Recent Responses
Is science merely a system of universally codified opinion? Cf. Jacob Klein, Paul Feyerabend, etc.
Peter Smith
February 12, 2008
(changed February 12, 2008)
Permalink
At any one time, quite a bit of science is provisional, conjectural, and the subject of hot debate among scientists. So, rather boringly, science in general can't be said to be a system of "universally codified opinion".
I suspect, however, that the intended question is something more li... Read more
Why isn't every true proposition of the form 'Xp' tautological/analytic? If I say 'All Chairs are red', and this is true, then the proposition means '(that which is red) is red', which is a tautology. This can be said of any similar proposition. If we look at 'All bachelors are single males' (an accepted analytic statement), how is this logically different to 'All chairs are red', to mark one as 'analytic' and one as 'synthetic'?
Jasper Reid
February 11, 2008
(changed February 11, 2008)
Permalink
According to my dictionary, the word 'bachelor' means 'an unmarried man'. That's why the statement 'all bachelors are unmarried' is analytic, because the status of being unmarried is built into the meaning of 'bachelor'. Now, when I look up the word 'chair' in my dictionary, it tells me tha... Read more
I seen a question that went, "Can there be an event that is entirely random?" I put a little bit of thought into this and concluded that the "Big Bang" theory, about the fact that the singularity became the universe (which is explained in the opening chapters of Bill Bryson's _A Short History Of Nearly Everything_) must be the only ever event that was random because no one can say why it happened and why it did not simply stay as a singularity forever. I still don't know if that is right because it wouldn't be classed as staying in that state "forever" as time did not exist. But it can be argued that it was not an event as it was the thing (if it can be referred to as a thing) that created time, on which events are obviously based. Also, if this is true wouldn't that be detrimental to the belief of free will? So this may be an answer, I'm not sure but I just wanted to know an expert's opinion on it as I am just a 17 year old student. Also I don't know if it was ok to post the title of a book on this so sorry if I shouldn't have. I also apologise because I am not very experienced about talking about these kind of things and it may seem like a child's analysis of things.
Mitch Green
February 8, 2008
(changed February 8, 2008)
Permalink
Thank you for your very good question. You have nothing to apologize for, and we're grateful to you for asking. I don't think I'll be able to respond to everything in what you ask, but here are a few thoughts:
Concerning the big bang, you write, "no one can say why it happened and why it... Read more
In my philosophy class I am told that when I am in deep meditation I can understand that I am something other than a composition of body and mind and that this something other is eternal consciousness. In meditation apparently I should experience a state of detachment from both my body and my mind and apparently in this state of detachment I will realsise that I am observing my body and my mind and that this observing is proof that I am something other than my body and my mind, i.e. that I am the observer of my body and my mind and this is proof that I the observer am eternal consciousness. I find this reasoning hard to accept. Surely it is just a sensation of detachment or disassociation I am feeling and cannot be reasonably be accepted as proof of life after death, etc.
Louise Antony
February 7, 2008
(changed February 7, 2008)
Permalink
In order to answer your question, I need to explain a distinction between two kinds of mental state: propositional attitude states, and qualitative states. A propositional attitude state is, as the name suggests, a state of having an attitude toward a proposition. Take the proposit... Read more
I am a very ordinary art teacher, one who breaks into a rash at the merest glimpse of an equation, and one who is trying to get to grips with the quantum world. Can you answer me this question about the double slit experiment? In the Double Slit experiment, why is it assumed that the particle splits and then reconverges at a point in between the two expected points, rather than a single particle merely bending and curving its trajectory to arrive at the in between point? Yours, Keith
Allen Stairs
February 7, 2008
(changed February 7, 2008)
Permalink
Hi Keith. A perfectly good question. The short answer is that any such assumption is, to put it mildly, controversial. There are respectable ways of thinking about quantum theory that look at it in more or less the way you suggest. Those ways, however, come at a price: they require us to ass... Read more
In my philosophy class I am told that when I am in deep meditation I can understand that I am something other than a composition of body and mind and that this something other is eternal consciousness. In meditation apparently I should experience a state of detachment from both my body and my mind and apparently in this state of detachment I will realsise that I am observing my body and my mind and that this observing is proof that I am something other than my body and my mind, i.e. that I am the observer of my body and my mind and this is proof that I the observer am eternal consciousness. I find this reasoning hard to accept. Surely it is just a sensation of detachment or disassociation I am feeling and cannot be reasonably be accepted as proof of life after death, etc.
Louise Antony
February 7, 2008
(changed February 7, 2008)
Permalink
In order to answer your question, I need to explain a distinction between two kinds of mental state: propositional attitude states, and qualitative states. A propositional attitude state is, as the name suggests, a state of having an attitude toward a proposition. Take the proposit... Read more
Much of philosophy seems to be concerned with one's world view and the stemming pursuit of happiness through various means, but is there any reason to strive for happiness? Other than the fact that we all want it, just because humans want it, is that the only reason we strive for it? Because, if so, there are other things that we are built do which we should theoretically strive for, is not our desire for happiness just as valid? Is there any reason not to live in pain, other than the fact that it creates unpleasant memories? Is that not a rather weak reason for existence (simply to create pleasant memories or because that is what we have evolved to do)?
Nicholas D. Smith
March 6, 2008
(changed March 6, 2008)
Permalink
The ancient Greeks are among those who are often said to claim that happiness is the "ultimate aim" of human life, but one reason scholars have insisted that this is misleading is indicated to some degree in the question here. The actual word in Greek that is usually translated as "happiness... Read more
My friend and I were debating about what is considered cheating and what would simply be considered unethical behavior. Suppose two people (call them A and B) were in a weight loss competition. Every Monday the two of them would weigh-in, and the first person to reach the target weight goal would win the contest. Let's assume that this is a friendly competition and the real objective for both participants was weight loss. Both of us agreed that the following would clearly be cheating: a) Prior to weigh-in, A alters the mechanics of the scale resulting in a win for himself. b) A slips some weight-gain contents into B's food without anyone knowing. And, we both agreed that the following would not be cheating: c) A tells B that he has been eating a lot of fatty foods and has not been exercising lately. A has actually been eating healthy meals and also has been hitting the gym daily. The lie was told with the intention of lowering the sense of urgency and reduce the effort put forth by B. Now, here is where we had a disagreement. What if A invites B to get some fat-free coffee, but earlier in the day, A paid off the coffee barista so that B's "fat-free" coffee would actually include real creme and not skim milk? B accepts A's invitation, but he knows full well that they are in the middle of a competition. Would this be cheating on A's part, or would this merely constitute unethical behavior? How is this different than bluffing in poker or hustling someone in pool via sandbagging? Are b) and c) from above clearly different?
Allen Stairs
February 3, 2008
(changed February 3, 2008)
Permalink
There are two sorts of questions here, I think. The first is the one you're actually asking: does the trick with the barista count as cheating – as a violation of the rules that define the game – and not just as doing something wrong? The second question is what settles questions like this.... Read more
Human beings have evolved similar physical attributes over time. Though there is some genetic variation among individuals, we share many traits. But isn't it also possible that, as a result of our common evolutionary heritage, we share similar emotional and moral traits as well? If we all have basically similar emotional machinery, why couldn't we appeal to the general constellation of desires that most of us share, and use them to construct a universal ethics? If the good is what makes us happy, and happiness is the fulfillment of various desires, and if humans have similar desires because we share evolved mental traits, then why couldn't an appeal to those traits in the search for moral agreement? Just as medical experts can give general advice about physical health because most humans share similar physical bodies, why can't psychologists and ethicists give general advice about morality based upon our shared mental traits?
Allen Stairs
February 2, 2008
(changed February 2, 2008)
Permalink
We do have a lot in common psychologically, and all of that matters when we're trying to decide what's right and wrong. And the more we know about the psychological effects of how we treat people, the more information we'll have to feed into our ethical decisions. Psychologists have relev... Read more
I accept that one does not need a religious belief to be 'moral'. But is there any good reason, in the absence of religious belief, why one should want, need or have to be 'moral' as opposed to being immoral? In case this should lead to a debate about the meaning of the word 'moral' or a diversion into the law, neither of which are behind my question, may I arbitrarily focus on morality being confined to the single simple example of not stealing and that the being (or the fear of being) caught be ignored.
Matthew Silverstein
February 1, 2008
(changed February 1, 2008)
Permalink
Click here for my response to a similar question.
Log in to post comments