Recent Responses
When we read stories in a book or watch popular TV shows do the characters, not actors, actually come to life? Do they actually believe they are real, or are they in sense real? If someone was to create a sitcom, say Friends, would the character Russ actually live the life of Russ and walk around in the created "universe" of Friends? How don't I know that my life only exists in and was created by the mind of another? I've often pondered this thought since I was a kid. I once watched a show (the title is unfamiliar) where the "real life" characters jumped into a comic book and interacted with the characters in the comic. It was as if the comic had created a seperate "universe". As you can tell I'm not as educated as you philosophers, but I am still young yet. It's also probably quite apparent that I've never had any philosophical education either. My whole life I've been asking questions and have only recenty started to gain answers. Any answers or speculations you offer would be greatly appreciated. Jon
Mark Crimmins
March 24, 2006
(changed March 24, 2006)
Permalink
When you consider that characters in stories are so much like us, it can be disconcerting: if they're like us, then we're like them, too. Indeed, what distinguishes us? Just that they're in stories and we're in reality? But couldn't they say the same about us?
That's a very tempting line of... Read more
From the some of the questions I see submitted to this site, it seems that many people expect philosophers to affirm that their faith / superstitious beliefs have some positive value or grounding in reality. I cannot however think of many modern philosophers who would support such a belief system, so my question is: why do people feel that philosophy will be more supportive of faith-based belief systems than science?
Peter Lipton
March 26, 2006
(changed March 26, 2006)
Permalink
Maybe there is some contrast in stereotypes, with scientists seen as more down to earth and philosophers seen as more speculative, and this leads folk to think that philosophers are more likely to take ungrounded claims seriously.
Here is another possibiliity. The great skeptical tradition in p... Read more
Is there a contradiction at the root of philosophy? Here's what it might be: Philosophy began "in wonder", and asks us to question things -- the roots of our opinions, our beliefs, religions, the essence of objects, the values of life, etc. But it does NOT, emphatically, ask us to question the value of questioning. It ASSUMES (something philosophers should never do!!) that we should question. That seems to me a normative claim never questioned by you philosophers. And even if we WERE to question the value of questioning, we'd be engaging, it seems to me, in an act of performative self-contradiction. We'd still be assuming that we should question!
Peter Lipton
March 27, 2006
(changed March 27, 2006)
Permalink
To question whether we should question is not to assume that we should question: at most it is to assume that questioning is permissible. Moreover, even to assume that we should question whether we should question seems coherent. We might thereby usefully discover that our assumption was incor... Read more
I listen to various types of music including new and old. I've been interested for some time why it is that I particularly enjoy some music such as the "top 50 billboard chart songs"? My question is how is it that people know what "good music" is and how is it possible to derive a pattern or equation to a good song that is familiar with the general public?
Richard Heck
March 23, 2006
(changed March 23, 2006)
Permalink
See this response for some remarks that may be relevant here, as well.
Log in to post comments
It is generally agreed that perception involves a real object transferring information about itself into the brain of the perceiver, via the sense organs and nerves; and the distinguishing features of this are that the real object is external to the perceiver and public, while the image of it in the brain is internal and private. My question is: illusions are unreal, but they are external and public --- as with the railroad lines meeting in the distance, or the Sun and the Moon being the same size during an eclipse. So are illusions real, or unreal?
Richard Heck
March 23, 2006
(changed March 23, 2006)
Permalink
There are really two different kinds of "illusions" one might have in mind, and they are "real" in different senses.
Consider first the railroad tracks. We can describe this phenomenon in purely geometric terms. Take a point P and a line segment AB. Then as AB is moved further away from P the an... Read more
I listen to music. That is true. But is it "real" music? What exactly justifies what is and isn't music? I hear many people say "That isn't real music" about a genre or song. Do they really know if it isn't music or are they saying that only because they do not like it or understand it? Such as the music in mainstream society, a lot of older people, such as my father, will say it isn't real music. He is a musician, so would he know? Does music have to be to a degree of technicality to be considered "real" music? - Darren, 14 years old
Richard Heck
March 23, 2006
(changed March 23, 2006)
Permalink
I expect teenagers have been hearing their parents say that the music to which the teenager listens isn't "real" music for about as long as there have been teenagers, parents, and music. It's not at all clear what that is supposed to mean. Is it that the music is fake music? the way a toy car is... Read more
If someone leaves you, can they still love you; and if not, can you stop loving someone or would that mean you never loved them at all? Tyler
Jyl Gentzler
March 31, 2006
(changed March 31, 2006)
Permalink
Indebted to T.H. Irwin (Aristotle's First Principles), I would put Aristotle’s point about friendship slightly differently —not that genuine friendship involves constancy, but that the best sort offriendship involves constancy. On Aristotle's view, friendship has atleast two features that lead t... Read more
I've been reading a little about Existentialism lately and it has most definitely piqued my interest. Coming from a background where both "nurture" and "nature" have me statistically set on a bad path, I am inspired by the ideas of self-reliance of which Existentialists speak. What I don't fully understand, however, is how so many Existentialists (such as Sartre and Camus) seem to be avid supporters of communism or socialism. It seems contradictory, or at least paradoxical, that a philosophy based on the principle that you "are the sum total of the choices you make" would prescribe to socialist ideals. Is there some main idea that I am missing? Thank you for your time, kevin, 17
Douglas Burnham
March 22, 2006
(changed March 22, 2006)
Permalink
An excellent question. There are two ways of answering this. First, historically, a philosopher like Sartre developed over his long career, and the ‘pure’ existentialism that he espoused in the 1940s is greatly modified in the political thinking of the 1950s and later. However, this is probab... Read more
Who is the most influential philosopher in US history? How did he or she affect US ideology?
Thomas Pogge
March 22, 2006
(changed March 22, 2006)
Permalink
Most influential on US history was probably John Locke (1632-1704, see plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke), who influenced our conception of limited government (as developed especially in the Federalist Papers) as well as the relative unconcern in the US with economic inequality.
It is hard to fi... Read more
I'm interested in knowing if there is anyone who has written about philosophy in contemporary Canada. Many thanks.
Thomas Pogge
March 22, 2006
(changed March 22, 2006)
Permalink
There are a fair number of distinguished philosophers in contemporary Canada. Among the better known are Charles Taylor, Will Kymlicka, Thomas Hurka, David Dyzenhaus, Frank Cunningham, Jennifer Whiting, Arthur Ripstein, Daniel Weinstock, Michel Seymour, Wayne Norman. But there are many others wh... Read more