Recent Responses
I have been going through Marx's "Communist Manifesto" and "Capital" and they seem to be contradicting all base communist beliefs within each government seen in today's society. Is there any basis to this, and if so, why do we speak of Marx as being the "Father of Communism"?
Peter S. Fosl
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
This is a provocative question. I wish you had been more specific in what you consider the "base communist beliefs" to be and how they manifest themselves in "each government." Might there be some consistency with regard to things like (1) the social or collective (as opposed to private) cont... Read more
If someone had a definitive proof that God did not exist (an argument so powerful it became universally accepted, like when Copernicus proved that the sun did not orbit the Earth), which of these scenarios would be most likely: 1) Most people would run out to have drunken orgies, and in general, live lives of utter debauchery; or,2) we'd enjoy an age of unprecedented enlightenment because mental energy would no longer be wasted on the distortion of a grand delusion; or, 3) A combiation of both A and B. Thanks, Jeff
Peter S. Fosl
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
This is a bit more of a sociological or psychological than a philosophical question. My personal experience provides virtually no basis for knowing the answer. My guess is that, as with Copernicus, the proof would take some time to catch on. During that period we'd see a lot of people, parti... Read more
If someone had a definitive proof that God did not exist (an argument so powerful it became universally accepted, like when Copernicus proved that the sun did not orbit the Earth), which of these scenarios would be most likely: 1) Most people would run out to have drunken orgies, and in general, live lives of utter debauchery; or,2) we'd enjoy an age of unprecedented enlightenment because mental energy would no longer be wasted on the distortion of a grand delusion; or, 3) A combiation of both A and B. Thanks, Jeff
Peter S. Fosl
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
This is a bit more of a sociological or psychological than a philosophical question. My personal experience provides virtually no basis for knowing the answer. My guess is that, as with Copernicus, the proof would take some time to catch on. During that period we'd see a lot of people, parti... Read more
Is there a non-materialistic reason to go to college? Couldn't we all theoretically get by making min wage? Is working to earn more than the absolute minimum required to support yourself materialistic as well?
Marc Lange
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
Would it make me sound too much like a college professor to suggest that one non-materialistic reason to go to college is to learn something, to be introduced to unfamiliar important ideas, and to acquire some of the skills required to be a good citizen of a democracy?
Perhaps that's missing the r... Read more
World peace is mentioned in popular culture many times and appears to be an ideal state for the world to be in. However, is world peace really capable of being achieved; or is it rather an illusion in all of our minds? It seems to me that there will never be world peace due to disagreements and conflicts that happen between people. Please fill me in on your views pertaining to this topic.
Oliver Leaman
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
We might wonder whether world peace would be so desirable. Isn't some conflict rather stimulating and exciting, and would it not be boring if everyone was in perfect harmony with everyone else? Of course, peace would be preferable to immense murder and destruction, however lacklustre it might t... Read more
Given the claim by some on the pro-life side of the abortion debate that 'life is sacred', how might we go about assessing the value of different lives in a situation in which one is likely to be negatively affected (perhaps fatally) by the birth of another?
Oliver Leaman
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
Exactly the difficult with the "life is sacred" slogan. If a choice has to be made between lives, how does one carry it out unless there is some way of balancing lives against each other? On the other hand, one can see the logic of leaving it to God, if one believes in him, since how can we pla... Read more
Is it irrational to fear one’s own death?
Peter S. Fosl
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
There's a funny old remark that goes something like this: "I don't fear my own death, because it's not something that will happen in my lifetime." The Epicureans held something of this view. Death isn't something that happens to us, the argument goes, because when dead we no longer exist. As... Read more
It seems philosophy is about one's relationship with the world... yet, there is no category of "Relationships" presented by AskPhilosophers. Perhaps it's too broad a category? Perhaps the right category for the following question is "Personality"... but that's not on the list either. It seems that personalities shift as part of a relationship. Behaviors that wouldn't have ever been displayed not only present themselves but seem to be part of a persona and then are viewed as part of one's personality. How do we know the true nature of one's personality?
Louise Antony
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
There is a lot of debate among philosophers right now as to whether our common sense view of "personality" is accurate. We tend to think of ourselves and of others as having stable psychological characteristics that underlie and explain our behavior in a large range of diverse circumstances. Bu... Read more
How are we sure that anything is true because our whole world is based off of the circular logic that we assume our logic is right?
Peter S. Fosl
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
It's a great question, and the way you pose it raises a number of fascinating issues. About the concern whether "anything" is true, I assume you mean any truth claim. Things can be said to be "true" in certain contexts ("That's a true Rembrandt"; "That way is true north"; "Mine is true love")... Read more
I have stumbled across the “Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language” in the American Philosophical Association. It recommends changing, “For Aristotle, man is, above all, Political Man." to “Aristotle regarded human beings as inherently political.” Now, I could be convinced that many texts are sexually biased, but is it important to change the formulation of such propositions? In the first quote, "Man" is a metonym, standing for all humanity in a manner similar to how the word "bread" stands for Jesus' flesh when it appears in parts of the New Testament, whereas in the second, the term with the same referent, "human beings" is used. If one were translating a book into English, and it featured a similar use of a metonym, an important question then would be whether to maintain that formulation, even though it contravenes these guidlines, or to change it. Is it important to replace "Man" with "Humanity" even though they have both been used to stand for the same thing for a long time?
Peter S. Fosl
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
This is a question with which I've struggled for some time. The answer depends upon one's interpretation of Aristotle, one's view of the meaning of the relevant terms, and the proper way to approach historical texts. I've come down on the side of the APA on this one, but in a qualified sense.... Read more