Recent Responses
Is love selfish? I cannot be in a relationship because I think I have discovered that love is selfish. Consider my argument. Premises: I choose not to be selfish. I choose to reason logically. What does it mean to love? Does it mean satisfying your wants more than those of your lover, or the other way round? IF it means satisfying the wants of your lover more than your own, then you would react in the following way: If your lover deserts you willingly and decides to be with somebody else, you would be happy for your lover and not be jealous (since by being happy for your lover, you are satisfying his/her wants and not opposing them). On the other hand, IF to love means satisfying your own wants more than those of your lover, then you would react in the following way: If your lover deserts you willingly and decides to be with somebody else, you would be upset and jealous. Which way would you react? Assuming you are upset and jealous, then you are selfish. However, such selfishness is needed for a human relationship to survive. That is what nature intended. That explains why you may feel good if your partner is jealous when another person flirts with you. It feels good not only because you feel special and needed, but also because it helps to cement your existing relationship. You feel good at the prospect of reassuring your partner that you love him/her. This arrangement is beneficial for the human genes. Therefore, any relationship between two human beings is doomed unless the two are both selfish. Since I choose not to be selfish, I cannot be in a relationship.
Oliver Leaman
April 24, 2008
(changed April 24, 2008)
Permalink
I think there is a difference between being selfish and recognizing that one has one's own legitimate interests. For example, when I play cards with someone I generally want to win, although I recognize the perfectly acceptable motives of my friends to win also. If I am in love with someone I d... Read more
If the same proposition is derived from two different logical processes, are the answers still the same? Or to reverse the question, can the nature of the sub-premises or lower stages of logical reasoning yield the exact same conclusion? Thank you.
Peter Smith
April 23, 2008
(changed April 23, 2008)
Permalink
Why shouldn't two different chains of reasoning lead to one and the very same conclusion? Mathematicians often give different proofs of the same result. For example, Aigner and Ziegler's wonderful Proofs from the Book starts off with six proofs (chosen from many more) of the same proposition, i.... Read more
What makes one an official philosopher?
Peter Smith
April 23, 2008
(changed April 23, 2008)
Permalink
Having an office?
But really, this is the wrong question. There's no such thing as an "official philosopher". There are just people now writing on philosophical issues whose work is taken more or less seriously and is respected by other people seriously working on philosophical issues.
True, near... Read more
How useful do you feel an understanding of philosophy is to the study of history? I am a history graduate on my way to completing a MA and PhD in this field. More and more my studies have got me contemplating philosophical issues, particularly morality. Sometimes it is difficult to not be overwhelmed with the horrors that history holds, to wonder how people can possibly act in such fundamentaly immoral ways towards each other. I find myself struggling with the debate long-standing in history as to whether as a historian it is inherent in my role to morally condemn certain actions in history or whether I should accept that I can never understand the position these people were in, therefore have no right to judge their consequent actions. While I'm still struggling to decide on this (perhaps somebody could help me?), I have slowly begun to think that an understanding of philosophy is as crucial to being a good historian as the other traditional techniques. I was wondering how many philosophers would agree with this view?
Peter Smith
April 19, 2008
(changed April 19, 2008)
Permalink
There is a number of different issues here. Let me comment on just one of them. We may indeed wonder how people, in certain situations, can come to act in appalling ways. The question as asked perhaps suggests that arm-chair philosophy might help in understanding this. But not so. This "how come?... Read more
Dear sirs and madams, I recently met my cousin, who is a very bright biologist. When she learned that I studied political science and philosophy at university, she asked respectfully me why I would study a self-perpetuating field. I know what my reasons are, but I would be interested in reading what some of the professionals have to say: Why study philosophy? Moreover, why study it since there is an impracticality associated with it? Have you ever gotten any flack from loved ones for philosophizing? Thank you for your time, -Justin
Peter Smith
April 19, 2008
(changed April 19, 2008)
Permalink
I wonder what is meant in the question by talking of philosophy as a self-perpetuating field? In what sense is philosophy supposed to be "self-perpetuating" while biology isn't?
Perhaps the idea is supposed to be that philosophy is self-perpetuating because, unlike biology, it just goes round in... Read more
Why do we desire authenticity? Why do we want to be the cause of our own happiness rather than, say, medication? Why do we want to know that the jazz musician is truly improvising her solo rather than playing some pre-composed part crafted to sound improvised? Why is it so important to us that we experience the real world, and not a utopian virtual reality fed to us by machines?
Allen Stairs
April 19, 2008
(changed April 19, 2008)
Permalink
Like Lisa, I also enjoyed your question and have been mulling it over for several weeks -- without making a lot of headway. But here is a thought. It's true that we do value various sorts of authenticity (real creativity, "real" as opposed to "surrogate" experiences, etc.), but there are differe... Read more
The following dilemma has arisen in my work as a health professional. I suppose it is more of an ethical conundrum than anything else. Imagine the following scenario: Someone is seeking help because they believe they may be at high risk of developing condition X. Our assessment suggests that they are in fact at high risk of developing condition X. Part of the reason they are high risk is BECAUSE they are worried they may develop condition X. As you can imagine informing the person of the results of their assessment can actually lead to that high risk person developing condition X. Health professionals have a clear duty to respect autonomy (including telling people the truth), balanced with a duty not to cause harm, and a duty to do good. Bearing this in mind, what should we tell the clients about the results of their assessment? NOTE: They would still be at high risk of developing condition X if we didn't assess or treat them. What we appear to do currently is assess them, but when communicating their results to them we perhaps aren't entirely candid (thus threatening respect for autonomy). We also try to reduce their fears of developing condition X by perhaps challenging the idea that condition X is really a bad thing - forgetting that the service is set up specifically because condition X is generally accepted to be a bad thing.
Thomas Pogge
April 19, 2008
(changed April 19, 2008)
Permalink
This is an interesting problem, very crisply stated. Variants of it occur in other life contexts as well. Thus truthful reporting of information can be counterproductive, for example, in the work of Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International in situations where such information may undermine th... Read more
Why do we desire authenticity? Why do we want to be the cause of our own happiness rather than, say, medication? Why do we want to know that the jazz musician is truly improvising her solo rather than playing some pre-composed part crafted to sound improvised? Why is it so important to us that we experience the real world, and not a utopian virtual reality fed to us by machines?
Allen Stairs
April 19, 2008
(changed April 19, 2008)
Permalink
Like Lisa, I also enjoyed your question and have been mulling it over for several weeks -- without making a lot of headway. But here is a thought. It's true that we do value various sorts of authenticity (real creativity, "real" as opposed to "surrogate" experiences, etc.), but there are differe... Read more
Why is it so widely accepted that human beings have intangible rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Humans as a part of nature, have these "rights" broken all the time by other humans and our environments. Do you think this may have to do with a strong desire to feel secure in the world we live in? It seems that in reality, the only natural rights are granted by whether or not you have the power to seize them.
Joseph Levine
April 17, 2008
(changed April 17, 2008)
Permalink
I'm not sure what you mean by "intangible" here, but no matter. It strikes me that the question is based on assimilating the existence of a right to its observance. It may well be, and I believe it is, that rights are being violated all the time. I don't see how that is evidence that one doe... Read more
When I feel a pain in my hand, is there anything about the pain which actually refers to my hand, or have I simply learned over time that certain pains are correlated with injuries in certain parts of my body?
Joseph Levine
April 17, 2008
(changed April 17, 2008)
Permalink
If you just reflect on your own experience you can see that the feeling that the pain is in your hand is not merely a matter of having learned over time that certain feelings are caused by damage in certain areas; on the contrary, your hand, as we say, "hurts". Infants clearly show recognition... Read more