Recent Responses
Should boxing be banned?
Gordon Marino
July 14, 2010
(changed July 14, 2010)
Permalink
I am a boxing trainer so I suppose that is my answer to your question. Boxing should be much more carefully regulated at the professional level of that there can be no doubt. But amateur boxing is quite safe and has been a lifesaver to many young people who are perhaps on the edge- and are often... Read more
If science is based on observable, measurable data, what is the basis of science's belief of the origins of the 'Big Bang'? Even religions talk of the cataclysmic beginnings of the Universe, but they don't claim the Bang was of Nothing. Observable, mathematical data suggests nothing begets nothing.
Peter S. Fosl
February 24, 2007
(changed February 24, 2007)
Permalink
This gets a bit beyond my expertise, but I suppose like you I find these sorts of issues irresistible. (Kant thought that part of that irresistibility was a feature of our being rational beings, by the way. Perhaps he was right.)Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "origins of... Read more
How do we get better at reasoning, and what would such an ‘improvement’ be exactly? What sort of benefits would be gained that would distinguish reasoning from some other sort of guide to the truth (whatever that might be)?
Peter S. Fosl
February 24, 2007
(changed February 24, 2007)
Permalink
There are broadly speaking four ways we get better at reasoning (narrowly speaking there are countless). 1. We learn to apply existing logical principles more skillfuly, using them in new contexts and using them more effectively in old contexts.2. We invent or discover new logical prin... Read more
Can you explain to me what is considered to be a "philosophical error"? How different is it from any other error in the common/simple world? And what are the bases under which something is considered as 'philosophical' error, as oposed to a 'regular/normal' error?
Douglas Burnham
February 23, 2007
(changed February 23, 2007)
Permalink
A fascinating question. In defining philosophical error, we are venturingclose to trying to define philosophy itself -- and about that there is littleagreement! So, I’m going to try to avoid answering your question in such away as to assume an answer to that other one.
This time of yea... Read more
How does 'consistent' differ from 'coherent'? Two things are consistent if they are not contradictory; this is also the case for coherence. So why do the two need to be distinguished? Is there something that one has but the other not? Thanks!!!
Nicholas D. Smith
February 22, 2007
(changed February 22, 2007)
Permalink
"Consistent" indicates the logical condition of not being contradictory. In logical contexts, "coherent" is used synonymously with "consistent." But in other contexts, "coherent" is intended to make a stronger connection between two things than the (very weak) connection of being no... Read more
My interest has been piqued several times when coming across Socrates' famous quote "know thyself." However, I have heard that Socrates was not the original author of this particular statement. According to Wikipedia, it has been attributed to several authors. Can anyone please expand upon this phrase -- its origin (if possible) and what the author or authors meant (also if possible). Doing a Google book search on this phrase brings up a lot of different opinions in a lot of different publications. Literature recommendations would also be appreciated. Thank you!
Nicholas D. Smith
February 22, 2007
(changed February 22, 2007)
Permalink
I believe the oldest expression of this injunction appeared as an inscription at the shrine at Delphi. The inscription itself is no longer extant, but it is referred to in ancient sources as having been one of the things displayed at the shrine. See Plato's Phaedrus 230a.
Many subse... Read more
What does the term 'circular' mean in the context that it is used here on this web site?
Nicholas D. Smith
February 22, 2007
(changed February 22, 2007)
Permalink
When philosophers call something "circular," they generally are making a logical characterization--it means that someone has somehow assumed the truth of what he or she is supposed to be proving, and thus "derives" the conclusion only by having the proposition expressed in the conclus... Read more
What constitutes vulgar and obscene language: the heart or intended meaning, or the words in and of themseves? Are there words which are intrinsically bad, like the word "fuck" for instance. If I said "fuck you" that would definitely be a bad thing, but if I simply said "fuck that", implying that, for instance, I did not want anything to do with a particular thing, is that word still bad?
Nicholas D. Smith
February 22, 2007
(changed February 22, 2007)
Permalink
I'm inclined to think that there are differences of opinion about this, but my own view (for what it is worth) is that what counts as vulgar and obscene are a matter of cultural (and perhaps even situational) context. For one thing, the origin of the word "vulgar" simply associates a... Read more
Does the fact that other religions exist give us reason to disbelieve any one religion, or is this not a relevant piece of evidence?
Richard Heck
March 4, 2007
(changed March 4, 2007)
Permalink
Here's a more general question, and one of substantial recent interest: Does the fact that there are other people who disagree with me, by itself, give me reason to doubt my own beliefs? The interest of the question, to me, derives from the fact that there are arguments, founded upon very general... Read more
How can one acquire knowledge through emotions only?
Miranda Fricker
February 19, 2007
(changed February 19, 2007)
Permalink
The anglo-american philosophical tradition has not been very kind to the emotions until relatively recently, when there has been an upsurge of support for the idea (latent, however, in Aristotle) that emotions can have cognitive content - they can tell you stuff about how the world is.... Read more