Recent Responses
Are rainbows real? That is, do they exist unperceived?
Peter Smith
March 4, 2008
(changed March 4, 2008)
Permalink
The Guinness Book of Records says (or at any rate, used to say) that the world’s longest lasting rainbow was continuously visible over Sheffield for some six hours on 14 March 1994. Here's a picture (I had an office in the Arts Tower at the time which is why I know about it!)
Now, did the Book of R... Read more
How can time really exist? If you think about it, threre is an immeasurably short time which is the present which is ever changing. It is commonly accepted that that which cannot be measured cannot physically exsist. I think that we understand the present the way we do because of the past, and predict the future due to the past and present. But, there is effectively no actual past or future. The present doesn't even exist because the point in which it exists is so brief that by the time we perceive its existence, it is part of the past, which is impossible. So, how can time really exist?
Jasper Reid
March 4, 2008
(changed March 4, 2008)
Permalink
I'd go along with Peter Smith's answer, but I figured I'd just take the occasion to point you in the direction of a couple of classic discussions in this area, which you might be interested in following up. First, your question is startlingly close to a problem raised by Saint Augustine at the end... Read more
It would seem to me that I don't have to have ever witnessed a particular phenomena to be able to recognize evidence of it. For example, if I were to see a set of footprints in the sand, and on every left footstep there's a small hole, I might explain this finding by hypothesizing a person walking across the beach with a nail stuck in their shoe. Of course I understand that it could be explained in an other way, but if that was actually what had happened and I'd never before seen a person walking with a nail in their shoe then I'd have recognized evidence of something that I'd never seen before. But I have experienced footprints and nails before so perhaps I'm mistaken. My question then is, Is it possible to recognize evidence of something I've absolutely no experience whatsoever of? And what are the implications to the idea of sense data being evidence of the external world (if our only evidence of the external world is our sense data, how can we hypothesize an external world to explain such data when we've never experienced it...if you catch my drift)? Wouldn't we then be using the very thing that we're attempting to explain as the only evidence for the explanation?
Allen Stairs
March 2, 2008
(changed March 2, 2008)
Permalink
Let's start with the more general question: is it possible to recognize evidence of something that we had no experience of before? The answer seems pretty clearly to be yes, since we've frequently found good reasons to believe in various such things. We have evidence for black holes, for example.... Read more
Can a philosopher please help us understand why it is so painful when someone you acknowledge disregards you in turn? Thanks, from South Africa.
Allen Stairs
March 1, 2008
(changed March 1, 2008)
Permalink
Sorry you've been having this sort of experience. And the amount of time it took for any of us to reply may give you the same sort of feeling you were asking about. But let me at least start with a possibly lame excuse. It sounds like what you want to know may be something more in the realm of psy... Read more
How can one determine authenticity and authoritativeness? For example, how would you gauge the authenticity of the panelists' responses? Does studying philosophy give the panelists anymore authority to issues like abortion, love, or education than the "average" non-philosopher? Is there not a little ego in that notion?
Allen Stairs
February 28, 2008
(changed February 28, 2008)
Permalink
I have a little ego, so I'll offer a little answer.
I agree completely: it's not necessary to have studied philosophy to be able to say sane, sensible things about abortion, love, education and so on. Indeed, it would be very bad news if being able to think well about those sorts of thin... Read more
I know it is considered an abuse of free speech to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But, should it also be considered an abuse of free speech to shout "Satan!" in a crowded fundamentalist church (supposing, for argument's sake, that doing so would engender a similar response)? How much does the universality or non-universality of the mindset of the people affected determine the wrongness of this action? A similar, but more personal situation is that my father, a WWII veteran, suffered from "shell shock" (a type of post-traumatic stress), yet a neighbor thought it amusing to set of loud fireworks not far from our house on Independence Day even after being informed of the distress it caused, and cited his right (probably a speech-related right) to do so. Are we obligated to take into account non-universal mindsets when determining if the right to free speech applies? What properties of certain mindsets in such cases would give them priority over free speech rights? The Danish cartoon case is the current motivation for my asking these questions.
Oliver Leaman
February 28, 2008
(changed February 28, 2008)
Permalink
I think the difference between the Danish cartoons and your father's relationship with the fireworks is based on the traditional liberal distinction between harm and offense. Your father was harmed by the fireworks and it was wrong of your neighbor to let them off. People may be offended... Read more
I am in love (or as convinced of it as I've ever been), but the woman I love is my best friend. This situation leaves me in emotional ruin after every time we see each other. I am sure that she is not romantically interested in me. What I need to know is: to what extent am I obligated to make my feelings clear to her, even if doing so runs the risk of damaging our friendship?
Oliver Leaman
February 28, 2008
(changed February 28, 2008)
Permalink
I don't think you are in any way obligated to make your feelings known, since we are not obliged to tell someone we know everything we think about them. For example, there might be things about a person who is a friend yet which we do not like, and we are not obliged to make this known to... Read more
I have responsibility for planning long range infrastructure at a state level. The subject continuously comes up of equity and fairness in the setting of priorities. If the most equitable and sustainable solution for the future of all citizens requires some citizens currently to have less equity or do with less now: is this temporal inequity justified or fair, for the superior sustainable equity for all in the future? On the other hand, if we are fair to all now, the future will definitely be unfair for all and worse for some.
Sally Haslanger
February 26, 2008
(changed February 26, 2008)
Permalink
As you might expect, the answer to your question depends on what conception of justice you hold. One sort of utilitarian maintains, for example, that the right distribution will be the one that maximizes the greatest amount of welfare over the long run. So it will be permissible to ha... Read more
According to Socrates "An unexamined life is not worth living." How do you examine your life? (I have examined some of my strongly held opinions and tried to make arguments for the opposite opinion and have had a modicum of success but I feel that there must be something more to the process of examining my life.)
Allen Stairs
February 26, 2008
(changed February 26, 2008)
Permalink
And... since I thoroughly agree with Peter's comments, I'll add that you can read some similar reflections by going to question 1950.
Log in to post comments
Can the well-documented placebo effect in medicine be applied to the comfort religious belief gives many? In the case of religion, should such an affect be encouraged, discouraged, or dismissed? You could argue that none of us will ever know until we die, and if we were wrong in being religious we will never know we got it wrong. If various monks or nuns in various religions (to take an extreme example of devotion) got it wrong - and some would have to have had if you subscribe to the logical view that only one religion can assure you an afterlife, what possible advice can be given? If you feel someone is wasting their life on a misguided religious quest should you just preserve silence, salute the meaning it lends their life and leave well alone? What duty do we have here, if any? Philosophers understand the points involved better than most and can see through many misconceptions in religious belief that believers are unaware of. Each-to-his-own is surely a tragic cop-out.
Sally Haslanger
February 26, 2008
(changed February 26, 2008)
Permalink
This isn't really an answer to your question but, rather, a point I find interesting about the framing of your question. (You could still ask your question in slightly different terms, of course...)
Although the idea of a "placebo effect" is common, there is actually some reason to d... Read more