Recent Responses
If an intact window is broken, is it still a window, but a broken one, or starts to be (after the moment of fracture) a new thing?
Thomas Pogge
June 6, 2007
(changed June 6, 2007)
Permalink
This clearly depends on how severe the damage is. If there's a slight crack in the glass, people would still call it a window. If glass and frame are lying about, smashed into a few thousand pieces, no one (except an eccentric philosopher) would say that what's left is a window.
So how severe -- yo... 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
What place does social welfare have within the larger context of the social contract? In other words, is there a philosophical connection (and/or basis) between social welfare and the ideas and principles inherent within the social contract? Stated in its most elementary form, the social contract requires human beings to give up some of their natural rights in order to receive certain protections that government provides under the social contract. The question therefore is whether or not social welfare constitutes one of these "protections"? Did John Locke, Rousseau, or Hobbes ever speak of social welfare as an inherent aspect of the social contract? Is it logical or illogical -- on a strictly philosophical basis -- to suppose that social welfare is a natural product of the social contract? Are there any other authors/works that might be cited that deal with this philosophical investigation?
Thomas Pogge
June 2, 2007
(changed June 2, 2007)
Permalink
If we understand welfare broadly in terms of the fulfillment of human interests, then the idea of a social contract among human beings is related, in the first instance, to individual welfare. Each contractor will work out, on the basis of her or his own interests, what agreement to seek or to make.... Read more
It's been stated at many places on this site that logical philosophical argument has the unique ability to garner universal recognition of its validity, whereas appeals to emotions, faith or the like presumably do not. If this is the case, why wouldn't a philosopher exercise his right to free speech in this country and make a serious political difference? Say a Professor of Logic doesn't like President George Bush. It would seem not such a time-consuming or difficult task for him to point out, perhaps in a <i>NY Times</i> Editorial article, the lack of logical connections in claims the President has made. Philosophers seem to me to be rather withdrawn by nature. They have the ability to refute prominent arguments out there in the world, but are too reclusive and anti-outspoken to do this. Perhaps this is to blame, more than anything else, for the low level of discourse, in terms of logical content, out there?
Thomas Pogge
June 2, 2007
(changed June 2, 2007)
Permalink
I agree that philosophers -- and not just professors of logic but especially also moral and political philosophers -- ought to play a much greater role in public political debate in the US. Our country contrasts here with many European countries where -- thanks to extensive media access -- the name... Read more
I am in the part-time military and I may be deployed to active service. Can I reasonably justify the deaths of any people I am required to kill during operations?
Thomas Pogge
June 2, 2007
(changed June 2, 2007)
Permalink
This question cannot be answered in general terms. Some killings that you may be required to perform may be justifiable, others not. Generally, killings in war are thought to be justifiable when two conditions are both fulfilled: Your country must have a just cause for being involved in the war in t... Read more
There is this field of philosophy called "social and political philosophy." I have a difficulty distinguishing "social" from "political." How does "social philosophy" differ from "political philosophy"? I think this is significant; otherwise, the field should be simply called either "social philosophy" or "political philosophy."
Thomas Pogge
June 2, 2007
(changed June 2, 2007)
Permalink
The main reason for adding "social and" to "political philosophy" seems to be to include conceptual, empirical, and normative questions about human social life that do not fall within the political as conventionally conceived -- for example, issues about shaping the personality and character of youn... Read more
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
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
Why isn't Logic a topic of Psychology rather than Philosophy? Psychology studies the human mind and what has the power to move it. For example, I know Freud and Jung and others gave psychological explanations for why religion was appealing and convincing to people. Isn't logic, like religion, something that convinces people's minds, and therefore, by definition, an object of study for psychology? Perhaps someone might say that Logic is better than faith, since logic is actually true? But what standard of truth, other than logic, can we appeal to to verify this? Surely we can't defend logic with logic - that seems ridiculous. As to whether it has greater appeal than faith, which I doubt, wouldn't the jury still be out on this, and isn't that jury made up of anthropologists and/or psychologists. So what room do philosophers have with this topic?
Alexander George
May 29, 2007
(changed May 29, 2007)
Permalink
Many kinds of considerations convince people. Everyone, not just philosophers, naturally sorts those considerations into "good" reasons and "bad" ones. People might sometimes disagree on where to draw the line, but most everyone agrees there's a line to be drawn. The good reasons are consider... Read more