Recent Responses
What would you need to find (what sort of evidence) in order to disprove the theory of evolution (or at least detract from it)?
Mark Sprevak
March 29, 2007
(changed March 29, 2007)
Permalink
The theory of evolution by natural selection is sometimes claimed to be an unfalsifiable theory, since it appears that no matter what fossil evidence we uncover, a 'just so' evolutionary story could be told to fit it. However, this simple-minded position seems to wrong. There does appear to be p... Read more
Wittgenstein said that anything that can be said can be said clearly; how should we view this contention in light of the fact that Wittgenstein's own writing is famously enigmatic (or at least aphoristic)?
Alexander George
March 24, 2007
(changed March 24, 2007)
Permalink
That's a good question and a really good answer would have to involve getting into the details of Wittgenstein's thought. But perhaps one thing that might be said at the outset is that saying something clearly and saying something that's easy to understand are not the same thing. A good te... Read more
When discussing whether Homosexuality is morally right or morally wrong, I've always argued that if we allow homosexuality then we would have to allow incest as well. Before arriving to this conclusion I first looked at the various arguments defending homosexuality which mainly consisted of the following: 1) It's consensual (with the exception of rape); 2) It doesn't harm anyone; and 3) It's a matter of love (i.e., we should have the right to be with whomever we love). Now my reasoning is this: All three of those arguments could be used to defend incest! Imagine a father who becomes sexually involved with his 20-year old daughter. Both would be consenting, they are not harming anyone, and they presumably have some type of attraction towards each other. My question is if my argument is a good one or am I missing something?
Alexander George
March 24, 2007
(changed March 24, 2007)
Permalink
First, there's a difference between showing that an argument for permitting homosexuality is bad and showing that homosexuality shouldn't be permitted. To show the latter, you need an argument to that very conclusion; it won't do to show that some argument for permitting homosexuality is ac... Read more
How do we account for the weird coincidence of math and science (e.g., physics)?
Mark Sprevak
March 29, 2007
(changed March 29, 2007)
Permalink
There is another question that might be worrying you: Why does the language of physics turn out to be mathematical? Why does mathematics turn out to be our best way of describing the physical world? I don't think that anyone has a good answer to this question. There may be no good answer, since... Read more
I studied languages, not philosophy, the reason being that I was afraid I would have to study intensely old philosophers and this would influence my own thinking. This was very wise, I think, and now, thirty years on, I think I have developed my own view. Now I would like to see if there are others who think along the same lines. What I try to do is view myself and the rest of us the way humans look at other animals and see the similarities. I consider evolution to be the only driving force in life and therefore our self-consciousness and intelligence to be evolutionary assets like the claws of the tiger or the trunk of an elephant. Could you direct me to others who think along the same lines? Yours truly, Martin C.
Mark Sprevak
March 23, 2007
(changed March 23, 2007)
Permalink
Hi Martin. I'm not sure about your justification for not studying philosophy (the intention of which is to encourage thinking things through for yourself!), but you'll be glad to know that there are plenty of philosophers who think along similar lines to those that you mention. There are too man... Read more
When discussing whether Homosexuality is morally right or morally wrong, I've always argued that if we allow homosexuality then we would have to allow incest as well. Before arriving to this conclusion I first looked at the various arguments defending homosexuality which mainly consisted of the following: 1) It's consensual (with the exception of rape); 2) It doesn't harm anyone; and 3) It's a matter of love (i.e., we should have the right to be with whomever we love). Now my reasoning is this: All three of those arguments could be used to defend incest! Imagine a father who becomes sexually involved with his 20-year old daughter. Both would be consenting, they are not harming anyone, and they presumably have some type of attraction towards each other. My question is if my argument is a good one or am I missing something?
Alexander George
March 24, 2007
(changed March 24, 2007)
Permalink
First, there's a difference between showing that an argument for permitting homosexuality is bad and showing that homosexuality shouldn't be permitted. To show the latter, you need an argument to that very conclusion; it won't do to show that some argument for permitting homosexuality is ac... Read more
Hegel wrote: "The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk." What did he mean? What is the owl of Minerva? And what might David Brooks be trying to convey when he writes in a recent column: "But that’s the perpetual tragedy of life: the owl of Minerva flies at dusk."
Thomas Pogge
March 16, 2007
(changed March 16, 2007)
Permalink
"Minerva" is the Roman name of the Greek Athena, goddess of wisdom and philosophy, and associated with the owl (as preserved in the saying "bringing owls to Athens" which means bringing something to a place that already has more than enough thereof).
The meaning of Hegel's saying is that philoso... Read more
When I was doing maths at university, I very often found that I couldn't quite prove something I had to. Being very sneaky, I would then do a bit of proof, write a little bit of incomprehensible gibberish, and then write the last couple of lines assuredly saying that the problem was solved. I get a little bit worried that proper philosophers might do a similar thing. In particular, the approach on this site very often seems to be to check that an argument about, say, morality matches our preconceived ideas. So I guess my question is how much can I believe what a philosopher says when I don't understand part of their argument? PS - my sneaky exam technique didn't work very well :(
Mark Sprevak
March 16, 2007
(changed March 16, 2007)
Permalink
You bring up several interesting points:(1) Sometimes philosophical arguments are hard to understand. This is to some extent par for the course: problems in philosophy are hard, and the arguments often sophisticated. Mental effort is required in order to grasp what is going on. Doing philosophy... Read more
Who were some philosophers who wrote on love?
Alan Soble
March 15, 2007
(changed March 15, 2007)
Permalink
It is close to being true that (x)(Px ---> Wx), where "P" = "is a [great] philosopher" and "W" = "wrote about love," and "x" ranges over, say, human beings. Just to mention a few from the history of Western philosophy (and theology, which is also philosophy): Plato (Symposium, Phaedrus), Aristo... Read more
Why is it that prostitution (paying someone for a consensual sexual act) is illegal in most states while the production of pornographic movies (paying someone to perform a consentual sexual act on film/photography) legal?
Alan Soble
March 15, 2007
(changed March 15, 2007)
Permalink
Is it true that all states in which prostutition is illegal also legally permit the making of hard-core pornography in which performers are paid to engage in sex with each other? Surely there are some states that prohibit prostitution but do not ban (or at least do not prosecute) the making of por... Read more