Recent Responses
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
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
Some friends and I have been debating the question of state mandated vaccination. There are actually several different pieces to this. First, forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure seems to be a major violation of their individual rights. Or is it? Second, there are always risks with any medical procedure, including vaccination. Does the value to the group of controlling infectious disease trump the right of the individual to free choice of risk? Some people might prefer the risk of disease. Third, what about parental responsibility? How far does the state have the right to force medical procedures on minors, against the parent's objections? Thanks for your help!
Thomas Pogge
April 16, 2008
(changed April 16, 2008)
Permalink
Vaccinations protect the vaccinated person. But they also protect others (who would come into contact with the vaccinated person if she were to be infected) and the population at large (as the disease has less of a chance to spread if there a fewer usable carriers).
Given this situation, a clas... Read more
There appear to some similarities between what Wittgenstein taught or grappled with and some teachings of Buddhism, particularly Zen, namely: the notion that much in philosophy amounts to entanglements of language (not just problems of phrasing, but of language's limits), a belief that the real roots of philosophy and ethics are beyond words, that we can not even be certain of fundamental sensation yet truth is easily demonstrated in everday action, etc. Nonetheless, I have read some philosophers say that this connection is superficial. Are there serious attempts, and by whom, to draw connections between the two?
Richard Heck
April 15, 2008
(changed April 15, 2008)
Permalink
Yes. There is a book, Wittgenstein and Buddhism, written by Chris Gudmunsen. That's all I know about, but there is probably much more.
Log in to post comments
I was reading Andrew Sullivan's view about homosexuality (in favor) and was wondering what would be the Kantian and Utilitarian response to his arguments.
Allen Stairs
April 12, 2008
(changed April 12, 2008)
Permalink
Not having the details of Sullivan's view ready to hand, all I can offer are some general comments on homosexuality, Kant and utilitarianism. On Kant, you might want to have a look at the replies to question 1681, and if you can get a copy, at Alan Soble's paper "Kant and Sexual Perversion," cit... Read more
There are some strong arguments that if a computer appears to possess intelligence similar to a human's, that we must assume it too has self-awareness. Additionally, one could make a strong case that lesser animals have self-awareness, because they have the same type of brain as humans (just in a less sophisticated form.) My question is this: if we assume that a) computers of seemingly human intelligence are self-aware, and b) that animals of lesser brains are self-aware, must we logically conclude that computers of lesser "intelligence" are also self-aware? In other words, are all computers self aware? Is my toaster self-aware?
Jonathan Westphal
November 6, 2008
(changed November 6, 2008)
Permalink
Why should the possession of intelligence (whatever we mean by this, but say it means winning chess games against the world chess champion, winning bridge games with bad partners against the world bridge champions, issuing correct diagnoses for car repairs, predicting stock market fluct... Read more
Does a citizen of a democratic country have a duty to vote?
Gabriel Segal
April 12, 2008
(changed April 12, 2008)
Permalink
No. If a citizen doesn't have a preference for any of the candidates, then he or she has no duty to express one.
Log in to post comments
Does the fact that we use modern technologies - which are specifically constructed only for benign purposes - to do evil deeds, make it our responsibility as individuals not to create or use any technologies what so ever, which in any way can be used to cause evil against man or other animals? Kind regards Kenneth, Denmark
Gabriel Segal
April 12, 2008
(changed April 12, 2008)
Permalink
I would have thought that our responsibility is to use the technologies responsibly and safely.
It is not as if we are incapable of this.
Log in to post comments
In what way do the social sciences and natural sciences differ as science? Are the social sciences "less" scientific?
Gabriel Segal
April 12, 2008
(changed April 12, 2008)
Permalink
A great deal has been written on that, and opinions vary. I willjust give you mine. 'Science' and 'scientific' are not themselves terms of science. Somephilosophers have attempted to give the terms a clear meaning (KarlPopper, for example). I think they have failed. And I don't think thatthe o... Read more
Is it morally acceptable for the rich to use their wealth to hoard an *essential* resource (such as housing) in order to make a profit?
Gabriel Segal
April 12, 2008
(changed April 12, 2008)
Permalink
One's answer to that might well depend on one's general politicalorientation. There are those who think that property is theft (a sloganassociated with Karl Marx and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon). Such peoplewould tend to answer your question 'absolutely not!'. Others believethat people can and often... Read more