can I find evaluations about journals? Apart from that, I can imagine there are thematic criteria to choose a magazine: of course, you won’t send a paper in logic to a magazine that only publishes papers in ethics. That’s obvious. But is there anything else I should consider? Thank you to anybody who will reply. Stefano - Italy
Peter Smith
September 29, 2008
(changed September 29, 2008)
Permalink
A while back, I wrote a piece for our grad students about getting published that others working to publish a paper might find useful.
Log in to post comments