Recent Responses
I am in something of a quandary. My passion, my drive, my greatest zeal is for philosophy—for the pursuit of truth, for understanding, for learning. These things, and especially the philosophical pursuit of them, are what I consider to be most worthwhile in this life. To this end, I would like nothing more than to take part in the scholarly life of philosophical academia. I am now in a position to pursue this dream—to perhaps enroll at a prestigious philosophy graduate program. I hesitate, however. My reason is this: My mode of life has always been somewhat reclusive, and I must say I spend the greatest part of my time thinking about things which, I have found, the great majority of my peers simply do not care for. Due to this, and perhaps as well to my penchant for analyzing everything, not merely what is properly considered philosophical, I have earned what would be considered by most to be a handicap in this (American) culture: I have not learned how to interact, how to make friends—how to relate to average others at the appropriate level. This would not be a problem, of course, were it not for my being perpetually victimized by my drive to socialize, to be friendly, to like and to be liked. At times this drive propels me to distraction, so that I cannot focus, so that I cannot excel so far as I might otherwise. My options are two: Determine to overcome this drive, this distraction, and devote myself to philosophy, or give in, take a break, and devote myself to satiating, or, rather, to learning to properly attend to this drive. Therein lies my quandary. I have made some progress toward alienating this drive, toward removing it in due time. This is not something I am sure I wish to do, however. I feel that I may always look back and wonder at what I missed if I do not take some time in my youth to be social, to experience the popular lifestyle. And, of course, philosophy graduate school is no place for cultivating the broader aspects of one’s social potential. Herman Hesse writes that “any life expands and flowers only through division and contradiction.” I have followed his intention in the past, perhaps when I should not have. I did not seek anyone’s guidance before, so I think perhaps I should now. I apologize for the long prompt, but it takes some saying to really express my question as I need to. This is not a problem unique to me, I am sure, and I hope that some among the panel will be able to pass on some similar experience of their own or of another who they might have known, as well I hope and expect that other readers similar to me might benefit from your answers. While the specific question here is clearly of whether I should go on to graduate school in philosophy or hold back and look into these other aspects of life, one might also consider my question to be one belonging to the broader frame of the implications of Hesse’s remark. So construed, one might ask, “Is it really necessary to challenge one’s entrenched manner of living in the pursuit of such unexplored drives, even when doing so may have significant consequences for one’s broader aspirations?”
Nicholas D. Smith
September 4, 2008
(changed September 4, 2008)
Permalink
Well, perhaps it will reassure you to know that there are several jokes about philosophers as social beings. One of my favorites is a cartoon labeled "philosophers at a party." All are staring off in space, obviously pondering some abstract question; none are interacting with anyone... Read more
Scientists often say (rather diplomatically, I think) that science cannot rule on the question of whether God exists. But is this really true? I suppose that some people might hold God's existence to be evident a priori; but I don't think that most religious people actually think this way.
Peter Smith
September 7, 2008
(changed September 7, 2008)
Permalink
Discussions of the status of theological claims can suffer from a restricted diet of examples. It is worth remembering that lots of theological claims are in fact uncontroversially true or uncontroversially false, and their epistemic status (and their relation to science) is pretty clear.
T... Read more
Can two people be correct if one says, "Two members of the same sex should not have the right to get married," and the other says, "Two members of the same sex should have the right to get married"?
Nicholas D. Smith
September 4, 2008
(changed September 4, 2008)
Permalink
I think the only way both people could be right is if they don't mean the same thing by "married." Here is a case that might go like that. Suppose the first person is thinking of marriage as a holy sacrament in their religious sect. According to that sect, same-sex marriage is an a... Read more
"And whoever forces himself to love anybody begets a murderer in his own body." (D.H. Lawrence, 'Retort to Jesus'). Self-help books advise that we can fall in love with whom we chose, that we can choose to love, to re-ignite love, etc. What is your opinion?
Eddy Nahmias
September 4, 2008
(changed September 4, 2008)
Permalink
My own brief answer is that we cannot choose to fall in love or to re-ignite love, but we can make choices that will make it more (or less) likely that we come to love someone or something. For instance, at a bare minimum, if you believe that it would be good for you to come to love someo... Read more
Self-deception is a way of coping with life - but it can lead to unhappiness. A neighbour of mine fights all her sons' battles and insists and believes that they are always in the right - even when the four of them are fighting against one smaller younger child. To what extent, if any, is she aware of her self-deception? (I firmly believe that she believes that her sons are in the right (and that their adversary(ies) is / are demonic) and that she is not merely covering up for her sons (who are well capable of standing up for themselves). This neighbour is quite rational and kind in other respects.
Jennifer Church
September 3, 2008
(changed September 3, 2008)
Permalink
When we deceive another person, we intentionally cause that person to hold a view that we think is mistaken. We can do this with our words, with our actions, or even with our refusal to speak or act. Deceiving ourselves seems paradoxical, though, since as deceiver we must consider a c... Read more
An 11-year-old child lies on the operating table, dying from an accident. He asks his doctor if he is going to die. The doctor says "no", knowing the child will be dead in minutes. I say the doctor (it is not me) did nothing wrong. What good does it do for a child to be told he will be dead in a few minutes. This beloved family doctor has been conflicted over this 40-year-old problem and teared up when telling someone (me) for the first time.
Miriam Solomon
September 2, 2008
(changed September 2, 2008)
Permalink
The salient feature of this question is that the dying person is an 11-year old child, rather than an adult. Our sympathy is aroused and we wish to protect the child from pain, especially the pain of knowing that s/he is about to die. I think it is important to first ask the question:... Read more
Do we have a duty to take care of relatives (who are unable to take care of themselves) or does this duty fall on the state?
Matthew Silverstein
September 2, 2008
(changed September 2, 2008)
Permalink
Your brief question encompasses a number of different controversial issues. Let me set aside the issue of the state and focus instead on the question of your obligations to your family members. If you do have a duty to take care of your relatives, I don't think that the source of th... Read more
Here's my challenge for those who think we have the right to sell our bodies (i.e. prostitution): Suppose Travis, a hardworking businessman who is too busy to have a romantic relationship, calls Elise, a prostitute he finds on Craigslist. Elise tells him that she would love to service him, but he'll have to wire the money in advance (she's been taken advantage of too many times). Travis complies, and the two agree to meet next Thursday night. That night Elise thinks about her career and has a change of heart. When Thursday rolls around, she comes to Travis's house and explains that she cannot go through with the act. She offers to refund the money, but Travis refuses. Travis, you see, has already invested more than the money. For one, he set aside a night for Elise that will be wasted if she leaves. And he's already accepted some risk to his reputation by contacting Elise. More importantly, Elise agreed to a contract, and contracts are not reversible on the whims of a single party. If Elise had sold her car, she would not be entitled to have it back simply by returning the money. Elise begs him to let her off the deal, but Travis wants sex--not money. If Elise continues to refuse sexual relations, does Travis have the right to rape her? You could bite the bullet and "yes". This would require, at a minimum, that rape is acceptable under some circumstances. Alternatively, you could say Elise has the right to back out of the deal. But this would imply that her previous consent to sexual relations is not binding. And if an agreement is not binding, it is not a sale. Either way, this is a serious blow to "anything goes as long as it's consensual" movement.
Allen Stairs
September 2, 2008
(changed September 2, 2008)
Permalink
I'm having a bit of trouble finding the argument here. Let's take a "transaction" that most of us think is just fine: accepting a proposal of marriage. If Pat agrees to marry Robin and then gets cold feet, Robin can't force the issue. But what of it?
Or take another example: I agree to bu... Read more
How far do we have a duty to protect others from themselves? Does it extend from, say, removing alcohol an alcoholic has hidden away to telling a relative's children to eat their food politely, when the relative herself is indifferent to such matters? Are we are brother's keepers? To what degree?
Peter S. Fosl
September 1, 2008
(changed September 1, 2008)
Permalink
As a parent, an ever-older member of an extended family, and as a citizen of a somewhat democratic nation with a remarkably imprudent population, I struggle with this issue a lot. One way I think about this matter is first to make a distinction between (a) forcibly protecting people from... Read more
Courage is considered a virtue and is defined in the dictionary as "lack of fear". How can "lack of fear" be a virtue?
Peter Smith
August 31, 2008
(changed August 31, 2008)
Permalink
The dictionary, then, is a bad one. Courage is not a matter of lack of fear. It is a matter of not letting even justified and appropriate fear stand in the way of doing the right thing -- such as rescuing your injured friend from a burning building, standing up for the innocent man in the face... Read more