Recent Responses
I am trying to decide what profession to go into. What I mind is that I should act in a way which is best for reducing the unbearable suffering of some people. I want become a doctor. I would make a good doctor. But then an argument occurs to me: If I don't become a doctor, someone else, probably equally good, will do the job I would have done. Therefore, it doesn't matter what I do. Perhaps I should become a banker, and then I can give more to charity. Is there something wrong with the argument?
Thomas Pogge
December 14, 2007
(changed December 14, 2007)
Permalink
Nearly all the unbearable suffering in this world occurs among the poorer half of humankind which, collectively, accounts for about 2.4 percent of global consumption and 1.1 percent of global wealth. Are doctors lining up to relieve this suffering? Actually, the opposite is the case. Many... Read more
Do philosophers change language or does language change how philosophers think? I wonder about this when considering how attitudes change to certain things such as treatment of criminals or aspects of Human Rights. For example "Police Force" tends to be "Police Service"- sounds a bit nicer- and "Industrial Action" sounds nicer and more professional than "Strike Action". In human relations the word "Gay" has been introduced to describe homosexuals and lesbians. That seems to give a better impression although why that should be necessary given that most people accept that heterosexual does not need any other description is a mystery. The supreme example of word change is "Termination with extreme prejudice" for "Assasination"!! followed by "Rendition" for "Kidnapping". I have just read _I am, therefore I think_ and noticed that most references to people were female. An exception was in the chapter on the Environment page 104, where the example refers to a female police officer and the criminal is male!! Does that say it all in this day and age!! Sorry this has gone on a bit long. I am new to Philosophy and find the subject fascinating. Brian K.
Oliver Leaman
December 13, 2007
(changed December 13, 2007)
Permalink
It is indeed interesting how we often choose euphemisms when we want to view something in a more positive light, and vice versa. Language certainly plays a significant role in how we think of things, and we ourselves have the power to shape language to a degree by refusing to use certain... Read more
I understand that Socrates went along with a death sentence because he believed it right to obey the laws of the country even when they were unjust. He had ample opportunity to escape into exile, and his friends encouraged him to do this, but he said no. Aristotle was a Macedonian. With the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC there was very strong anti-Macedonian feeling in Athens. Aristotle became a target and he sought asylum in Chalcis. He did it because he did not want comply with what would have been an unjust law/judicial process and 'to prevent the people of Athens sinning a second time against philosophy' (Socrates being the first victim). So, did Aristotle think Socrates was virtuous in not taking up the opportunity to go into exile? Is it not also virtuous to find ways of surviving?
Oliver Leaman
December 13, 2007
(changed December 13, 2007)
Permalink
I don't think Socrates thought the laws in Athens were unjust so much as that on this particular occasion they had been improperly applied. He refused to escape because he was in principle in agreement with Athenian culture and felt that he was therefore obliged to go along with its disad... Read more
Sometimes I'll be writing a paper late at night, and my words will appear perfectly lucid to my sleep-addled brain; but the next day, after I've gotten some rest, I realize that it's all gibberish. Is clarity an objective quality? Is it possible for someone to think that a piece of language is clear, and be wrong?
Oliver Leaman
December 13, 2007
(changed December 13, 2007)
Permalink
It is not only possible, but a common experience. Clarity is very much in the eye of the beholder, and we often think we are being clear but we are not. I used to have a colleague with chauvinist tendencies who would read his work out to his wife, and if she understood it, he claimed he k... Read more
I have a theory which I would like to develop. I was wondering if it is possible that all human perception could differ from person to person. My reasoning is, if you are born into this world a seeing, hearing, smelling, feeling, tasting individual, your senses learn to describe different perceptible things form that very time. The problem with this is, is that each individual has parents, who also had parents, who had parents and so on. If I was born, and I saw a completely different world, or tasted things very differently, I wouldn't be able to communicate these things because every description I can provide is synonymous to what it is called. For example. If I am looking at what is called an apple, I see a round, object with a stem. For the sake of argument it will be a red apple. The thing is, I could be seeing a spinning vortex, but because this is how I have always perceived things, I describe it at a red apple. I suppose this isn't a question, but what do you think?
Joseph Levine
December 13, 2007
(changed December 13, 2007)
Permalink
Your view about the possibility that people perceive things radically differently is an old philosophical puzzle. The so-called "inverted spectrum" hypothesis is the most common variant. Assuming that color space is organized symmetrically, so that one can switch primary colors like red... Read more
Hello, I hope you bear with my question despite its Jerry Springer-like context. My boyfriend tells me he has occasional sex with other women in a way that “doesn’t change anything between us.” We’re in a long-distance relationship that is also new, and so far he has demonstrated his loyalty to me whenever another woman advances a claim on him in my presence. I find it impossible to find a rational objection to his having sex with others in such a situation because in substance, if not form, fidelity seems to be present. Yet I am bothered tremendously by his having sex with others. Though promiscuity while being in a relationship is an old and frequently arising issue, in my experience people increasingly seek to deal with it through “full disclosure” that is supposed to enable us to grant or withdraw consent to such an arrangement. The merits of such an approach are realism and honesty, and my particular situation seems to be the scenario in which consent cannot be rationally denied. So how can I make sense of my unwillingness nevertheless?
Andrew N. Carpenter
December 12, 2007
(changed December 12, 2007)
Permalink
I agree with you that honesty in a relationship to preferable to deception, but I disagree with your suggestion that that chosing not to raise your disapproval of your boyfriend's actions amounts to a virtuous realism that acknowledges how hard it is for a committed couple to remain... Read more
First, thanks for this great website. I was talking to a friend about Descartes and Cogito and it revived my curiosity in the subject. Most of us would agree that there is an objective world out there. Is there a way to prove it? How can I prove to my self that I am not the only thing that exists? I thought perhaps because there is an order in the things around me, in which I have no will. I can not change the laws that the things around me obey, wether they are objective or part of my imagination. Does this force me to admit then that the things I perceive are objective? I could definitely use some help. I would like to read more in the subject as well so if somebody could give me ideas and refer me to some books, it would be great. Thanks in advance. Alejandro
Andrew N. Carpenter
December 12, 2007
(changed December 12, 2007)
Permalink
As Saul's response makes clear, Descartes' own reasoning seems to rely heavily on his argument for the existence of God. I think that few today would accept that argument, and so although studying Descartes closely would doubtless be interesting it may not give you a satisfactory a... Read more
I used to think that we needed language to think but then babies and animals can think and they don't have a language. I then came to the conclusion that they may not have a verbal language like ours but they use their other senses to have a language and that's why they can think. So would it be possible for a person who had none of the five senses to think? And if we use our senses to think, do plants think? Plants have senses so can they can think to some extent?
Andrew N. Carpenter
December 12, 2007
(changed December 12, 2007)
Permalink
It is true that many types of things are repond in systematically recognizable and conistent ways to changes in their environment: including people, other animals, other types of organisms like plants, other living things like cells, and indeed non-living things like thermometers.... Read more
For giving the students a good picture of a branch of philosophy are classic authors' text, specially very hard ones, replaceable by secondary literature or not?
Andrew N. Carpenter
December 12, 2007
(changed December 12, 2007)
Permalink
My experience is that manybeginning students can learn and grow a lot by engaging intensively with primary texts. This engagement is difficult for students and their instructors, but when it occurs it is extremely intellectually rewarding.
One of my earliest memories of a student wa... Read more
This question pertains to philosophical education or philosophical pedagogy: Even though I do not hold any degrees in philosophy (I hold undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science), I believe that philosophy should constitute one of the foundations of higher education. It is impossible, I believe, to be truly educated without a sound background in philosophy and logic. To this end, I have always believed that with the wonderful emergence of new technologies it should be incumbent upon every capable institution of higher learning to seek to disseminate such core foundations. This can be done, with remarkable ease these days, through distance learning. However, with the exception of a very small number of philosophy departments associated with certain universities, most departments of philosophy look upon distance learning, seemingly, with great loathing. Furthermore, the thought of actually establishing distance degree programs in philosophy (whether at the undergraduate or graduate level) is considered absurd. How do I know this? Because I received my Masters degree in political science from Virginia Tech -- online. Immediately following this educational experience -- a truly wonderful educational experience -- I queried a large number of departments of philosophy, asking why there were no online courses or online programs. I was greeted with great disdain for even asking the question. (Exceptions to this include Oxford University's beginnings in online philosophy courses, as well as the University of Illinois (Springfield) who has sought to develop an undergraduate degree (available online) in philosophy. Harvard University also offers one philosophy course -- available online -- each semester through their Extension division. I had the great pleasure of completing this online course (in metaphysics) a short while ago.) With so many homes and workplaces connected to high-speed/broadband Internet, and with the combination of online and on-campus (periodic/brief) residencies, the further development of undergraduate or graduate programs in philosophy (online) is certainly a viable option. (Especially when one considers the fact that as it pertains to "adult education," it is often tremendously difficult for individuals who are presently established in one locale (most often in association with their occupation) to be able to pick up and move their entire family to the on-campus situation. This is absolutely true in my case.) My question is: why do departments of philosophy find even the suggestion of online learning so disagreeable? Is there no hope for the further development of online philosophy courses and degree programs? Thanks in advance for all responses!
Andrew N. Carpenter
December 11, 2007
(changed December 11, 2007)
Permalink
My sense is that distrust of online learning has faded signficantly overall, andthat suspicion about this type of education ("loathing" seems toostrong, at least in my experience) among philosophers has eased somewhat in recent years.
Thatsaid, I think you are right to suggest tha... Read more