Recent Responses
I have a bit of a problem. I don't know how to talk about stupidity, or how I should think about really stupid people. In fact, already I'm having problems asking this question, because the word 'stupid' is so loaded with negative meaning, and I can't help but feel like it's mostly true. But liberal democracy seems to depend on everyone being valued equally and their rights and opinions being respected. So, I know an extremely dumb guy in my town who's lonely. If I treated him as an equal, I probably wouldn't be friends with him because he's got various character flaws. But if I treat him like an unfortunate product of nature, of course I'd be more sympathetic. So, should I go see him or not?
Allen Stairs
December 3, 2007
(changed December 3, 2007)
Permalink
I've been mulling over your question for a while, and I'm of various minds about what to say.
On the one hand, there's an interesting issue here. Sometimes we think of some people as less than fully human. We hold our usual attitudes in abeyance because we think that -- either temporarily or... Read more
Isn't a philosopher's adoption of a certain style of philosophy grounded more in the personal psychology of the philosopher than in a coolly-taken intellectual decision? So when philosophers debate, we are witnessing what is fundamentally, despite all the fine verbal distinctions, a battle of temperaments.
Allen Stairs
December 3, 2007
(changed December 3, 2007)
Permalink
I guess my first question would be whether "style of philosophy" refers to something like "way of approaching issues" or to something more like specific philosophical views. It may not matter, however. In either case it's no doubt true that temperamental factors play a role in what we think... Read more
How do we know we are not a computer program? In other words, some kind of video game? I know of the the brain in a vat argument but why suppose we have a brain at all? What if our "mind" is a computer only running a "human program" or some such thing? What if all sensation is just data in a computer and all "WE" are is just data in a computer? Any problems with this argument?
Richard Heck
December 2, 2007
(changed December 2, 2007)
Permalink
It's not obvious what the argument is here. Are we trying to argue that we actually are just avatars in a computer simulation? If so, then the argument seems pretty weak. Are we trying to argue that we don't know that we're not avatars in a computer simulation? Then., again, one wants to kno... Read more
Abigail and Brittany Hensel, born 1990, midwest USA A very rare, dicephalus pair, they have separate heads and necks, but share one torso and a pair of legs. Each has her own heart and stomach, and controls the limbs and feels sensation exclusively on her own side. They share three lungs and, below the waist, a single set of organs. Physically they move as one, in perfect co-ordination. Mentally they are independent, with different preferences and abilities. Their parents are opposed to separation, which would be highly dangerous. Even if successful, the girls would be left severely disabled, and unable to enjoy walking, running, swimming and bike riding which, together, they can do easily. I am a Cartesian Dualist - I think! Does this situation above not solve the Mind/Body, Mind/Brain problem?
Richard Heck
December 2, 2007
(changed December 2, 2007)
Permalink
I think I'm confused. The two girls have two brains---one each. So I don't see any threat here to mind--brain identity.
There is something philosophically interesting about the fact that the girls, together, can ride a bike, etc, using their shared torso, etc, and I'd be interested to hear... Read more
I have a little theory about universal causation that I wanted to put in my personal statement and I was hoping someone could tell me if it was a coherent concept or just nonsense. What I plan to write is as follows; "Should my pre-determined future consist of my attending university, I needn’t bother writing this personal statement, as that inevitability will insure my presence regardless of my individual efforts, yet should I be determined to avoid university, then I also needn’t bother finishing this sentence." Any response would be appreciated. Thanks.
Jasper Reid
December 1, 2007
(changed December 1, 2007)
Permalink
First of all, I'm inclined to say that, if I was to read that in someone's university application, I would rather admire the applicant, not only for their boldness but also for the evidence it would provide that they were the kind of person who just naturally approached things in a philosophi... Read more
Hello, I have to do a report on women philosophers and I really am having a problem finding someone to do my report on. Does anyone know any notable women philosophers I could do my report on?
Jasper Reid
November 30, 2007
(changed November 30, 2007)
Permalink
It is a fact, as inescapable as it is unfortunate, that female philosophers have generally been eclipsed by the men, over the millennia. But there have been a fair few women who have done good stuff in philosophy.
Someone from the ancient period, often cited by people searching for such fig... Read more
Is mathematics somehow "scientific"? Let me explain. There is a sense in which scientific theories are ad hoc. We have a set of relevant observations, and we try to formulate a theory which (1) accounts for all of them and (2) is parsimonious. A theory here is just an explanatory principle tailored to capture the data we want. What we don't do is deduce scientific theories from foundational principles. Axioms in math often strike me as very much like this. The only difference is that the "data" or "observations" of interest here are our intuitions about mathematics (e.g., that A+B=B+A). When I look at the axioms of ZF set theory (for example), I don't see where they're supposed to be coming from; rather, they're just one ad hoc way of justifying propositions we feel must be justified. Isn't there something weird, though, about tweaking one's axioms to fit one's intuitions?
Richard Heck
November 30, 2007
(changed November 30, 2007)
Permalink
There are different ways of approaching axiomatization. One is more "top down". You have a pretty good idea what the truths are about a particular subject matter, and the problem is to find some reasonably managable set of principles from which those truths all follow. Axiomatizations of l... Read more
I have a friend who is a top philosophy student. She is also one of the top English students, but bristled at the suggestion that an excellent grasp of language did, in some way, confer upon her her superior ability in conducting philosophical argument. Is this link between proficiency in the language of philosophical argument and one's ability to make philosophical argument too tenuous? Or is philosophy like mathematics, bound by certain axiomatic rules which must be mastered and manipulated with discipline in order to authoritatively address philosophical problems(with the language of the axioms being insignificantly marginal)?
Eddy Nahmias
April 4, 2008
(changed April 4, 2008)
Permalink
It is hard to think straight about philosophical questions and it's even harder to write clearly about them. If you're like me, you've had the experience of feeling like you are thinking straight about a philosophical question, but when you try to explain it to someone or write about it, it just... Read more
Why is it thought morally right to kill an animal to end their suffering yet morally wrong to kill a human to end their suffering?
Allen Stairs
November 29, 2007
(changed November 29, 2007)
Permalink
There's clearly an enormous amount that could be said about this, but here are a few thoughts.
Suppose that some person is suffering, and to avoid certain complications, suppose that there's no "cure" for their pain. Now suppose that the person actually wants us to take his life. (Imagine... Read more
Hello, I have to do a report on women philosophers and I really am having a problem finding someone to do my report on. Does anyone know any notable women philosophers I could do my report on?
Jasper Reid
November 30, 2007
(changed November 30, 2007)
Permalink
It is a fact, as inescapable as it is unfortunate, that female philosophers have generally been eclipsed by the men, over the millennia. But there have been a fair few women who have done good stuff in philosophy.
Someone from the ancient period, often cited by people searching for such fig... Read more