Recent Responses
Are statements about probability universal truths? Is it possible to conceive of a universe in which a fair coin lands heads 75% and tails 25% of the time?
Marc Lange
April 26, 2007
(changed April 26, 2007)
Permalink
A fair coin may land "heads" over and over again, as we all know. As the number of tosses increases without bound, the likelihood of the coin's landing exclusively on "heads" becomes arbitrarily small. So in the limit, the likelihood of its landing "heads" over and over (or even 75% of the time) i... Read more
What makes a person a Philosopher? I have to write a paper asking any Philosopher in history, dead or alive, two questions. I'm just curious as to what a Philosopher is. Is it a self-proclaimed title? Do you have to go to school and get a degree? Can I just find any random person who claims to be a Philosopher and assume they know what they are talking about? What about Jesus? Does he count?
Alexander George
April 21, 2007
(changed April 21, 2007)
Permalink
Easier asked than answered. Philosophers are people who do philosophy, and so your question really amounts to what philosophy is. The problem is that what philosophy is is itself a philosophical question. Many grand disputes in the history of philosophy can be viewed as conflicts over how... Read more
To what degree do humans have an ethical responsibility to sustain the species? Let's imagine a situation in which every single person on the planet decided to opt for voluntary sterilization (or every person of child-bearing age). Would this be unethical? Does the human species, as a species, have a responsibility to reproduce itself? Clearly, the planet and the other species on it would, on balance, be much better off without humans on it.
Peter S. Fosl
April 19, 2007
(changed April 19, 2007)
Permalink
This is a fascinating question, in some ways, I think, it's connected to the question of whether we have responsibilities to things bigger than us in the sense of things that can continue to exist without us--e.g. things like families, nations, political and artistic movements, cultures, univer... Read more
Current pop and media culture puts a lot of emphasis on "passion." Often one can hear in marketing phrases such "find your true passion." But is it, from a philosophical standpoint, good or healthy to be passionate? Throughout the history of philosophy, from the Stoics through to Spinoza, there has been a lot of distrust about passion? Can passsion be said to be our true feelings and therefore authentic? How does passion compare to Platonic love?
Jasper Reid
April 18, 2007
(changed April 18, 2007)
Permalink
The clue as to why philosophers through the ages have been so distrustful of passion lies in the word itself. Etymologically, "passion" is the opposite of "action". When you do something, you are active; when something is done to you, you are passive, i.e. subject to a passion. Looking at things... Read more
I read that an artery is a blood vessel that carries blood away from the heart. However, a dead body still has arteries, and they don't carry blood anywhere anymore. Moreover, there may be dead or non functioning arteries within a living body. A friend of mine suggests that an artery is a blood vessel that evolved to carry blood away from the heart, but a creationist wouldn't believe her, and I would prefer a definition of "artery" that could be accepted by anyone. Could you, philosophers, provide such a definition?
Peter Lipton
April 15, 2007
(changed April 15, 2007)
Permalink
Your question relates directly to a central issue in the philosophy of biology, which is how to understand what it means to say that a biological trait has a particular function. The appeal to evolution by natural selection is attractive here because we often seem to explain why a trait is prese... Read more
Is it correct that Saint Augustine first came up with the idea that sex is primarily for reproduction and should only be used for this purpose and did the Vatican pick up on this idea from him? Is there any philosophical reasoning that can support this view?
Alan Soble
April 12, 2007
(changed April 12, 2007)
Permalink
The idea can be found in Augustine. In the early 5th Century, he wrote, "A man turns to good use the evil of concupiscence . . . when he bridles and restrains its rage . . . and never relaxes his hold upon it except when intent on offspring, and then controls and applies it to the carnal generatio... Read more
How can a rational philosopher attempt to understand philosophers, such as Heidegger, Derrida or Foucault? These philosophers claim to be against the method of reason. Can a philosopher still philosophize without using reason?
Douglas Burnham
April 12, 2007
(changed April 12, 2007)
Permalink
Thank you for your question. It seems to me that the 'rational philosopher' in your question starts out from the assumption that there is one and only one type of rationality. This, however, is patently false, since what is and what is not rational, and why, and how do we know, are all key... Read more
I recently read an article where a doctor remarked that he had considered becoming a philosopher but eventually realized that he "didn't have the knack for asking the right sort of philosophical questions." Also, philosophy graduate school applications I read often say that they want the writing sample to demonstrate an ability to detect fruitful areas of philosophical inquiry. Is the ability to pick up on the "right" philosophical questions a skill that can be honed?
Peter Lipton
April 8, 2007
(changed April 8, 2007)
Permalink
Yes it is. But now I suppose you expect me to say how. You are asking a lot. Here are a few tips.
(1) Look for a question that is small but not trivial. It’s often a good idea to look for a question that is about a specific argument for a big claim, rather than a question directly abo... Read more
What reason do we have to believe that our understanding of morality is better now than it was 200 years ago (as opposed to just different)? What is the standard against which moral progress is gauged?
Richard Heck
April 8, 2007
(changed April 8, 2007)
Permalink
Here's a simple-minded answer to this question, but I'm not sure that doesn't mean it's right.
Consider the question whether women should have rights equal to men's. Two centuries ago, this would not widely have been accepted, whereas nowadays it is, at least in Western cultures. So what reason do... Read more
After looking at the list of categories found on the left hand side of this site a question came to me. What subject if any has been either vaguely or not at all covered in the field of philosophy? Is there any possibility for a breakthrough in some uncovered field that doesn't follow from some previous philosopher's argument or have all subjects relevant to philosophy been already covered? If there is no such subject, or it is just too abstract to consider what has not been considered, could you please point out some of the Cutting Edge or "hot topics" that are currently setting the philosophy world ablaze. Thank you for any consideration.
Oliver Leaman
April 7, 2007
(changed April 7, 2007)
Permalink
To respond to your last question first, what people think are cutting edge depends on who they are, of course, and so there could be no general answer.
As to whether there are issues that have not yet been considered by philosophers, and should be, I am sure there are, and I have noticed during t... Read more