Recent Responses
If I am certain that p but another person is certain that ~p, does the bare fact of his certainty give me reason to doubt my own?
Jasper Reid
May 28, 2007
(changed May 28, 2007)
Permalink
This is actually a fascinating question. I think the answer must surely depend on the circumstances. Why, precisely, do you feel so certain that p is true? There are a couple of possible answers to this. It could be that p just strikes you as so obvious that it has never really occurred to you to que... Read more
These days, you often hear about criminal trials in which genetic predispositions to violence are invoked as factors mitigating moral culpability. Strictly speaking, though, isn't all our behavior -- good and bad -- dictated by an interaction of our genes and environment? If genes direct us in any case and at all times, does it really make sense to cite genetic determination in the instance of bad acts, as if these were exceptional cases?
David Papineau
May 25, 2007
(changed May 25, 2007)
Permalink
You are quite right. There seems no good reason why genetic causes should absolve us from moral responsibility any more that other causes of our behaviour. This is a point that has often been made by Richard Dawkins. If there is a threat to free will and moral responsibility, it is determinism... Read more
1.) Would you label free market/vanilla capitalism (however you choose to answer) as moral or immoral? Now, is it more or less moral in comparison to its alternatives, such as socialism and all its variations? 2.) Is it moral/immoral to infringe upon property rights in the name of the "common good"? Thank you for your time. I am a student with a strong interest in governmental philosophy and appreciate the concise answers your website provides. Sincerely, Alexander C. R.
Peter S. Fosl
May 23, 2007
(changed May 23, 2007)
Permalink
Okay, here's a concise answer: Immoral, unless certain predictable consequences are mitigated or corrected. Why? Well, it depends precisely what you mean by capitalism. If one takes a pure form of market capitalism, I'd say it's immoral because it makes no evaluative judgments that take into ac... Read more
How can anybody, including myself, be sure that what is seen is real? My right eye was scratched, and I can see this scratch-mark before "reality", as one would see their right hand before their left if they arranged the two that way. I wonder if this proves the external to be an actual place within something (the universe?), like it has an absolute position within my (a sentient being) perception. This brings me to my final question: How can I prove the distance between my two hands? When I look at my right hand in front of my left hand, I see them as two objects apart from each other, but I sometimes see a flat picture, like a movie screen: it is manifestly flat but produces 3-dimensional pictures. Does this mean that my eyes create reality to be other than what it is, like how they create depth to be where it really is not? Or does this mean that my eyes are perceiving reality as it should be perceived? Ugh! And the thought that those who cannot "see things" in ink-blots on white paper have learning disabilities peeves me. They should be proud that their minds do not create fallacies! That is what I think.
Peter S. Fosl
May 23, 2007
(changed May 23, 2007)
Permalink
Yeah, these are the kinds of questions that lead many of us to "Argggh!" They're also the kind of questions that I approach with a great deal of trepidation because they are knottier than knotty. So, please understand that what I say here by the nature of this kind of exposition will be very roug... Read more
Reading through the questions posted on this site gives the impression that it is almost impossible to escape philosophical problems in the course of day-to-day life. Why is it that some (reasonably intelligent) people seem to have no interest in philosophy at all?
Douglas Burnham
May 22, 2007
(changed May 22, 2007)
Permalink
I run a freshman course with the rather over-egged title 'The Metaphysics of the Everyday'. It's purpose is to begin, each week, with a different current event or issue, and try to tease out what philosophical issues might be at play. Obviously, we cannot go into a great deal of depth about eithe... Read more
How come pain is in the hand, an arm distance away, but the pain processing is in the brain? I don't feel my hand in the brain, I feel it at 40cms away from my eyes, on the keyboard.
Peter Lipton
May 19, 2007
(changed May 19, 2007)
Permalink
Let’s start with a different case. When you see a mountain, you see an object miles away, even though the visual experience is in your brain. The mountain doesn’t have to go into your brain (thank goodness) in order for you to see it, because the brain can represent the external object.The case of t... Read more
This is a question about the pertinence and legitimacy of the approach towards contemporary philosophy. Increasingly it seems that philosophy has become divorced from common culture, which is sad as the subject has offered so much insight on, and for the sake of, society throughout the ages. Since the advent of the 'new realism' philosophers do not, as I understand, attempt to build systems of philosophy but rather try to answer small and well-defined questions with consistency and through giving a justification for their own notions. However, there seems to be several problems with this approach which I will present: (a) One can be consistently false. In particular, if one focuses on small questions, chances are one is just not including anything within the remit which will challenge one's argument. (b) If one begins from the standpoint of one's own intuitive notions, this is effectively reinforcing one's own opinion and bias. If two people give an argument justifying their opinion, this will not make either of them correct unless there is some sort of objective mediating process by which a judgement based upon arriving at an understanding of the inherent nature of the subject. (c) Finally, without a concept of the Absolute or, say, Truth, and a derivation from first principles in relation to this, there is no way to know whether one is consistently supporting a delusion which is called by the fancy name of "intuition." Because of this focus on the subjective notions of the philosopher, philosophy appears to have become generally detached from the contemplation of Truth which is required for any substantial insight into the universe or society. However, how can this mode of argument, if I have apprehended it adequately, have any legitimacy to it? If each philosopher is only justifying his own opinion, without having a collective shared concept on posssible perspectives on an Absolute from which this would be dialectically derived, doesn't philosophy just become a game in which each player is placing down his stakes but only to advance the furthest for little peices of trifles?
Peter S. Fosl
May 17, 2007
(changed May 17, 2007)
Permalink
I have often found the appeal to intuitions, unsatisfying and sloppy. But I'm not sure it's always so, especially in cases where the intuition is widely shared, or anyway shared by the audience or readership. In that case, it is true that the intuition itself lacks scrutiny, but I have my doubts... Read more
Today in English class we were shown a list of "moral developments" that seemed to progress linearly - how people determine what is moral when they are 5, and how they determine this when they are 40. At lunch, my friend said, "I think it is silly to say there are developments of morality". I replied, "No, they were not developments of morality, but developments how we DETERMINE what is moral. You cannot develop morality because there IS only one true answer to what is moral and what isn't. The list was just showing how people differ in the way they DETERMINE whether something is moral or not." My friend replied that there is NOT only one true answer to what is moral and what is not - that everyone has "his/her own" set of moral values, and there is not any set that is more correct than another, that I was just biased for thinking so. (In other words, she claims that although murder might seem immoral to me, this does not mean that is IS immoral, only that is is immoral by my moral standards. Nothing IS or ISN'T immoral- it's all opinion, according to her). Do ethicists think about whether or not there is one true set of moral values, or whether it is all a personal opinion? What is the accepted view (if any)? --A 15-year-old
Peter S. Fosl
May 16, 2007
(changed May 16, 2007)
Permalink
You and your friend have articulated extremely well a philosophical problem that's been debated for thousands of years. Some of my favorite ancient places to think about the question are Plato's Republic and Gorgias and Cicero's De Finibus. I'm afraid I must tell you, however, that the matter rea... Read more
If the universe has existed forever, i.e. if the universe did not have a beginning, would the present time be possible? That is, if an infinite amount of time was necessary to get to the present time? And if this is so, does this mean the universe necessarily had a beginning?
Jasper Reid
May 15, 2007
(changed May 15, 2007)
Permalink
Short answer: You say: "That is, if an infinite amount of time was necessary to get to the present time?" But to get to the present time from when? The natural impulse is to say: to get here from the first moment. But, of course, the hypothesis of an infinite past means precisely that there was no fi... Read more
It would seem to me that the best introductory college course in philosophy would be one that determines and explores what one's own philosophy is and its origins in history. It also seems to me that a multiple choice test could be created by someone very well versed in philosophy: if each question is answered truthfully, one's philosophy, its historical origins, and a reading list could be had at the end. Is there such a test? Does anybody approach college philosophy in that manner? If not, why not? The typical chronological approach to teaching philosophy belongs with the dinosaurs, in my opinion.
Alexander George
May 15, 2007
(changed May 15, 2007)
Permalink
I think many would disagree with you. Unless you're an amazing genius, most likely "your philosophy" won't be terribly interesting in comparison to the pinnacles that have been reached over the millenia.
It's true that everyone has philosophical questions. (Just browse this site!) And a goo... Read more