Recent Responses
Is it logical to believe that a proof of God's existence or some other sort of "intelligent protector" is the fact that our society exists, in spite of the ever increasing possibility that it very well should have been destroyed due to galactic tragedies such as supernovas exploding near us or gamma rays? Over the billions of years in which we have been evolving, probability says that we should have been destroyed many times.
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 9, 2007
(changed February 9, 2007)
Permalink
I agree that it can be unsettling to learn about the profound vulnerability of life. I don't think, however, that life's existence on earth constitutes evidence for God's existence: the universe is large, and for all we know life has failed to begin or has been extinguished many tim... Read more
Why is it that even a three-year-old child knows the answer to some major philosophical questions while philosophers sometimes spend their whole lives searching for an answer?
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 8, 2007
(changed February 8, 2007)
Permalink
Perhaps this is the answer: Young children and philosophers can both discuss the world in unconventional ways, children because they have not yet learned to think conventionally and philosophers because they have unlearned this. Sometimes children will discuss the world in ways that... Read more
This may be a silly question displaying only my ignorance on the subject. My question has to do with point-particles and spatiality. Physicists say that point particles have causal powers, i.e. photons striking someone’s eyes at certain wavelengths cause them to see. Perhaps photons are only contributory causes to one’s seeing. Physicists also say point particles are objects that are both concrete and physical. That is, they can be located in space which entails they are spatial objects too. However, by definition a point-particle lacks width, length, and depth, the three spatial dimensions. My question is how can this be? Is this a conceptual incoherence, or am I missing something? Does spatiality entail physicality or conversely, does physicality entail spatiality? Alternatively, is it that these two concepts have no intimate connection? Please explain. Thanks.
Marc Lange
February 8, 2007
(changed February 8, 2007)
Permalink
Your question seems to concern the connections between being spatial, being concrete, and being physical. Part of your question seems also to concern the idea of point particles.
Now it might be that ordinary material objects really do consist of point particles. If that's true, then point pa... Read more
Why is it that even a three-year-old child knows the answer to some major philosophical questions while philosophers sometimes spend their whole lives searching for an answer?
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 8, 2007
(changed February 8, 2007)
Permalink
Perhaps this is the answer: Young children and philosophers can both discuss the world in unconventional ways, children because they have not yet learned to think conventionally and philosophers because they have unlearned this. Sometimes children will discuss the world in ways that... Read more
Ethics: I write people's life stories for a living. I've been working with a man for two years, great guy, 78, who wanted to add a joke section to his book. My books are not commercially published, just for families. I was enthusiastic until he started telling the jokes, many of which are racist and one includes the N word in the punchline. I once told him that I was having trouble with some of his jokes, saying, "Let's just say I was raised by two civil rights activists." He said, "You have to be professional about it. This is my story, not yours." That's true. Very true. But typically my name goes on the book under the title, "as told to____" One option is to leave my name off. This is my livelihood, I'm a single parent and he's a big client, so I have to think this over carefully. Very very difficult for me to think of typing those jokes but I don't want to sell out my own values. On the other hand, I'm not going to change him, don't want to change him--I'm the witness of his life, not the judge. The book is published ONLY for his family, maybe ten copies, and they already know him, warts and all. Any thoughts on this subject? Thank you, Kathy
Thomas Pogge
February 7, 2007
(changed February 7, 2007)
Permalink
Insofar as you function as a witness, as someone to whom a story is told and who recounts it, I see no ethical problem. Reporters and journalists interview rather worse characters than your client, type up the sometimes dreadful things their sources say, and then publish it all. There nothin... Read more
Why is it that there is often so much discussion in regard to what a particular philosopher meant to say (as opposed to the strength of his argument)? It seems unsurprising and yet kind of strange that we could be so unclear as to what philosophers' arguments are. People seem to find ample disagreement in their interpretation of even such philosophers as Hume who are widely regarded as extremely capable writers. I don't get it! This is not literature or fiction -- presumably most philosophers aren't interested in sowing ambiguity or couching their arguments in metaphors, so why the confusion?
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 7, 2007
(changed February 7, 2007)
Permalink
Some philosophers revel in ambiguity or metaphor, but most do not;somephilosophers do not take the time to write clearly, but must takereasonable care about this. So, these factors don't get to the heart ofthe matter of why so much philosophicalwriting is so difficult to understand.... Read more
Does racism need to be legitimately harmful in order to be considered morally objectionable? Suppose that black men incite an admittedly irrational fear in me, so that whenever I see a black man in public I cross the street -- should I feel compelled to correct this phobia? Or how about this: I find black men unattractive, so I don't date them.
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 7, 2007
(changed February 7, 2007)
Permalink
I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimate harm," but it strikes me that any failure to accord others the dignity they are due as human beings causes significant harm to oneself and to others.
If you agree that racism is a failure to respect human dignity, you ought to recognize it as... Read more
Do the panel members believe that a student should be "talented" or in some way unique in order to seriously consider a career in philosophy? Philosophy graduate programs seem insanely exclusive, nevermind the less-than-scintillating job prospects which await after graduation; professional schools are difficult in their own way too, of course, and yet sometimes I get the impression that, whereas a "mediocre" doctor or lawyer will almost certainly find work, a "mediocre" philosopher will almost certainly be homeless. Would you ever counsel an undergraduate NOT to pursue her interest in philosophy, despite an ardent passion for the stuff?
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 7, 2007
(changed February 7, 2007)
Permalink
Graduate study is not the only way to nurture an ardent passion in philosophy, and so passionate undergraduates should consider a doctorate only if they understand the job market and can live with all that it (and the prior extended period of study) entails economically and personally... Read more
In my country, and for at least dozens of years, many people evade taxes, especially in some professional groups. Tax evasion is recognized as a common behavior, even if accepted only in private (or at least not too public) conversations. There are some rough calculations about how big tax evasion is. This has had many consequences: a) Tax rates are a bit higher than they would be if there were no evasion; b) Unions agree on salaries knowing that their members will have to pay for these hight tax rates or, on the contrary, that they will be able to evade taxes; c) Professionals charge for their services knowing that they will be able to evade taxes; d) Some professionals and corporations evade taxes because, if they wouldn't, they wouldn't be able to compete with low prices; e) People who do not evade taxes, although they could, know that many other people do, and they do not evade either because they think that is the right thing to do, or because they are affraid that they are caught. Do you think that this is a moral reason to evade taxes, so that one pays more or less only what one would pay if there were no tax evasion and tax rates were lower? I understand that some of my descriptions may not be very accurate, but please answer as if they were.
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 6, 2007
(changed February 6, 2007)
Permalink
Even though determining exactly when one should or should not obeylawful authority is complicated, nothing that you describe here strikesme as a moral reason to disobey.
For a richly-nuanceddiscussion of breaking the law for moral reasons, see Henry DavidThoreau's classic 19th centur... Read more
I presume scientists (consciously or not) use some fundamental assumptions in their work. I can think of 'Our minds are capable of deriving rational theories' and 'There actually are consistent physical laws to be discovered'. I expect there are more than this. Is there a list someone has figured out? It probably applies to more non-scientists as well. Or if there isn't a list, why not? Thanks.
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 6, 2007
(changed February 6, 2007)
Permalink
Certainly scientists make epistemological, metaphysical, ethical, and methodological assumptions that affect their work. Historians and philosophers of scientists have discussed this quite a bit, and so have sociologists of science.
Although determing the exact content of these assum... Read more