Recent Responses
Let's say I want to justify my work or vocation by citing virtue X. (X might be practical value, social utility, human happiness, etc.) Must my particular work effect virtue X, or is it sufficient that my line of work effect X generally, my personal lack of any contribution notwithstanding. For example: Let's say I'm a scientist who, despite a great deal of effort, never discovers or creates or accomplishes anything useful. Could I justify my work by saying, "Science is useful"? (After all, even if science is useful generally, nothing I've done personally is useful.) [You can imagine analogous scenarios involving any pursuit, e.g., poetry or investment banking.]
Nicholas D. Smith
November 15, 2007
(changed November 15, 2007)
Permalink
One makes career choices on the basis of many reasons (or, in some cases, rationalizations!), but surely it cannot be required that one be able to forecast the degree to which one's own activity within the profession will succeed or fail in reaching some particular goal. Of course, w... Read more
What, in summary, was Kant's objection to the Ontological argument for the existence of God.
Jasper Reid
November 15, 2007
(changed November 15, 2007)
Permalink
The Ontological Argument, in its simplest form, runs as follows: God, by definition, is infinitely perfect in every respect. One respect in which something can be perfect is by existing -- it's better to exist than not to exist -- therefore God must possess this perfection alongside all the... Read more
Is it significant that great modern philosophers like Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein were all unmarried? Is there an incompatibilty between major philosophical standing and the state of matrimony? Once a guy has savored the consolations of philosophy, does the idea of a wife leave him cold?
Saul Traiger
November 15, 2007
(changed November 15, 2007)
Permalink
When Kant was asked why he never married, he said that when he had the inclination, he lacked the means, and when he acquired the means, he no longer had the inclination.
Log in to post comments
When we say that something is "in" our memory or "in" our imagination, what does this "in" really mean? The meaning of location is not more than metaphorical, then what meaning is this?
Mitch Green
November 13, 2007
(changed November 13, 2007)
Permalink
You're surely right that the use of 'in' here is metaphorical. Instead a literal cashing out of the claim that something is in our memory might go like this: A fact is in my memory when I am able to call it up for purposes of reasoning and action. That is, something is "in" my memory ins... Read more
Is it significant that great modern philosophers like Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein were all unmarried? Is there an incompatibilty between major philosophical standing and the state of matrimony? Once a guy has savored the consolations of philosophy, does the idea of a wife leave him cold?
Saul Traiger
November 15, 2007
(changed November 15, 2007)
Permalink
When Kant was asked why he never married, he said that when he had the inclination, he lacked the means, and when he acquired the means, he no longer had the inclination.
Log in to post comments
I notice that Socrates, for all his claims to know nothing, never concedes anything to an opponent. He never stops in his tracks and says to an interlocutor, "You're right. I never thought of that! Well, that's given me second thoughts, for sure. Thank you." Apart from Wittgenstein, is there any other known case of a philosopher who has undertaken a major revision of his thoughts?
Jasper Reid
November 13, 2007
(changed November 13, 2007)
Permalink
With regard to Socrates, the thing to remember is that we're not reading his own works -- because, by all accounts, he never actually wrote any. Plato's Socratic dialogues, although they probably do have some connection with things that the historical figure of Socrates said and did, are pr... Read more
Do I have a moral responsibility to submit accurate tax returns? The Bible says, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" but it doesn't clarify what rightly belongs to Caesar. If Caesar is managing society for the benefit of a small elite or using tax money to invade smaller countries with lies as a pretext, surely some portion at least of my taxes does not rightly belong to him.
Thomas Pogge
November 12, 2007
(changed November 12, 2007)
Permalink
Most citizens, nearly all, disagree with some government expenditures. They think it's wrong to tax us for agricultural or opera subsidies, for drug rehabilitation, for foreign aid, for nuclear weapons, or a few thousand other things. Now we could all cheat on our taxes, each retaining fro... Read more
Let's say a certain group of people V, from a distant country invaded and colonized another group of people G, in the late 19th century. These people V built mansions for themselves, schools for their children, divided G's land among themselves. They then forced this population of natives to work for them, and built up a vibrant economy from this exploitation Now we are in the 21st century, all the people who invaded G are dead of old age, and their descendants are still benefiting from their father's colonization. G managed to get political independence from V, but the economy is still in the hands of V. What is the just thing to do here, both for V and G?
Thomas Pogge
November 12, 2007
(changed November 12, 2007)
Permalink
This sort of case satisfies three conditions: Contemporary Vs enjoy considerably superior starting positions and life conditions than contemporary Gs. The starting positions and life conditions of contemporary Gs and Vs are profoundly affected by the historical wrongs committed by earlier... Read more
Mathematics: Does a function in mathematics change anything. For instance: take the function ()+3. If the input is 2 and the output is 5 for this function, then is 5 'derived' from 2 and the function ()+3? Is the input 2 or the funtion ()+3 changed in any way? or is this strictly an assignment, i.e. 2 is assigned 5 3 is assigned 6, etc. Let's take a another example, If I change the color of an object, I really apply a function to the property of that object. For instance, say I have a red ball. I add some yellow and make the color of the ball orange. Have I changed the property of color or have I changed the ball? If I apply the function AddYellow() to the color of the ball, my input is red, AddYellow() is applied, and I get the result Orange. Is this a change or an assignment from red to orange. Specifically, does the value of the ball change or the ball itself because of the function assignment of the value of the ball. How can an assignment change anything?
Alexander George
November 11, 2007
(changed November 11, 2007)
Permalink
One says "The value of the function f(x) = x2 changes with the value of x", but nothing is actually changing. Perhaps you can compare it to our saying that the landscape changes as one drives along the road. (One difference though: trees and hills can change over time, but numbers and... Read more
Do you think cosmetic surgery performed by a surgeon is a form of art?
Allen Stairs
November 11, 2007
(changed November 11, 2007)
Permalink
Yes and no, though perhaps most importantly no. Saying that something is an art is sometimes a way of saying that it's an exercise of skill, not least of a skill that isn't simply a matter of following a set of instructions. In that sense, cosmetic surgery is an art. Cosmetic surgery also... Read more