Recent Responses
I think that the reason we hate is because we FIRST loved. An example would be that Americans hate terrorists because they love their country. A man hates the other man that sleeps with his wife, because he loves his wife. Does this idea have any relevance in modern philosophy, or has it already been covered? I'm not very versed with philosophical writings.
Alan Soble
June 29, 2007
(changed June 29, 2007)
Permalink
While we are thinking about the relationship between love and hate, what about love-love and hate-hate? Would X hate Y just because Y hates X? And so forth. Here's a version of something I cover in my introduction to philosophy course. Consider the psychological hypothesis that in order for a person... Read more
I think my question was rejected so I'll try to ask it differently. Can I, or anyone, ever accurately make a judgment as to whether another person is 'good' or not? Can I call someone a 'bad person'? For example, I assume Hitler is accepted by (mostly) everyone as a bad person, but I can also assume that there were moments in his life where he acted with genuine love and concern (maybe towards his dog). Does this mean that I can call him unequivocally a bad person still?
Miranda Fricker
June 29, 2007
(changed June 29, 2007)
Permalink
Yes, I think one can call Hitler an unequivocally bad person. But that doesn't mean he was never nice to anyone. Just as it's not the case that good people never ever put a foot wrong; nor is it the case that bad people never do anything right. Saying he was an evil man is to hold him responsib... Read more
Is an event which has zero probability of occurring but which is nonetheless conceivably possible rightly termed "impossible"? For instance, is it "impossible" that I could be the EXACT same height as another person? I take it that the chance of this is zero in that there are infinitely many heights I could be (6 ft, 6.01 ft, 6.001 ft, 6.0001 ft, etc.) but only one which could match that of a given other person exactly; at the same time, I have no problem at all imagining a world in which I really am exactly as tall as this other.
Daniel J. Velleman
June 29, 2007
(changed June 29, 2007)
Permalink
I agree that there's nothing paradoxical here; surprising, perhaps, but not paradoxical.
The only kind of additivity that is usually assumed in probability theory is countable additivity, and there's no violation of that here. But you do have uncountably many non-overlapping outcomes, each... Read more
I am a baseball coach/manager. In my stepson's baseball league, another team has a child (these are pony league players - 13 & 14) who has some arm problems. I know he has had an MRI (know the MRI tech) and also that his doctor instructed him never to pitch again. The coach and parents are aware of this too - yet the coach still pitches him in games. Other parents discuss this problem, yet no one seems willing to step up and do something about this. Since I know the story, would it be ethical if I anonymously informed the league? There may be a potential liability issue at stake here too. This kid is going to ruin his arm before he gets to high school. I am also trying to balance the confidentiality of the medical relationship vs. the kid's welfare. Should I even be considering this?
Peter S. Fosl
July 12, 2007
(changed July 12, 2007)
Permalink
I agree with Thomas Pogge's remarks, but I also have a couple of cents to add. First, consider very seriously and act in light of the fact that your information comes to you second hand (from a lab tech and not the child's physician or parent)--unless, of course you are the MRI technician. Seco... Read more
I am involved in an ongoing battle with someone about the following issue and am beginning to doubt my own argument!! The issue : The example was of contrasting European and British attitudes to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The person claimed that the French are more likely to understand the Iraqis due to their experience of being occupied in WW2, whereas Britain, although they fought in the war, were never invaded, and no battles were fought on British soil. He believes that you cannot fully understand what you do not experience, or at least, that when you do experience something, your preconceived opinion of it is bound to change as a consequence. Whereas I am (was?) an adamant believer in the capacity for human imagination and speculation, which allows people to feel empathy for others even if they have not directly experienced the situation at hand. What are your opinions? I believe it may have something to do with empiricists and rationalists, although maybe that's just because I'm being indoctrinated by my current TOK module. Thanks ever so.
Pascal Engel
June 28, 2007
(changed June 28, 2007)
Permalink
Understanding can be empathy, the capacity to put oneself into another's shoes, in which case it needs some sort of projection of one's mental states and experience onto the other's experience, in the sense : of "what would *I* think or feel or do in the same circumstances ?" But understanding can... Read more
In my class we had a discussion about the logic behind mathematics today. Unfortunately we didn't manage to come up with a solution to the question about which the discussion was. The question was: From the beginning of human kind we always used a logical counting pattern (today expressed as 1,2,3); do you believe that if at the beginning of human kind our logical thinking had lacked the idea of counting, maths would have turned out to be something completely different or would it even exist?
Thomas Pogge
June 26, 2007
(changed June 26, 2007)
Permalink
You are asking what we call a counterfactual question. Some such questions present little difficulty. For example, if your parents had never met, you would not be here asking hard questions.
Your counterfactual question is much harder, because you are asking us to imagine something that is quite... Read more
A person with dementia is gradually losing the capacity to think and problem solve, remember, use language and behave as they once did. However, the person-centred approach to caring for people with dementia asserts that the 'personhood' of each person is present despite this decline in abilities. What is a person in the context of dementia and how do we understand the person who has dementia in philosophical terms?
Saul Traiger
June 25, 2007
(changed June 25, 2007)
Permalink
The person centered approach to psychotherapy is a widelyused methodology. (See, for example, www.person-centered.org) In contrast with some other methods, theperson centered approach leverages the patient’s own resources in therapy,rather than relying on the authority of the therapist. As your qu... Read more
What is the relationship between having charisma and being a good teacher?
Thomas Pogge
June 25, 2007
(changed June 25, 2007)
Permalink
Like that between being strong and being a good football player.
Having charisma is very helpful in teaching. It can get students to concentrate and to pay attention without really trying. But this can be worthless when the teacher is incompetent, unfocused, unclear, or fails in some other way to... Read more
I think that the reason we hate is because we FIRST loved. An example would be that Americans hate terrorists because they love their country. A man hates the other man that sleeps with his wife, because he loves his wife. Does this idea have any relevance in modern philosophy, or has it already been covered? I'm not very versed with philosophical writings.
Alan Soble
June 29, 2007
(changed June 29, 2007)
Permalink
While we are thinking about the relationship between love and hate, what about love-love and hate-hate? Would X hate Y just because Y hates X? And so forth. Here's a version of something I cover in my introduction to philosophy course. Consider the psychological hypothesis that in order for a person... Read more
I am having a little trouble distinguishing the difference between the Dionysian and Apollinian artists that Nietzsche talks about. Any way you could clarify?
Douglas Burnham
June 25, 2007
(changed June 25, 2007)
Permalink
You are certainly not alone in having a little trouble! These terms are used by Nietzsche in his Birth of Tragedy, which was his first published book. It is important to keep a few things in mind when reading this book. First, Nietzsche’s explicit intent was not to talk about the Greeks at all,... Read more