Recent Responses
This is a question about happiness. I am a student who is very serious about academics and is always looking for ways to challenge myself to do better. I take hard courses that require a lot of work. But I often find that I sit in the library reluctantly reading for long periods of time. I am not sure if I am having fun. I see my friends who are taking courses like photography and book-making, and are having loads of fun. (Note that I do realize that photography and book-making have their own merits as a subjects of study, but they are not challenging to me.) I remind myself that the skills I'm gaining in my difficult courses will contribute to my happiness in the long run. I do believe in living the happiest life one can possibly live. But I wonder if the friend who is taking photography has a better approach to living a good life (and that is my question). The reason I think that is because I feel she is living happily now, without looking to the future for happiness.
Oliver Leaman
May 1, 2008
(changed May 1, 2008)
Permalink
I think you hit the nail on the head at the end where you acknowledge that an excellent way of being happy is not to try to be happy, but just to do what you find fulfilling. Once you start asking questions about what makes you happy it is difficult to feel content with any particular state of affai... Read more
I have recently started studying philosophy and found that it is increasingly isolating me from non-philosophically inclined people. I find it hard to stop thinking philosophically even in light conversation and become frustrated when people have simplistic views. It is becoming hard to enjoy mainstream entertainment, because the ideas that the entertainment is based on have a long history, much more interesting than the entertainment itself. Can someone who has been doing philosophy longer than me please tell me how to remedy this situation? I really love philosophy, but at the moment it feels as if I almost have to give up citizenship of the "normal" world. Is this isolation going to intensify through doing more philosophy, or is it at some stage going to become more tolerable? Thanks for any help.
Kalynne Pudner
May 1, 2008
(changed May 1, 2008)
Permalink
I can't say for sure how typical your experience is, but I can say for sure that I shared it. Starting to study philosophy is a lot like falling in love (which makes sense, given the literal meaning of the word, right?). When a person falls in love, it's normal to be so enthralled with the beloved... Read more
Aside from saying that the questions that they concern themselves with are difficult, how do philosophers make sense of their difficulty discovering consensus truths about the world, in the way that scientific communities do? And what would a philosopher make of the idea that philosophers are trying to understand the world through natural language, and not through enough of an observational component, and method (e.g. scientific method). It seems to me that philosophers are only using a small part of their brain when trying to answer questions, and that primarily, their inability to discover things about the world is due to this getting stuck up with language.
Richard Heck
May 1, 2008
(changed May 1, 2008)
Permalink
What I'd "make of the idea that philosophers are trying tounderstand the world through natural language, and not through enoughof an observational component, and method" is that this generalization is just plain false. Philosophers throughout history have drawn upon science, mathematics, literature, a... Read more
If the sperm that fertilized the proper egg of one of my great-great-great-great grandmothers had been a different sperm (from the one that actually fertilized it) and, apart from that, everything had been pretty the same until today, wouldn't I be me?
Richard Heck
May 1, 2008
(changed May 1, 2008)
Permalink
It isn't entirely obvious that I, say, could have been female from conception, and the assumption that the fertilizing sperm was different certainly leaves that possibility open. But if I could have been female, then your great-great-great grandfather (let's say) could have been female, and one of you... Read more
Given the proclivity of animals to fight for both resources and territory as natural competition, is it not possible to justify nearly any war? Even as a "higher order" species, as the population increases so too will competition. How has the idea that the strong shall not take from the meek become reprehensible? Isn't it simply natural?
Richard Heck
May 1, 2008
(changed May 1, 2008)
Permalink
Where is it written that what is 'natural' is morally acceptable? Unless some argument is offered for this claim, there is a blatant non sequitur in these remarks.
Log in to post comments
If you were molested and raped by several of your family members, how would you go about telling someone so you or no one else gets hurt. I don't wanna get anyone else involved but I just want it to stop.
Jyl Gentzler
April 30, 2008
(changed April 30, 2008)
Permalink
The problem that you face (how to keep yourself (and perhaps others) safe) is very serious and calls for a kind of knowledge (i.e., of the resources available to you in your community) that philosophers don't have by training.
But certain constraints that you put on a solution to this problem (t... Read more
If I am an atheist, should I try (while remaining civil) to convince religious people that they are wrong?
Gabriel Segal
April 29, 2008
(changed April 29, 2008)
Permalink
Quite so. I think it depends in part on who the religious person is. If there is almost no chance that you will change their views then there is no reason why you should spend your time and energy on the matter. And I expect this applies to a lot of people. If there is a decent chance that you... Read more
Let's say time machines exist. What would happen if you got into a time machine, went back in time, and stopped the invention of time machines? Larry 16, NJ
Gabriel Segal
April 29, 2008
(changed April 29, 2008)
Permalink
If time machines have been invented, then no-one can change that. Ifyou were to step into a time machine, travel back in time and try toprevent the invention time machines, you would fail.
Log in to post comments
Why is the continuation of the human atomic structure an insufficient explanation for continued personal identity of an individual? If subject "a" remains subject "a" on an atomic level surely that constitutes the continuation of that subject. Arguably the atoms change over time, but not all at once. If say one atom changes on Monday, and then next on Tuesday, the very fact that an atom from Monday remains on Tuesday (even if it was the new atom on Monday) allows for the continuation of that subject. This simplistic example shows how on a basic level something of the person remains prior to the present moment.
Cheryl Chen
May 6, 2008
(changed May 6, 2008)
Permalink
Here's another thought experiment that philosophers sometimes appeal to in this context. Suppose someone invents a teleportation machine (like in Star Trek). The machine scans your body, vaporizes it, and then recreates a molecule for molecule duplicate somewhere on Mars. Would you survive this proc... Read more
Much of philosophy is concerned with providing a rigorous foundation to truths which are otherwise intuitive and uncontroversial; think of philosophy of math, for instance. Do philosophers believe that, absent an appreciation of such foundational principles, laymen don't actually "know" such truths, e.g., that 1+1=2; and if laymen do know such truths, how do they know them?
Peter Smith
April 27, 2008
(changed April 27, 2008)
Permalink
Actually, the presumption here is wrong. It isn't the case that "much of philosophy is concerned with providinga rigorous foundation to truths which are otherwise intuitive anduncontroversial". In particular, that isn't the case in the philosophy of mathematics.
Of course, famously, Frege tried t... Read more