Recent Responses
Hi, I am interested in taking a post-graduate philosophy program (MA or Doctorate) in Vietnam. It has been nearly impossible to get any information about the programs, and sometimes the pages of the university don't translate into English. I do not speak Vietnamese. I was wondering if you can give me any advice into the English-language speaking philosophy programs that Vietnam offers? Can you direct me anywhere where I can find this information? Thanks for your help! -Nadia
Sally Haslanger
February 26, 2008
(changed February 26, 2008)
Permalink
I don't know anything about Anglophone philosophy programs in Vietnam, but I would guess that if the websites don't have English translations, the program isn't an Anglophone program. If you are interested in translations, one way to find a translator is to advertise on Craig's List.... 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
To understand something you need to rely on your own experience and culture. Does this mean that it is impossible to have an objective knowledge?
Peter Smith
February 25, 2008
(changed February 25, 2008)
Permalink
The short answer is "no".
It might take "experience" and "culture" (in a broad sense) to understand some sentence or other representation M. But it certainly doesn't follow from this that we can't know (as "objectively" as you like) whether M is correct.
For a stark illustration of the poi... Read more
Is it right to make glib statements such as "You must vote"? My elderly mother took this statement to heart and voted in a referendum although she was uncertain at the time which way to vote. After she had voted she was very unsettled because she felt that she might have made the wrong decision - but she voted because she felt that it would be more wrong not to vote than to make the wrong selection when voting. ("You must vote" signs posted throughout the country - at the behest of the Government.)
Douglas Burnham
February 24, 2008
(changed February 24, 2008)
Permalink
This points to an interesting moral question concerning the formulation of moral rules. It seems to me that your question concerns over-simplified (you call them 'glib') moral rules. The assumption (by those who authorised the signs) must be that the rule holds good most of the time, or... Read more
When there is no clear solution to an issue, it would seem to me that assessing risks would be the most reasonable way of dealing with it. In the case of abortion we risk a mother losing the civil right to address her pregnancy within her own moral reasoning, verses a child losing its fundamental right to live. The latter risk seems more pressing and with greater consequence. Can a struggle for justice be assessed upon risk?
Peter Smith
February 23, 2008
(changed February 23, 2008)
Permalink
Just one comment, not really on the main thrust of Allen's response, but on his remark "Some people see the death of a fetus -- even a very early-stage fetus -- as the moral equivalent of the death of a full-fledged person such as you or I."
I think it is much more accurate to say that some... Read more
Let's say that by positing the existence of some unobservable entities (e.g., strings), we can form theories which reliably predict observable behavior. Does the success of such theories provide evidence that the posited entities actually EXIST? Or is the significance of such entities merely heuristic?
Peter Smith
February 23, 2008
(changed February 23, 2008)
Permalink
Ian Hacking, in his very readable book Representing and Intervening, describes an experiment done by a friend which involved changing the electrical charge on a minuscule ball of niobium. And how was that done, he asked? His friend said "Well, we spray it with positrons to increase the char... Read more
If we consider the possibility of superior life forms and the possibility of their interference of our own human species for their own gain, and then looking back at our own treatment of animals (inferior species), are Zoos ethical?
Allen Stairs
February 22, 2008
(changed February 22, 2008)
Permalink
A nice question. The thought is something this: there might be creatures out there who are as intellectually advanced when compared to us as we are when compared to, say, three-toed sloths. If it would be wrong for those creatures to exploit us in various ways, doesn't this at least raise... Read more
When there is no clear solution to an issue, it would seem to me that assessing risks would be the most reasonable way of dealing with it. In the case of abortion we risk a mother losing the civil right to address her pregnancy within her own moral reasoning, verses a child losing its fundamental right to live. The latter risk seems more pressing and with greater consequence. Can a struggle for justice be assessed upon risk?
Peter Smith
February 23, 2008
(changed February 23, 2008)
Permalink
Just one comment, not really on the main thrust of Allen's response, but on his remark "Some people see the death of a fetus -- even a very early-stage fetus -- as the moral equivalent of the death of a full-fledged person such as you or I."
I think it is much more accurate to say that some... Read more
I cannot understand how things move. Consider the leading point of a pool ball: for the ball to move, that leading point has to dematerialise from Point A and materialise at Point B. When I attempt to explain this to others, they invariably respond with something along the lines of 'But it just moves a small distance'. This is what causes me a problem because, regardless of the distance moved, small or large, the leading edge of the pool ball must be in one place at one moment, and the next moment, it is in a different place. What else can this be other than dematerialisation / materialisation. Which, as I understand, is not possible. So how do things move?
Jasper Reid
February 21, 2008
(changed February 21, 2008)
Permalink
I shall begin with a 'philosophical' kind of answer, the kind of answer that philosophers ever since Aristotle's time might have given. (Indeed, it is closely related to the answers that Aristotle himself gave to Zeno's paradoxes of motion. Perhaps you're already familiar with those paradox... Read more
Nowadays the things I thought and said when I was younger seem to be silly and I am ashamed for it. On the other side we admire the child's purity. So is it the education or our origin which is "good"? Why are we educated when everyone loves children and their attitudes?
Nicholas D. Smith
February 21, 2008
(changed February 21, 2008)
Permalink
First, I would advise you to let go of the shame you feel for what you thought or said when you were younger. We can all look back and wince at such things, but this is part of growing up and (we hope) gaining some wisdom along the way.
I, for one, do not admire what you call "the ch... Read more