Recent Responses
Is it always better to have more choices?
Your question seems ambiguous
Michael Cholbi
May 2, 2016
(changed May 2, 2016)
Permalink
Your question seems ambiguous between two interpretations:
(1) Is it always better to be able to make more choices?
(2) Is it always better to have more options to choose among?
Under either interpretation, I believe the answer is 'no' -- though the reason is similar in... Read more
I do not understand how can anyone with at least a BA in philosophy relate to the world and act as people that do not have one do. And I take it that the average western person lives a better more untroubled life. Why? Well, I live with my brother and from my philosophical studies at a top ten university in the world I (without being cynical) assure you that it is perfectly reasonable to doubt many core beliefs that anyone takes for granted and that make life not liveable. I am deeply concerned about how does my mental representation of the world arise, whether a sufficient relation between the phenomenology of my conscious experience and a mind‐independent physical world can be established not only for metaphysical reasons but also for epistemic ones, hoping that it can allow me to know of the existence of an external world and make judgments of it. EXAMPLE: Sitting down eating while talking to my brother. (challenging, I know) I am thinking of the traditional philosophical questions such as the existence of an external world, God, free will and ethical values. Only with these four topics, which have been extremely controversial historically and still are and which are , very importantly, UNRESOLVED, I can show how horrible or badly weird can philosophy make life be (please don't argue the Primum vivere deinde philosophari as if in a way you have to suspend jugdment as you go about doing normal life things, thats just cheap) (I am assuming you take these beliefs to their ultimate consequence and therefore doubt what I am saying you should doubt). Without these questions resolved, I cannot know whether when I have the experience of seeing and talking to my brother, there is actually someone else out there contributing to that experience that is independent of me (existence of external world), whether there is an omnipotent God that is vigilating my beliefs to possibly condemn me for thought‐crime if I am randomly thinking about something impure while talking to my brother (God) , whether I am actually deciding for myself what to tell him or I am determined to say something (free will), and whether the way I am treating him is ethical or not, or even whether there is anything of the matter to be said at all (moral realism/error theory/non-cognitivism etc etc etc). The whole and only point is that I think the following line of thought is valid and sound: 1) These four philosophical issues, to name a few, are not resolved in a complete and definite manner 2) If taken seriously, these means that in the case of talking to my brother, I should doubt his existence, the freedom to tell him what I am telling him (if he exists), the control and judgment of a superpower over what I am thinking and the morality of what I am doing (this maybe in other cases since talking can be neutral) (but not necessarily of course) 3)If you have reasons to doubt these, which I think you clearly do, and you take them seriously, the very very very basic things of life become absolutely puzzling and just, i don't know the word, i don't thing there is a word, angst i guess, you become paralized, u should at least 4)Philosophers (professors etc) do not seem to behave as someone would expect from a person that cannot give a proof of the four issues addressed 4a) either they have definite answers, which I know they don't 4b) or they don't let the doubts affect their lives, which is contrary to what an intellectually capable human being (i suppose philosophers are of course) should do So please any comments? Do you see my problem? Do you behave accordingly to what contemporary philosophy should make you behave? Thanks very much, i am very sorry if its unclear and badly written and honestly hope any qualified philosophy professor answers.
You write that one response
Allen Stairs
April 28, 2016
(changed April 28, 2016)
Permalink
You write that one response of professional philosophers is "they don't let the doubts affect their lives, which is contrary to what an intellectually capable human being (i suppose philosophers are of course) should do "
Here's my question: why is this what an "intel... Read more
do you have to be religiously or spiritually suited to the person you love to gain their trust and respect? being an atheist, what are my moral obligations to this man who holds high regard to religion and spirituality?
Interesting. I suppose that
Charles Taliaferro
April 23, 2016
(changed April 23, 2016)
Permalink
Interesting. I suppose that if "spiritually" is understood very broadly to mean something like having reverence, care, respect, an appreciation for some things being sacred like promise-keeping, honesty or respecting the integrity of others, then perhaps spirit... Read more
Can the existence of god be proven?
These days, there are very
Charles Taliaferro
April 22, 2016
(changed April 22, 2016)
Permalink
These days, there are very few substantial claims (God exists, there are objectively true ethical values, utilitarianism is superior to Kantian ethics, everything is physical, etc) that philosophers would claim to be able to prove (or disprove). We instead refer... Read more
Is it wrong for someone to decry certain tax breaks for the wealthy and then take advantage of those tax breaks himself?
I don't think so. The
Michael Cholbi
April 21, 2016
(changed April 21, 2016)
Permalink
I don't think so. The allegation here doesn't seem to relate to the two acts in isolation. The worry is not that
Decrying tax breaks for the wealthy is wrong.
Nor is the worry that
Taking advantage of tax breaks for the wealthy is wrong.
Rather, the wrong is a kind... Read more
Being a lover of movies, I sometimes watch a movie that I find very inspiring, motivating or just aesthetically pleasing and I sometimes that many people like it too. However, it is not uncommon to find criticisms from film critics who conclude that the movie is trash or below standards and are not worth watching. My question is: who decides if the movie is "really" good and worth watching: the film experts who don't like it or the public who adored it?
After a hard day's
Douglas Burnham
April 21, 2016
(changed April 21, 2016)
Permalink
After a hard day's philosophising, I find nothing more relaxing/distracting than a very loud, stupid movie with lots of things blowing up. The kinds of movies that, with rare exceptions, critics hate. Which of us is right? Well, neither, AT LEAST because we are applying... Read more
how many branches of philosophy are there, and why is language picked apart so meticulosly?
At least 33, to judge from
Stephen Maitzen
April 21, 2016
(changed April 21, 2016)
Permalink
At least 33, to judge from the Areas of Specialization (AOS) listed here:
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl.
Less facetiously: There's no non-arbitrary way to give a precise answer to your question, just as with the question "How many branches of science are t... Read more
It's typical to say that there's no such thing as an "objectively" good piece of art. But if that were so, why would we even bother sharing our thoughts about it? What would be the point in discussing a movie or song or painting with other people if we really thought that all our opinions were ultimately arbitrary? In other words, is there any way to make sense of the way we commonly talk about art that doesn't imply at least some kind of objectivity?
Thank you for your question:
Douglas Burnham
April 21, 2016
(changed April 21, 2016)
Permalink
Thank you for your question: a definite puzzle. The real issue may lie in our tendency to divide all our judgements into just two classes, the 'subjective' and the 'objective'. Subjective would be judgements where there is no expectation of agreement from others,... Read more
I would like to know if this can be proven I am attempting to prove G with these premises: 1. (-K and -N) > [(-P>K) and (-R>G)] 2. K>N 3. -N and B 4. -P v -R I am not sure if the premises are enough to allow the solver to prove the solution or if there should be additional premises. A response would be appreciated!
Since "-N" is true (3), then
Alexander George
April 21, 2016
(changed April 28, 2016)
Permalink
Since "-N" is true (3), then from (2), you can infer that "-K" is true. So you know that "-K and -N" is true. Hence from premise (1) you can infer that "(-P > K) and (-R > G)" is true. Hence "-P > K" is true. Since you already showed that "-... Read more
hi. if you be as a student (moral philosophy) in a country like Iran and you wont to wrote thesis (tendency: applied ethics), which issue you choice?
Greetings. I have been to
Charles Taliaferro
April 16, 2016
(changed April 16, 2016)
Permalink
Greetings. I have been to Iran and practiced philosophy there at a conference and two of your universities. I am not clear, however, about the limits on free speech and protected (or prohibited) research projects, if any. If you are a student, I suggest you wor... Read more