Recent Responses
From a moral Christian point of view, I cannot understand the idea that we should punish anyone. In America, which is a highly Christian-dominated society, there is little resistance to capital punishment from the "right wing." My understanding is that Christians are not supposed to judge. God will judge everyone when their time comes. Isn't Christian morality about tolerance and acceptance, and not revenge? "Turning the other cheek?" "Love thy neighbor/enemy as thyself?" Are Christians simply turning a blind eye to this action?
Thomas Pogge
July 22, 2007
(changed July 22, 2007)
Permalink
There is indeed a tension between capital punishment and the teachings of Christ. One can ease this tension somewhat by highlighting the contribution of penal institutions to the protection of innocent people, who are safer when criminals are taken off the street and potential criminals deterred.... Read more
What makes a statement (particularly one not factually-based, such as about society) true, and who decides? Not sure if this is more philosophy or sociology, but in studying for end-of-school exams my English class have a few problems unearthing the syllabus' meaning! We've read something of the basic theories about Truth, such as proof by correspondence, but we are completely confused by the need to discover (without help from our teacher who is determined to keep us away from philosophical debate) the 'processes by which statements come to be accepted as true', including who has the authority to make such statements and the ways in which statements are explored, tested, endorsed or refuted, etc. While we suspect that all the answer required is to mention something about the legal system (the focus of our text), it is still frustrating not being able to fight this out ourselves and we were hoping that you could help us by providing a few ideas as to what really does make statements true (the 'authority' part in particular sounds strange, as though we are supposed to unearth characteristics that automatically set apart certain people as knowing far more than the rest of society - is this just an illusion of semantics, meant to refer to the way our author is establishing an authoritative voice?). Since we do not have the time or resources to test or research our ideas with any justice to them we were hoping for a little educated guidance (even if it's just to reinforce the idea that the syllabus doesn't know what it's on about!). Thanks for considering our question!
Pascal Engel
July 21, 2007
(changed July 21, 2007)
Permalink
The view that there is something which makes true a statement or something in virtue of which the statement is true is usually referred to as the conception of truth as correspondence. It presupposes that the something which makes true the statement - say the statement that the cat is on the mat -... Read more
I have often wondered how proponents of the doctrine of "historical relativity" manage to avoid an inherent contradiction. For example, if one asserts "all truths are relative" (to an historical epoch or weltenschaung, e.g.), must one not also apply that observation to the "truth" that "all truths are relative?" Which means, of course, that the relativist's position is untenable, because it is itself merely relative and, hence, untrue in a trans-historical sense, at least based upon the relatavist's own assertion. If the only truth that is NOT relative is the relativist's supposed insight, one must ask on what grounds it is exempted. I suppose it might relate to the fact that the relativist stands at the end of Hegelian history, but still, it smacks of inconsistency. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Charles M. Lansing, MI
Peter S. Fosl
July 19, 2007
(changed July 19, 2007)
Permalink
I think you raise one of the strongest objections possible to relativism, one so strong that it renders relativism impossible to formulate in that way (i.e., "All truths are relative"). But I do warn you that things get stickier as your get into relativistic theories. What makes them compelling... Read more
Is it ever rational to commit suicide?
Allen Stairs
August 2, 2007
(changed August 2, 2007)
Permalink
I would add this, however. While it certainly can be rational to commit suicide, people who are considering suicide aren't always in a good position to think about it rationally. That's for the obvious reason that many (perhaps most) people who are seriously thinking about killing themselves a... Read more
If you can't believe something as true that you think is false, then: can you believe something is true, and think that you are possibly wrong? If X believes P, can he also believe that it is possible that not P?
Thomas Pogge
July 19, 2007
(changed July 19, 2007)
Permalink
The American pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce posed this question in a slightly different form when he expressed his belief that some (at least one) of his beliefs are false. Each of us has strong inductive evidence for the analogous belief -- we've all found ourselves compelled to gi... Read more
Is inheritance of wealth ethical?
Peter S. Fosl
July 15, 2007
(changed July 15, 2007)
Permalink
Yes, that's because inheritance underwrites certain virtues and social goods--for example, (1) it stimulates productivity among those who create wealth, (2) it provides financial security, (3) it binds families together, (4) it produces general social stability. But note that it's also the case... Read more
Is "Patriarchy" as a corrupting force in society that oppresses women an unfalsifiable theory? I can measure sexism. I can measure bigotry. I can describe a society without sexism. I don't know how to measure patriarchy. I don't know how to describe a society without patriarchy that is just not a description of society without sexism. And yet, I am told that patriarchy is not merely sexism.
Peter S. Fosl
July 15, 2007
(changed July 15, 2007)
Permalink
As is so often the case in philosophy, so much depends upon how one defines the relevant terms. "Sexism," like racism, is a rather vague concept, or at least a concept with a fairly large number of meanings. So, with any interlocutor you're dealing with, it would be important to acknowledge the... Read more
In what sense does the earth rotate around the sun? couldn't the entire universe be thought to rotate around any arbitrary point?
Jasper Reid
July 14, 2007
(changed July 14, 2007)
Permalink
In the century and a half following Copernicus, when the debate around this issue was at its height, there were actually several major differences of opinion between those figures (such as Kepler, Bruno, Galileo or Descartes) whom we tend to lump together as adherents of the new astronomy. The deb... Read more
Hi, I'm a poet, I've published a few poetry books in French. I've been told that my poems are beautiful. I know that they are beautiful but I don't understand why. I also know that I can create beauty but I can't understand where this ability comes from. Is it a god-given ability or is it about technique? Any answers? Umar ( Mauritius )
Pascal Engel
July 13, 2007
(changed July 13, 2007)
Permalink
The classics ( up to the XVIIIth century) believed that beauty is an objective matter, and that there are rules to attain it, based mostly on the imitation of nature, the depiction of human nature, and a certain aspiration for truth. At the same time many philosophers doubted that there is real be... Read more
Ernst Mach asserted the the world consists entirely of sensations. Does this make him a solipsist, and how might one refute him?
Cheryl Chen
July 12, 2007
(changed July 12, 2007)
Permalink
I'm not an authority on Mach, but (as Peter Lipton suggests) some of the philosophers who believe that “the world consists entirely of sensations†do not think they are thereby committed to solipsism. One obstacle for this view is how to account for the possibility that more than one mind can... Read more