Recent Responses
It seems to me that all morality is based on the belief that death is a bad thing. If we believed that death was desirable - for whatever reason - most everything would break down. But isn't it true that views on death are culturally determined - at least to some extent? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Jyl Gentzler
June 13, 2007
(changed June 13, 2007)
Permalink
In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates explains to his friends why, in the face of his imminent execution, he is in a good mood. His whole life, he reports, has been a preparation for death (64a-b): after he dies, his soul will be separated from his body, and he will finally be able to attain the only thing... Read more
In what sense is being put to death a punishment? How we can talk about things like "suffering" or "loss" if a person is dead (i.e., not conscious)?
Jyl Gentzler
June 13, 2007
(changed June 13, 2007)
Permalink
Of course, murder is not a victimless crime! But how can that be, Alex asks, if the victim no longer exists in order to suffer the harm that has been done to him? If you must exist in order to have interests, then how can a dead person’s interests suffer as a result of his death?
To see the harm t... Read more
It seems that most astronomers and theoretical physicists believe that time only began at the formation of the universe with the "big bang". Assuming that this is correct, is it possible for time to end (to no longer exist)? If so, what conditions would be necessary for this to occur? JW (Australia)
Thomas Pogge
June 12, 2007
(changed June 12, 2007)
Permalink
The easiest way to think of this may be in terms of some regular relation between time and the size of the universe. Expressing this regular relation as some mathematical formula, it may turn out that, going back from the present in accordance with this formula, we get to a past point of time at w... Read more
How should parents bring up their children in the cases of: 1) Parents with some religious faith or other 2) Parents who are atheist or agnostic 3) Parents who are familiar with critical thinking and who may or may not be religious 4) Parents thrown, maybe unintentionally, into parenthood without any advice on how to bring up a child. Parenthood is the greatest responsibility imaginable. What do philosophers do in such cases? Keep abreast of the latest child-rearing theories or follow their own agenda which would worry me in the case of 1), particularly?
Saul Traiger
June 9, 2007
(changed June 9, 2007)
Permalink
As both a parent and philosopher, the question you raiseabout appropriate religious upbringing is one I thought about quite a bit as mychildren, now 19 and 22, grew up. The heart of your four-part question is this:How, if at all, should the parents’ religious convictions influence thereligious devel... Read more
Alex George wrote [http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/1663] that we can't ask "why should we be convinced by logic" or some similar question without thereby already submitting to logical priority; i.e., because the question itself has logic embedded in it. I'm not sure I understand this claim fully. Logic studies entailment relationships; if p, then q, therefore if not q, not p. On the other hand, logic doesn't tell us how to love another person. Insight from experience might tell us that. So there are other ways of knowing things, and different sorts of things, than logic. So if someone asks why choose to listen to logic at all, when I can learn plenty of important things from other roads to knowledge, why isn't this a fair question that doesn't already involve logic?
Richard Heck
June 13, 2007
(changed June 13, 2007)
Permalink
Recent epistemology has made a lot of the distinction between justification and something else that goes by the name warrant or entitlement, though some philosophers use "warrant" as an umbrella notion that covers both justification and entitlement. And of course the distinction gets drawn in diff... Read more
I've been thinking about how people generalize all the time when trying to figure out if something is moral. Let's say I enact some form of vigilante justice, like shooting some criminal at large whom I know will repeat heinous acts if unstopped. Naturally I would find myself on trial and would face some variation of the argument: so do you believe, then, that everyone should take the law into their own hands? It seems that this generalizing argument/question flows naturally from the demands of logic. But I think it's a perversion of thought and distortion of morality. Why would Justice be so limited a concept that it must bow in all instances to some simply statable, spiffy sounding, ostensibly proceeding from almighty logic claim like the generalizing one? I feel that I can answer "no" to this question without surrendering my belief that what I did was right. It shouldn't involve me in any contradiction (nor would it be a huge deal if it did) to claim: what I did was right, but I don't believe that everyone should be taking the law into their own hands. Perhaps because there would be too many mistakes, for example. But I know that I didn't make a mistake. I'm positive of it. Can you, as a philosopher, believe me, without trying to slam dunk me away with a spiffy sounding "how can you be sure, if others can't be sure?" or some other spiffy sounding logical argument?
Jyl Gentzler
June 14, 2007
(changed June 14, 2007)
Permalink
Let me add just one small point to Thomas’ very helpful discussion of the role of generalization in moral argument. Why is it that people engage in this odd behavior of challenging your actions by asking you whether you would accept the generalization that all people of type T are entitled to eng... Read more
Is it possible, and is it likely, that philosophy is a field that is about catching up, rather than discovering? I mean that philosophy's job is to put into words that are convincing knowledge that people already know, from insight. For example, someone might have come to terms with their eventual death in a profound way and be at peace about it. That person might not be a philosopher, but s/he "knows" the answer to questions about death; s/he simply can't put it into words. That's what philosophy does, it seems to me. In this sense, philosophy isn't discovering things people don't already know. Does this make sense?
Thomas Pogge
June 8, 2007
(changed June 8, 2007)
Permalink
Yes, this makes sense: philosophy as clear articulation of certain insights. I'd add two qualifications, though.
First, sometimes what feels like a compelling insight disintegrates under scrutiny. Think, for example, of some of the apparent insights Socrates is described as demolishing in the Platon... Read more
I was very fortunate to be given the opportunity to hear Professor Lipton lecture on the Philosophy of Science at my 6th form recently. He used an allegory to describe scientific progress as a process of elimination, where the chance of finding the truth is increased with every refuted theory and every new paradigm shift. The allegory was that, should you lose your keys in your house, and you know with certainty that they are in one of the rooms, then each room you search and find nothing in can be discounted, leaving you with less rooms to search and a greater likelihood of finding the key. My question is simply: what if there is no key?
Peter Lipton
June 8, 2007
(changed June 8, 2007)
Permalink
This is a good question. I gave the lost keys analogy as part of a reaction to the pessimistic argument that since past scientific theories have turned out to be wrong then its likely that present scientific theories will turn out to be wrong as well. My reaction is that we may be learning from our... Read more
Can anyone recommend a good logic/critical thinking book? I majored in Philosophy in college and have kept sharp by getting into computer programming, however, there is a lot of stuff I forgot from those college days. I remember how quick my reasoning had become and I want to get there again. I was hoping for a textbook/book that comes with a workbook or exercises. Can you recommend some good readings? Recommendations from a beginner to advanced level are welcome. Thanks.
Saul Traiger
June 7, 2007
(changed June 7, 2007)
Permalink
There are many good logic texts. At the introductory level, texts typically fall into one of three categories: (1) formal logic, (2) informal logic and critical reasoning, and (3) comprehensive texts which include both formal and informal logic. Introductory formal logic texts cover propositional lo... Read more
Referring to propositional logic conditionals, if we say that an antecedent A is a necessary and sufficient condition for consequent B, can we say that A caused B?
Thomas Pogge
June 6, 2007
(changed June 6, 2007)
Permalink
No.
That A is a necessary condition for B means that B presupposes A, that B cannot hold without A also holding.
That A is a sufficient condition for B means that A implies B, that A cannot hold without B also holding.
That A is a necessary and sufficient condition for B thus states a symmetrical r... Read more