Recent Responses
Would Aristotle argue that torturing babies is evil in itself, and is not a virtue to be learned?
Nicholas D. Smith
February 21, 2008
(changed February 21, 2008)
Permalink
For Aristotle, actions were indicative of virtue (or vice), but not right or wrong in themselves. That is why, as most sscholars say these days, Aristotle's was a virtue theory rather than a theory of ethical (or moral) action. So I think the answer to your question is that Aristotl... Read more
I would like to find a scholarly article which sheds light on the question whether Socrates' statement "know yourself" has indeed been adopted from the work of Heraclitus.
Nicholas D. Smith
February 21, 2008
(changed February 21, 2008)
Permalink
I am not aware of a scholarly argument of the sort you are seeking. In my view, Socrates got this from the inscription of the same words at the Shrine at Delphi. Another of these inscriptions at Delphi was also quite "Socratic": "Nothing in Excess."
Log in to po... Read more
There are billons of people on this earth, and yet so many people proclaim that they have found their one-and-only soul mate. Is it reasonable of them to say that if they haven't met everyone on the earth? Is there really such a thing as a "soul mate"? If not, then is it safe to assume that people simply settle for what is within their reach and then redefine what love means to them?
Nicholas D. Smith
February 21, 2008
(changed February 21, 2008)
Permalink
The idea of a "soul mate" probably has its origins in the speech Plato gives to Aristophanes in the Symposium, where originally human beings were combined, but then later separated by Zeus. This is a mythical explanation of how we look for our "other half." My huncch is that much of... Read more
Is it possible to have an opinion on something and not have a bias in any way? Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example. If I were to research both sides extensively, learning every single fact I could from every single possible source, then find that one side was clearly in the wrong most of the time. Could I say "Israel is in the wrong more than the Palestinians" without having a Palestinian bias? And furthermore, what does the word "bias" entail? What is its meaning?
Emma Borg
February 21, 2008
(changed February 21, 2008)
Permalink
I haven't checked my dictionary but I take it that a 'bias' is a favouring of one party over another that is not based on the facts of the matter - it is akin to a prejudice against one party. So I think that if you could discover that X had behaved wrongly more times than Y the judgement tha... Read more
The phrase "You must forgive" is often bandied about - especially in religious teachings. Surely this is not fair - the wrong-doer has an entitlement from the wronged? What if the wronged is unable to forgive? Is forgiveness an emotion?
Kalynne Pudner
February 21, 2008
(changed February 21, 2008)
Permalink
There is a lot of really interesting philosophical work currently being done in the area of forgiveness (in fact, the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Catholic Philosophical Association next November is planned around the theme of forgiveness; and its consideration won't be limited to... Read more
Is there a logical contradiction with the notion of having two or more minds? What if it is intelligible that there are two or more minds and that you're the only "self" that is existing but you got so lonely that you created an elaborate delusion (that other minds exist) so that you can escape your loneliness? (Solipsism.) Is the plurality of minds/selves a coherent concept?
Allen Stairs
February 17, 2008
(changed February 17, 2008)
Permalink
I wasn't entirely sure how many issues were on the table here. Your first question seemed to be whether it's contradictory to say that one person has two minds. But as your question continued, the issue seemed to be whether it's possible in general for there to be more than one mind.
Ther... Read more
How can I achieve the level of philosophical know-how and thinking ability that the philosophers of this site and the famous philosophers throughout history have had? Must I simply read many works of philosophers of the past, does the philosophical mind come with becoming more educated, or is there something else - a thought process or state of mind I must develop? Or is it an innate quality that people get at birth? I am eager to know because I have been reading much philosophical work lately and I very strongly desire to be a philosopher. and I want to write a book. Thanks, Jake - 15 yr. old
Peter Smith
February 17, 2008
(changed February 17, 2008)
Permalink
Well, Jake, it is flattering that you put the philosophers on this site on the same level as the famous philosophers of the past! But I don't think we quite deserve that. And maybe, indeed, what separates us from those all-time greats is some quality of mind that we're never going to acquir... Read more
Is logic justifiable without logic?
Alexander George
February 17, 2008
(changed February 17, 2008)
Permalink
See Question 442.
Log in to post comments
If our brains evolved to be predisposed to logical fallacies like post hoc ergo propter hoc for beneficial reasons (for example, it has been suggested that susceptibility to post hoc ergo propter hoc aids in the learning of inferences), then might people be harmed if they are trained to overcome (even partially) these predispositions, as teaching them philosophy might do? Should tests be devised for the abilities that those logical fallacies enhance, so that there is a way to determine if training is harmful?
Peter Smith
February 16, 2008
(changed February 16, 2008)
Permalink
Philosophy departments like to tell themselves (and their funding bodies!) that the study of philosophy distinctively makes their students better all-round thinkers -- in the fashionable jargon, our courses deliver special "transferable skills".
Actually, that strikes me as really a rather... Read more
Could someone ever be considered significantly responsible for another's suicide? I don't mean to include cases in which, e.g., someone gives a weapon to an unstable person. The person I have in mind causes severe emotional distress to another person who ultimately kills herself.
Kalynne Pudner
February 15, 2008
(changed February 15, 2008)
Permalink
Yes, though I wouldn't want to have to adjudicate responsibility in a particular case.
Here's the philosophical principle I've got in mind: If a person A provides sufficient motivation for person B to commit an act, then A might be responsible for B's act. If A intended to provide suff... Read more