Recent Responses
I believe that there are only 3 possible options. 1) That God or some all powerful being created the universe. This is a very bizarre state because it means we are all subordinates to an independent being that has always existed. Strange. 2) The universe was created out of nothing. Truly weird. 3) That the universe has always existed. This is simply incomprehensible. Because these are the only 3 options I see and because each is mind-bogglingly discouraging or incomprehensible - or downright goofy - I think this whole existence thing is either some sort of hallucination or a complete joke. (Another possibility is that I am in some sort of hell.) Therefore, I take nothing seriously and treat this whole thing sort of the way you deal with the pain of stubbing your toe. Kind of grit your teeth and wait for the pain to end. Any thoughts?
Jonathan Westphal
June 26, 2008
(changed June 26, 2008)
Permalink
The three options you offer for the origin of the universeare: 1) That God created the universe. This, you say, is “bizarre”, becausethen in some sense we would be “subordinate” beings. (Why should that be bizarre?) 2) The universe wascreated out of nothing. This, you say, is “truly weird”. A... Read more
I believe that there are only 3 possible options. 1) That God or some all powerful being created the universe. This is a very bizarre state because it means we are all subordinates to an independent being that has always existed. Strange. 2) The universe was created out of nothing. Truly weird. 3) That the universe has always existed. This is simply incomprehensible. Because these are the only 3 options I see and because each is mind-bogglingly discouraging or incomprehensible - or downright goofy - I think this whole existence thing is either some sort of hallucination or a complete joke. (Another possibility is that I am in some sort of hell.) Therefore, I take nothing seriously and treat this whole thing sort of the way you deal with the pain of stubbing your toe. Kind of grit your teeth and wait for the pain to end. Any thoughts?
Jonathan Westphal
June 26, 2008
(changed June 26, 2008)
Permalink
The three options you offer for the origin of the universeare: 1) That God created the universe. This, you say, is “bizarre”, becausethen in some sense we would be “subordinate” beings. (Why should that be bizarre?) 2) The universe wascreated out of nothing. This, you say, is “truly weird”. A... Read more
If we assume that there is no afterlife, what reason do we have to comply with a person's wishes as regards treatment of their corpse? In particular, it is striking to me that we should respect a person's wish not to extract their organs after death; what reason could we possibly have to heed the wishes of someone who no longer exists, especially when the donation of their organs could literally save the lives of several people?
Roger Crisp
July 26, 2007
(changed July 26, 2007)
Permalink
A further consideration is that, given that many people have strong wishes -- whether rationally grounded or not -- that their corpses and probably those of their loved ones be treated in certain ways, it would be highly upsetting to many if they were to become aware that such treatment quite poss... Read more
Logically what is the difference between conceivable and probable or possible?
Cheryl Chen
July 26, 2007
(changed July 26, 2007)
Permalink
Sometimes people use the word “possible” to mean something like, “does not entail a contradiction.” This sense of “possible” is narrower than “consistent with the laws of nature.” I gather this is what Thomas Pogge was alluding to when he said that there is a sense of “possible” that coincides wi... Read more
How can we discern the difference of how we authentically "feel" as opposed to how we "think" we feel?
Gloria Origgi
July 26, 2007
(changed July 26, 2007)
Permalink
Feeling pain is no more authentic than thinking that you're feeling pain. It is just that the two ways of accessing the experience of pain are different. When we feel something - pain, joy - we may be not aware that we are feeling it, whereas thinking that you're feeling pain or joy is a consciou... Read more
Logically what is the difference between conceivable and probable or possible?
Cheryl Chen
July 26, 2007
(changed July 26, 2007)
Permalink
Sometimes people use the word “possible” to mean something like, “does not entail a contradiction.” This sense of “possible” is narrower than “consistent with the laws of nature.” I gather this is what Thomas Pogge was alluding to when he said that there is a sense of “possible” that coincides wi... Read more
Logically what is the difference between conceivable and probable or possible?
Cheryl Chen
July 26, 2007
(changed July 26, 2007)
Permalink
Sometimes people use the word “possible” to mean something like, “does not entail a contradiction.” This sense of “possible” is narrower than “consistent with the laws of nature.” I gather this is what Thomas Pogge was alluding to when he said that there is a sense of “possible” that coincides wi... Read more
If people who think irrationally are happy and don't have the trouble of thinking about abstruse matters, and thinking rationally brings distress to you, is it irrational, in this case, to be rational?
Thomas Pogge
July 25, 2007
(changed July 25, 2007)
Permalink
Let me add two thoughts to this.
One may distinguish between theoretical and practical rationality. The former employs reason in the service of improving one's understanding and beliefs toward clarity and truth. The latter employs reason toward formulating and achieving ends. Much of the problem... Read more
Dialetheist: "Some contradictions are true." My question: "Who claims (if any), that some tautologies are false?"
Thomas Pogge
July 24, 2007
(changed July 24, 2007)
Permalink
In colloquial speech there are some apparent tautologies that are used to make a substantive point that can be disputed. There is the famous Yogi Berra saying "it's not over till it's over" used to make the (disputable) claim that the team behind can still catch up. And there is "boys are boys" ex... Read more
Recently, the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles was made to pay $660 million to victims of sex crimes by priests. Why is money thought to be any remedy in such cases as these? I understand that nothing could ever really atone for such crimes, that any solution is likely to be imperfect, yet I have trouble thinking of how money has ANY value whatsoever here; what's the connection between sex abuse and cash?
Thomas Pogge
July 24, 2007
(changed July 24, 2007)
Permalink
I can see three plausible connections.
The lives of many of the victims are blighted by their traumatic experiences. Even if money cannot undo this damage, it can brighten the lives of the victims. It can do so by enabling them to afford therapy and counseling, for instance, or simply a more worry... Read more