Recent Responses
After reading so many eulogies for Richard Rorty lately, I'm interested in learning more. What would be a good starting point for reading Rorty for a layman who took a handful of college philosophy courses many years ago?
Thomas Pogge
June 19, 2007
(changed June 19, 2007)
Permalink
I would read Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, perhaps with Reading Rorty as a companion text. It's a very rewarding text.
Log in to post comments
Hi! I think this is a philosophical question concerning language. I just read this in a newspaper: "They share neither an underlying raison d'être nor a modus operandi." And the question is: what is the language of this sentence?
Richard Heck
June 22, 2007
(changed June 22, 2007)
Permalink
There are other sorts of examples that pose a more interesting question. There is a phenomenon known as "code switching" in which a bilingual speaker will begin a sentence in one language and end it in another. A simple example would be something like "The man in the funny hat tiene un perro loco"... Read more
If I for example went out in my car and somebody pulled up at a junction waiting for me, do you think his life would be different later on because of the wait at the junction, thus altering the time to get to his destination and also the chain reaction of other people delaying or speeding up their journies? In other words, is everything meant to be, like the order of the universe? (Note you could have missed an important event by answering or not answering this question.)
Thomas Pogge
June 19, 2007
(changed June 19, 2007)
Permalink
From what we know, the answer would seem to be yes. The effects of small events like the one you describe will reverberate through our modern traffic, trade, and communications systems and will have a slight impact on the schedules of many people (probably excepting only those who die shortly afte... Read more
What makes god, GOD? or in other words: what gives "him" authority? Is it the fact that he "knows all", or the fact that he can "create", or the lack thereof?
Douglas Burnham
July 1, 2007
(changed July 1, 2007)
Permalink
Two points of clarification. In my response above, I am certainlynot endorsing Kant's solution, and I apologise if my wording gave that impression. Rather, I was giving his argument as an example of how some philosophers reply to the very fine question 'What makes God, GOD?'. That is, I am claim... Read more
What makes god, GOD? or in other words: what gives "him" authority? Is it the fact that he "knows all", or the fact that he can "create", or the lack thereof?
Douglas Burnham
July 1, 2007
(changed July 1, 2007)
Permalink
Two points of clarification. In my response above, I am certainlynot endorsing Kant's solution, and I apologise if my wording gave that impression. Rather, I was giving his argument as an example of how some philosophers reply to the very fine question 'What makes God, GOD?'. That is, I am claim... Read more
Hi- I got this question from Harvard Econ. Prof. Greg Mankiw's blog. He got it from Richard Rorty. Here it is: "Aliens from another planet, with vastly superior intelligence to humans, land on earth in order to consume humans as food. What argument could you make to convince the aliens not to eat us that would not also apply to our consumption of beef?" What's the answer!?!?! Thanks!
Peter S. Fosl
June 19, 2007
(changed June 19, 2007)
Permalink
It's a fine question, isn't it. Short, sweet, and deeply provocative. In the interests of full disclosure, however, I should, at the outset, let you know that I don't think we should eat beef--in part because of the sort of reasons this question elicits. That being said, I don't think that the... Read more
If you are someone who likes to help others, is helping them actually a selfish act that is only done to avoid feelings of guilt that would otherwise occur? Is it really any less selfish than a sadist who hurts others for personal enjoyment, despite the happiness that may be felt in those who are helped?
Miranda Fricker
July 23, 2007
(changed July 23, 2007)
Permalink
In the general muddle of psychological impulses that might come under the category of motivations for a given action, we can distinguish between our principle aim(a) in doing the action, and enabling conditions such as its being broadly in their interests to do such actions. The mere existence... Read more
My girlfriend likes to hang out with some people at our school who like to call themselves whores, sluts, and the like. They will sit around and say things like "Gee, you're such a slut! Don't give me that look, I'm just a whore as well!" They also don’t care when other people refer to them in the same manner. This kind of talk really bothers me; I find it insulting, demeaning, and distasteful. It has only been leveled at me once before I told them not to include me in it, and they have honored my request. The thing is, I just find it downright impolite, and it drives me crazy to hear them talk like that. It is not at all an accurate description of any of them, they just do it for the hell of it, I guess. Now, my question is, am I being too sensitive? It has nothing to do with me directly, but it still bothers me and makes me feel uncomfortable. I just do not see the need to be like that at all, it just seems pointless and demeaning. Do I have the right to feel so strongly about it and be hurt that my girlfriend would act in a manner that is so against what I feel to be right? Am I just acting controlling? Sorry if this doesn’t flow very well, I have a lot of thoughts on the subject and it is difficult to get them down in a concise manner.
Alan Soble
June 17, 2007
(changed June 17, 2007)
Permalink
Let's see if I got this right. Your GF and her GFs call themselves "sluts," and this bothers you, because you find it demeaning, etc., yet "slut," you say, "is not at all an accurate description of any of them." Well, what if it were? What if they often partied in the football team locker room? Woul... Read more
I can just about fathom how Catholics consider the early 'termination' of an embryo or a foetus murder but the birth control dictate flummoxes me. They can't seriously be suggesting that every spermatozoa exists for the sole purpose of impregnating a women and that denying them access to the uterus is a sin. This has to be a very bizarre and damaging interpretation of Biblical Scripture and not one shared by other Christian sects. Orgasms are genetically encoded to further the survival of a species. The fun element is a plus but reproduction is not the be all and end all - monkeys and people would not masturbate otherwise. And wouldn't involuntary nocturnal emissions by male Catholic celibates suggest this is just a natural thing, independent of religious strictures? Is there any justification for such a belief beyond the Bible and is such a belief at all tenable in philosophical terms?
Alan Soble
June 17, 2007
(changed June 17, 2007)
Permalink
Instead of my rehearsing the arguments surrounding the Catholic prohibition of contraception (and its permitting, contrary to the teachings of St. Augustine, "natural family planning"), allow me to send you to the literature you should read to get a handle on the philosophical and theological issues... Read more
I have been reading Kant recently and have wondered what his stance would be on homosexuality, not in marriage, but just in general. It seems that he would say it is immoral because it goes against one's duty, since if everyone was homosexual, there would be no new babies. Can this be true? Is there something else in Kant's thinking that would contradict this?
Alan Soble
June 17, 2007
(changed June 17, 2007)
Permalink
A few additional remarks. Kant's explicit condemnation of homosexual (or same-sex) sexual relations can be found in his Lectures on Ethics (the Vorlesung). His arguments are grounded in the Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative (not the First, as suggested by the question), but mostly on... Read more