Recent Responses
We've made incredible scientific and technological strides as a society, but do we as individuals know anything more than we ever have? Everything I know about science I've learned from books, magazines, newspapers, teachers, family and friends. I mean, I haven't done any of the research myself, and I can't imagine being able to do enough of the research myself to really know even a small fraction of what the scientific facts we take for granted. So do I just take all these books, teachers, friends, etc. at their word? If so, how is my situation any different than somebody who lived 500 years ago and also got all his information from books, teachers and friends?
Joseph G. Moore
March 21, 2006
(changed March 21, 2006)
Permalink
When it comes to the justification of many of our beliefs--particularly those about the way the world works, and the way it is beyond our immediate environment--I don't think we are in a qualitatively different position now than we were 500, 5,000 or even 50,000 years ago. It's plausible to t... Read more
Intro: I have recently been having a discussion/debate with a chap regarding the political works of a particular professor. I have studied this person's works for more than 20 years and feel as though I know them about as well as one can possible know another's works. The other chap hasn't read a single book by the person, and only a few out of context references from which he jumps to making absurd assertions and conclusions. Below is a basic example of the problem. A refers to the other fellow, while N refers to myself, and X to the professor in question: A: X thinks that 2+2=11 N: No, X's position is that 2+2=4, and there's nothing in his writings at all which would indicate that he thought 2+2=11. A: Prove it. N: I can't prove that somethings not there. (Hence the can't prove a negative.) A: Then it's likely to be there if you can't prove it. N: No, it's NOT there, nor has it ever been. And as I have read all of his material, listened to hundreds of hours of lectures, talked to him personally, I can say from an informed position that it's not there. A: Then you should have no trouble proving it. N: Okay, the only way I can prove it is for you to read all of the material and see that it's not there as well. A: I have no intention of reading the material. N: Then quit making erroneous assertions. A: I have enough material to demonstrate my thesis until proven otherwise. N: You're thesis is based on out of context phrases made by other folks who obviously don't know his work either. There is exactly one way for you to know if whether what I say is accurate of not, and that is to read for yourself. And even then, if your interpretations are wrong, and are simply used to fit your precoceived notions it's still wrong. A: Context is not necessary. Only a rebutal or refutation of assertion made by me. And then it just becomes circular. He attempts to use Karl Popper to defend his position, but it is my understanding from having read Popper years ago, that he'd support my position. A refers to my approach as inductive and that this doesn't apply to his epistemology, which resembles more of that of a bad psychic in my opinion, who attempts to use Popper as an excuse to maintain his belief system. Question: Is my insistance that it be necessary for him to actually read all of the material in order to find out that it doesn't exist illogical? Is not this the only way I can prove the "fact" (a term which he always says he doesn't know, but that's another topic) that X doesn't have the position assigned to him by A to make A read the material necessary and find out it's not there? What am I doing incorrectly? Thanks! noodle
Catherine Wearing
March 20, 2006
(changed March 20, 2006)
Permalink
Hi noodle,
I don't think you're doing anything incorrectly. It sounds to me as though N is simply refusing to engage in a serious examination of either (a) X's ideas or (b) the possibility that his own interpretation of X's work is incorrect. To begin with, N is the one making the origi... 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
Two eight year old children keep their rooms in immaculate condition. One does it because she believes Santa is coming. The other does it because she simply believes it's the right thing to do (i.e., helping out her parents, being responsible, etc.). Both girls behaviors are identical. Which is the more moral? Thanks, Jeff
Mark Crimmins
March 20, 2006
(changed March 20, 2006)
Permalink
I take your point to be that motivation matters to our moral assessment: the latter child, unlike the former, is acting for admirable reasons.
Sure. However, as a parent, I reject your first premise: that two eight year old children keep their rooms in immaculate condition.... Read more
My question is about the relationship between God, determinism and ethics. In my opinion if there is no God, then it looks like people do not have any non-physical "soul". I think most people would agree with this, partly because people usually reject God in favour of a naturalistic worldview in which the soul similarly has no place. But if people do not have any "soul" then that must mean that that people do not have free will, because they are entirely physical. But if people do not have free will then I don't understand how any ethics could exist, because ethics surely requires that people can choose. So, if this is correct, then if you want to argue for some kind of ethics, then you have to accept the existence of God. But there is clearly an endless amount of Philosophers who don't believe in God and do argue for some kind of ethics, such as David Hume or Bertrand Russell. But how can they do this? What I think you will say is that maybe ethics can exist even without free will. But surely this is ridiculous because moral responsibility cannot exist if people cannot choose.
Mark Crimmins
March 19, 2006
(changed March 19, 2006)
Permalink
Most of your question is an excellent formulation of a major philosophical issue: whether minds, if they are merely parts of the general causal order, can possibly have the sort of authorship of their actions that would be required to hold them responsible---how can right and wrong get a footho... Read more
Sometimes people seem to think pacifism is passive-ism, and that to interject or intervene in some way in a potentially violent scenario, is of itself violent, or likely to bring violence on oneself. I call myself a trainee pacifist (and have done for nearly 30 years) because I don't have the answers to what pacifists should do in these situations. Any ideas? thanks
Peter S. Fosl
March 19, 2006
(changed March 19, 2006)
Permalink
Well, in some ways it's a matter of definition. One might plausibly, I think, distinguish between pacifism and non-violence as a positive form of political struggle (though I think in practice most pacifists haven't made this distinction and the line is often blurry). Pacificism by this accou... Read more
What do you recommend as a course of action for someone who suffered from depression as an undergraduate (and got poor grades as a result), but is nevertheless very competent and wants to pursue graduate school in philosophy?
Thomas Pogge
March 18, 2006
(changed March 18, 2006)
Permalink
With the help of a former teacher, perhaps, s/he can write a philosophy essay in an area s/he is most interested in. This essay can serve as a basis for assessing whether s/he really has the talent, preparation, and commitment for graduate training in philosophy. If so, this essay can also serve... Read more
How is Zeno's paradox solved? Thanks, andrea
Alexander George
March 17, 2006
(changed March 17, 2006)
Permalink
A number of paradoxes have been attributed to Zeno. One of them is the Paradox of the Runner: in order for a runner to get to the finish line, she needs to cross the first half of the track. Once she's done that, she needs to cross half the distance from the halfway mark to the finish line... Read more
It is often claimed that certain actions - usually in the field of medical and biological science - amount to 'playing God' insofar as the foundations of life are manipulated and synthesized artifically. However, isn't this merely a rhetorical claim given the impossibility of humans acting as gods? Also, what strength does such the 'playing God' claim have against the irrefutable claim that all knowledge demands risk, and an initial ignorance to provide the impetus for the research?
Bernard Gert
March 17, 2006
(changed March 17, 2006)
Permalink
You are right that saying that someone is 'playing God' is merely a rhetorical claim made by those who oppose the kind of actions that the person is doing are contemplating doing. Since, "given the impossibility of humans acting as gods," as you say, it is a way of saying that you should not do... Read more
What is the difference between a "right" and a "privilege". For example, is driving a right or a privilege? Is higher education a right or a privilege? How can one differentiate between the two?
Douglas Burnham
March 17, 2006
(changed March 17, 2006)
Permalink
An excellent question. Let us think this through just considering the ordinary usage of these words in English. Although the terms seem to overlap in the way you describe, in fact they appear to belong to entirely different realms. A ‘right’ is generally taken to be a moral claim that anyone... Read more