Recent Responses
When I studied philosophy, all the professors I had held the same views about religion -- that "god-talk" was "cognitively meaningless." I recall reading philosophers like Flew, Smart, and Mackie on this. It was my understanding at the time (I attended NYU in the 1960s) that major academic philosophers in the U.S., the U.K., and the other English-speaking countries saw philosophy as logical (or linguistic) analysis and held these views as well. Have such philosophers come to see religion differently over the past forty years?
Richard Heck
April 6, 2008
(changed April 6, 2008)
Permalink
At the time the questioner mentions, it wasn't just religious claims that philosophers declared "cognitively meaningless". Any metaphysical claim was supposed to suffer the same fate.
Well, part of what's changed is that that's changed. Metaphysics is now a flourishing, and for the most part resp... Read more
To what extent do philosophers, or people who think deeply about an issue, have a responsibility to some kind of direct action, especially in cases like climate change where they perceive a significant threat to the future of humanity?
Thomas Pogge
April 5, 2008
(changed April 5, 2008)
Permalink
I don't think this responsibility is confined to those who have thought deeply about an issue. If climate change is a menace to the poor today and to future generations, and if we are much involved in fuelling this menace, then we all have a responsibility to act to slow down and stop this phenome... Read more
When someone sees a wrong in society, they have a choice to act. A wrong could be anything a person deems as an inappropriate action. For example, if you see someone being robbed, you can either walk away, or do something (e.g. try to stop the robber or call the police). That example is pretty clear cut. The robber is breaking the law. But what if the witnessed action isn't against the law? For a second example, if you witness someone acting rude to a passenger on a subway, and maybe that action is saying a racial slur to another passenger. The choice then is to either say something and stand up for what you think is wrong or quietly go back to reading your paper. Some people I've talked to say it's not a choice to act, it's your duty to act. For a third example, a citizen feeling a public official has wronged society (e.g. congress has passed a questionable law). The choice is to say something (e.g. write a letter, make a phone call) or just quietly keep to yourself. The question is, when does a choice to act become a duty to act? When it's just a choice, you can avoid taking action without judgement of others; when it's your duty, other will judge your lack of action poorly. When does your lack of action become judgeable by others?
Thomas Pogge
April 5, 2008
(changed April 5, 2008)
Permalink
This question is difficult to answer in general terms because a number of quite different considerations bear on it. The six most important, perhaps, are these:
1. the magnitude of the impending harm
2. the number of people who would share responsibility for the harm if it came about and, for each... Read more
I am not here to be boastful or arrogant, but here is the thing: if I walk down the street and see someone "checking-me-out", is it morally wrong for me to feel flattered because of this?
Thomas Pogge
April 5, 2008
(changed April 5, 2008)
Permalink
The predicate "morally wrong" seems to require a victim: someone who is morally wronged. This could by an animal or members of future generations. But, in your case, there's no one to whom a wrong is being done.
The same seems true for any and all feelings we might have: Our feelings do not harm o... Read more
If you were to build an introductory philosophy course for community college kids, would you choose to focus more on the philosophers and their theories or would you focus more on philosophical questions (what is being, is there a god, is there a soul). Which do you think would be more effective for struggling or non-traditional learners?
Lisa Cassidy
April 4, 2008
(changed April 4, 2008)
Permalink
In my experience, a good way to start an introductory course in philosophy is by topics - beginning with ethics, politics, or social philosophy. Most students will not be jazzed about epistemology, for example, from the get-go because the questions asked in that discipline will be unfamiliar. Bu... Read more
Would humans effectively eliminate most emotions given sufficient rationality? In other words, if humans became highly rational creatures then would we become less emotional?
Allen Stairs
April 4, 2008
(changed April 4, 2008)
Permalink
Only if you define "rationality" in a way that makes it opposed to emotion. But for a lot of reasons, that would be a dubious definition.
For one thing, we have reason to believe that intelligent decision-making isn't disconnected from emotions. There's been a good deal of work on this topic by ph... Read more
The laws in our societies tend to be more and more complex, both in content and amount. Nobody can be supposed to know or understand all of them. Yet, as a citizen you are obliged to know and understand all the laws. Isn't this a dilemma? /Lars
Allen Stairs
April 4, 2008
(changed April 4, 2008)
Permalink
There's the old saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse, because it's an excuse that anyone could offer and we wouldnm't know how to refute them. Legally, things are a bit more complicated. I gather that the Due Process clause of the US Constitution carves out some exceptions. If there's n... Read more
If you were to build an introductory philosophy course for community college kids, would you choose to focus more on the philosophers and their theories or would you focus more on philosophical questions (what is being, is there a god, is there a soul). Which do you think would be more effective for struggling or non-traditional learners?
Lisa Cassidy
April 4, 2008
(changed April 4, 2008)
Permalink
In my experience, a good way to start an introductory course in philosophy is by topics - beginning with ethics, politics, or social philosophy. Most students will not be jazzed about epistemology, for example, from the get-go because the questions asked in that discipline will be unfamiliar. Bu... Read more
I have a friend who is a top philosophy student. She is also one of the top English students, but bristled at the suggestion that an excellent grasp of language did, in some way, confer upon her her superior ability in conducting philosophical argument. Is this link between proficiency in the language of philosophical argument and one's ability to make philosophical argument too tenuous? Or is philosophy like mathematics, bound by certain axiomatic rules which must be mastered and manipulated with discipline in order to authoritatively address philosophical problems(with the language of the axioms being insignificantly marginal)?
Eddy Nahmias
April 4, 2008
(changed April 4, 2008)
Permalink
It is hard to think straight about philosophical questions and it's even harder to write clearly about them. If you're like me, you've had the experience of feeling like you are thinking straight about a philosophical question, but when you try to explain it to someone or write about it, it just... Read more
My question arose from responses to questions 40 and 2062 on this site. In question 40 it was asked why something exists, rather than nothing. In question 2062 it was asked whether there are any questions which can not be philosophized about. My question is: why is the question "why is there something rather than nothing" considered a false philosophical question? Is it somehow even less answerable than all the other philosophical questions? And why does this seem to disqualify the question as being a "good" philosophical question. Thanks for the opportunity to ask this (and for your time).
Allen Stairs
April 3, 2008
(changed April 3, 2008)
Permalink
Showing that something is a pseudo-question -- what you've called a false philosophical question can be hard. Not always; "What's the difference between a duck?" is not a real question, though where I grew up, there was an answer to it ("One leg is both the same.") When the question is "Why is the... Read more