Recent Responses
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
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
On a TV program tonight, a legal show, the client was a clergyman accused of indecent exposure. He admitted his guilt to the barrister, but said that he was going to plead "not guilty". The barrister replied that under these circumstances he could no longer represent the clergyman. The latter replied "Oh, when did lawyers begin to occupy the high moral ground?" The barrister replied "Probably when the Church first began to confuse morality with ethics". I sort of understand the answer but am not really clear about the distinction, and why the reply was obviously a palpable hit. Could the duty philosopher help on this? David
Allen Stairs
December 7, 2007
(changed December 7, 2007)
Permalink
Our department was having a meet-and-greet a few months ago. A man came up and said to me in a :you'd better get it right" tone of voice: "What is the difference between morality and ethics?" I told him that in my experience, philosophers don't make a sharp distinction in the way they use th... Read more
If I don't fly from London to my sister's wedding in New Zealand she will be upset, I will cause her pain and so that's morally bad. If I do fly to my sister's wedding in New Zealand I will put about four tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which will contribute to climate change, which, according to the World Health Organisation, already causes about 150,000 deaths every year. Clearly that's also morally bad. Which is the morally correct thing to do?
Thomas Pogge
December 7, 2007
(changed December 7, 2007)
Permalink
In dilemmas of this kind, always start by thinking about whether they are really inescapable. One escape in this case it to speak with your sister. If she likes New Zealand, she is unlikely to be indifferent to the environmental degradation that is already so much in evidence elsewhere. Plus... Read more
If one has the right not to be punished unless one is guilty, has one the right to the most complete and precise system of judgement, no matter how costful it might be?
Thomas Pogge
December 7, 2007
(changed December 7, 2007)
Permalink
The word "right" is generally used more broadly than this, so that rights may give way when a lot is at stake. Some philosophical literature may suggest otherwise -- people talk of rights as "side constraints" or "trumps" -- but when you look more closely, they too agree that most rights sho... Read more
Dear Philosopher(s), I would like to ask what would be Wittgenstein's view about sexuality? I'm not sure whether Wittgenstein would consider sexuality philosophically interesting. Note that I'm interested in what would be strictly Wittgenstein; NOT Wittgensteinian. Thank you for your time.
Alan Soble
December 6, 2007
(changed December 6, 2007)
Permalink
Let's see. Does this count? Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zettel #504: Love is not a feeling. Love is put to the test, pain not. One does not say:"That was not true pain, or it would not have gone off so quickly."[Liebe ist kein Gefühl. Liebe wird erprobt, Schmerzen nicht. Man sagt nicht:"Das war kein... 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
Is there a common human need for faith? If so, what alternatives are there to religion? Science? Ethics? Hugely interested by this aspect of human nature. Do we basically all need to believe in something & belong to something, however discerning and self-sufficient we may pride ourselves on being? Thank you.
Sally Haslanger
December 6, 2007
(changed December 6, 2007)
Permalink
My first thought in response is that you ar raising an empirical question about human psychology that philosophers aren't in a very good position to answer. It is very hard to tell what is true of human psychology, in general, without looking at lots of different humans in different cir... Read more
My question is following: can we estimate how many validities (formulas that are always true) are there among all formulas of propositional logic? Is there a method of doing it?
Allen Stairs
December 5, 2007
(changed December 5, 2007)
Permalink
As it turns out, the answer is easy: there are aleph-null tautologies (formulas true in every row of a truth table) in any standard system of propositional logic -- for sort, in SC (sentential calculus). Here "aleph-null" is the number of integers. Here's a sketch of a proof.
First, how many... Read more
Hello, I have reached a conclusion that is quite dangerous to my health and could lead to a lot of trouble. I need to ask someone and see if they come to the same conclusion. My question is: are you the same person you were 1 year ago or even 5 minutes ago? I figured that the self changes over time, regarding both personality and physical appearance. As you gain knowledge and change your opinion, your personality changes and you seem to be totally different then you were before. your physical appearance also changes over time, the cells in your body completely replace themselves in about 7 years (I think). Although your memory really doesnt change over time, only how you perceive this memory does, and how you perceive the world around you. To further define my question: because we are constantly changing and are becoming a new person (except for our memory which ties our life together and gives us the illusion that we are the same person) should I be living completely in the present and totally disregarding the past and future? You can see what problems this creates. Thanks you.
Jasper Reid
December 5, 2007
(changed December 5, 2007)
Permalink
Pinning down precisely wherein personal identity consists is certainly a thorny problem in philosophy, which has been debated for centuries and still seems quite far from a definitive solution. I can't promise to solve it for you, but here are a few considerations that you might find it inter... Read more