Recent Responses
I am an artist interested in ambiguity and irony. One day I had a brainwave: if I could just establish the answer to a seemingly simple question, then the way would be clear to develop a geometry of irony and several questions that really bug me would never need answering again. The question relates to Carly Simon's song 'You're So Vain' and, simply put is: How true is it that the song is about you? The implied statement in the chorus -"You probably think this song is about you"- is that 'You think this song is about you because you're vain, but in actual fact the song is not about you'. This is a strong reading of the implied statement and there is another, that 'You think this song is about you because you're vain, and you are right'. We should also consider whether or not it is consistent with the lyrics to state the the song is, indeed, about 'you'. This case would invalidate the statement "You're so vain" and leave "I bet you think this song is about you" hanging. The most interesting case for me is the one where the verses are not about 'you', but about the vanity attributed to 'you', which may be seen in the first sentence of the first verse: "You walked into the party like you were walking onto a yacht" where the second 'you' is not purely referential for the sake of the simile - so that we know it is not possible that 'you' were both walking into the party and walking onto a yacht, so that: 'You walked into the party and walked onto the yacht' is not a correct way to paraphrase. Instead, I would be inclined to paraphrase: 'The way you walked into the party was the same way someone would walk onto a yacht' which makes the subject 'the way you walked into the party', and which I believe agrees with Carly Simon's intentions. In this way, the rest of verse 1 that references 'you', is actually referencing 'the way you walked into the party'. If the verse is not about 'you', the chorus may or may not be about the vanity attributed to 'you'. So how true is it that the song is about you?
Gabriel Segal
May 9, 2007
(changed May 9, 2007)
Permalink
There is valuable but inconsistent empirical evidence here: http://www.carlysimon.com/vain/vain.html.
The evidence suggests that it is possible that the song is about one of Warren Beatty, James Taylor and Mick Jagger. If that is the case, then if you are that person, then it is 100% true that the so... Read more
The debate between science and religion has gone on for many years, and many people think that they must choose one or the other to believe. To me, it's a lot like trying to collide two trains on parallel tracks. If one chooses to believe in God, then that person can still believe in the big bang or evolution while believing that God created the universe, because religion explains what happens on a spiritual level, and science explains what happens on a physical level. The two run parallel. Using this as a way of thinking, can science contradict religion at all, and why has the debate between the two gone on for so long when this explanation reconciles them?
Thomas Pogge
May 5, 2007
(changed May 5, 2007)
Permalink
Your idea works fine on a certain modest understanding of religion. If religion were only about the Divine, perhaps with the additional thought that God created the universe, then no explanation given by science of anything in the universe could interfere with religion.
Religions are typically not so... Read more
In "Betraying Spinoza" by Rebecca Goldstein, it is stated that Spinoza was influenced by Plato rather than Aristotle. As far as I can tell, this was not explained. What is the connection between Spinoza and Plato? Thank you.
Jasper Reid
May 5, 2007
(changed May 5, 2007)
Permalink
I haven't read the Goldstein book, so I can't comment on what she might have had specifically in mind. But, more broadly, there certainly is a strong Platonic (or, perhaps more accurately, Neoplatonic) flavour to Spinoza's metaphysics. One way of characterising the general philosophical outlooks of Pla... Read more
Why are performance-enhancing drugs seen negatively for athletes, but no problem for musicians? Why do we worship The Beatles (big-time drug takers and their creativity amplified substantially through drug use) and attack Ben Johnson?
Jyl Gentzler
June 16, 2007
(changed June 16, 2007)
Permalink
You might also look at the answers to Question 906.
Log in to post comments
Regarding Mill's (was it?) thought experiment about rather being Socrates dissatisfied than some caged subspecies with a non-ending supply of food. My thought is that the objection "YOU can't be (or justifiably imagine yourself as) someone else" is a non-trivial one. In fact, it seems to me a crushing one to the whole thought experiment. You can't be Socrates; you can't have his wisdom and your consciousness since all of it was a package and defined him, as distinct from you. I also have an inkling that this whole division of someone into parts: consciousness, wisdom, emotional control, etc., is a non-helpful one and gives us the wrong picture of our identities. From personal experience I can attest that the addition of life experience has changed my consciousness, as has the addition of book knowledge. So if I had Socrates' wisdom I would have his consciousness (if we must divide it this way) and I would BE him. Isn't it entirely more productive to think about how WE could be happy as ourselves, than to think about thought experiments that violate the most fundamental laws of possibility?
Peter S. Fosl
May 3, 2007
(changed May 3, 2007)
Permalink
Your point is well taken. The separateness of persons, the problem of making interpersonal comparisons of happiness, and just plain difference are serious issues, indeed. It's important to use a lot of caution in making judgments about what will and will not make people happier or better off. (And... Read more
I am impressed by the attempt of some pro-sex thinkers to bring together anarchism and feminism, particularly with regard to the controversial issue of pornography. Since I agree with them that freedom is the guiding principle, I also agree that pornography, like any other form of sexual expression, should be considered morally and legally permissible as long as it is consensual. However, given that anarchism is libertarian socialism, it seems that this principle of liberty should be extended to embrace the ideal of a society (or a network of communities) acceptable to all, including those who wish to be free from pornography, or certain types of it. When, for example, women are involuntarily exposed to men's pornography in the workplace, or on a mass scale in popular culture, can the argument not be made that pornography is then transformed from a private consensual activity into sexual harassment or forced sexist propaganda which violates women's own freedom and sexual autonomy? Could we not, then, call this public and coercive form of expression obscenity, or pornography in the negative sense, and seek to restrict it, not contrary to freedom, but in the interest of a society which is truly liberating for all?
Peter S. Fosl
May 3, 2007
(changed May 3, 2007)
Permalink
Yes, in short, I think you're right about restricting the display of pornography while preserving the liberty of those who wish access to it. And isn't that just the kind of balance that is often sought. Pornographic materials are sold from separate rooms of shops, encased in opaque wrappings, excl... Read more
Is teaching religion in public schools morally wrong?
David Brink
May 3, 2007
(changed May 3, 2007)
Permalink
It probably depends on what you have in mind as "teaching religion". You might have in mind teaching comparative religions or the study of a particular religion as a cultural and/or historical phenomenon. If so, then I don't see why teaching religion, in this sense, is or need be wrong, at least if i... Read more
I have a question about probability (and baseball). Say that a hitter has consistently hit .300 for many years. Now, suppose that he begins a new season in a slump, and hits only .200 for the first half; should we infer that he will hit well above .300 for the second half (and so finish with the year-end .300 average we have reason to expect of him), or would this be an instance of the gambler's fallacy?
Marc Lange
May 12, 2007
(changed May 12, 2007)
Permalink
Since you are obviously interested in probability and baseball, here's a fun question for you to think about. How can it happen that player A has a higher batting average than player B in the first half of the season, and A also has a higher batting average than B in the second half of the season, but... Read more
I was thinking about Zeno's paradox of motion today and decided on an explanation that I'd like to check. As I've heard the paradox stated, one premise is that in order to get from A to B you have to first get to the midway point, call it C. Then there are other premises resulting in the conclusion that motion is impossible. But doesn't the above premise already allow for the possibility of motion, making you agree that motion to C is possible before going on to claim that motion to B is not? Perhaps there is another way to state the paradox, then? Thanks much.
Alexander George
April 30, 2007
(changed April 30, 2007)
Permalink
Right, so it seems you think the argument is self-undermining. It assumes that you can get to the midpoint, C, and then it goes on to prove that motion from C to the endpoint B is impossible. Maybe we need to rethink our assumption that we could get to C! And indeed, other versions of thi... Read more
Put simply: does demand justify supply? If I sell an item - for instance, a computer-games machine - for a price that is much higher than either the RRP or the shop advertised price, and am able to do so given the scarcity of the item and the large demand for it, can I justify this by simply claiming that the fact that a person is willing to buy for that price justifies my selling it to them? Can this question be resolved so simply?
Karen Jones
April 27, 2007
(changed April 27, 2007)
Permalink
You are right to worry that this question cannot be simply resolved. In the case of the computer gaming machine, it seems reasonable to let demand determine the price. Even though people may very much want these new technological toys, nothing bad will happen to them if they cannot get them. But... Read more