Recent Responses
How would virtue ethics view terrorism? I don't doubt the terrorists were evil, but it seems hard to deny they possessed some of Aristotle's virtues (courageousness, for example). Don't we have to consider the consequences of their actions if we are to call their actions unethical? I'm sure the virtue-ethicists here have thought about the issue. What conclusions have you come to?
David Brink
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
Virtue theorists of various stripes have the resources to deny that a terrorist need be displaying virtues, such as courage, if they are doing something unjust. Classical virtue theorists (including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, among others) thought the virtues had to be admirable and praisew... Read more
Why would Plato agree with the claim that there are not any universally valid moral values? Or where can I find information that supports this claim?
David Brink
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
I'm not sure why you think that Plato would deny that there are objective and universal moral values. To the contrary, Plato is often taken to be a prototypical advocate of the sort of realism or objectivity about moral value that posits moral truths that obtain independently of the appraiser's... Read more
I know many philosophical positions today are often similar to Greek philosophical positions. Is there any Ancient Greek Philosophy that seems to correspond or relate to postmodernism?
Peter S. Fosl
March 16, 2006
(changed March 16, 2006)
Permalink
This is an interesting question which could arguably yield a booklength study, or even a series of them. I should caution you at the outset, however, that in a sense there is no such thing as "postmodernism." The term largely stems from usages in architecture and from Jean-François Lyotard's... 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
There's no rational argument to prove the existence of God. St. Thomas d'Aquinas' famous "God is that of which nothing greater can be thought" is, to my knowledge, the most rigorous attempt to apply reason to the subject of supernatural existence--but it achieves exactly the opposite of what it purports to achieve: it shows merely the limits of reason, rather than the existence of God. This said, and as a consequence, reason can't provide any arguments against the existence of God, either. For that which can't be proved, can't be disproved either. (And, in fact, can anyone think of any law of physics or rational argument which disproves the existence of something? Non-existence is "disproved" on mere empirical basis--and it is thus never certain). Therefore, the only rational (which does not mean necessarily: correct) position regarding God is agnosticism. Any thoughts? Thanks
Mark Crimmins
March 15, 2006
(changed March 15, 2006)
Permalink
It's not true that "what can't be proved can't be disproved either": it can't be proved that there is a largest prime number, but that can be disproved, at least according to the standards of proof that every mathematician accepts.
I am inclined to agree with you that reason alone, without e... Read more
After a protracted and painful crisis of faith, I have seized upon the idea that if the origin of life could be shown to be possible only through nature and natural processes without the influence of a creator/god, then that could do away with any pragmatic need for the existence of a deity. Is this a tenable position?
Lynne Rudder Baker
March 15, 2006
(changed March 15, 2006)
Permalink
Many people think that the position is tenable. I have my doubts. Showing that life could have originated *only* by natural processes (without any supernatural intervention) seems to me at least unlikely, if not impossible. (Doing so would furnish us with a new argument against the poss... Read more
I read all the questions and responses related to determinism, quantum mechanics and chaos theory that you have posted, but I am still unclear exactly how they relate. Supposedly, quantum mechanics and chaos theory refute any hard case for determinism, but I am still unclear as to how. Could anyone add to this or suggest some reading on the subject?
Marc Lange
March 15, 2006
(changed March 15, 2006)
Permalink
Determinism is the view that the state of the world at any moment, plus the laws of nature, determine (i.e., logically entail) the state of the world at any other moment. Quantum mechanics and chaos theory relate to determinism in rather different ways.
Chaos theory concerns systems whose developm... Read more
I am a philosophy graduate who has been 'out of the game' for about 3 years now. During this time I have not read much philosophy, and what little I have seems to be forgotten as soon as a couple of days later. I was wondering if any of you might recommend any techniques or reading material that might get me back into the philosophical way of thinking, with a view to renewing my interest and bringing back my intellectual confidence. Thanks.
Joe Cruz
April 15, 2006
(changed April 15, 2006)
Permalink
Philosophy is my profession, but even I find picking up and just reading a piece of philosophy outside of my area of expertise plain difficult. Part of the reason for this, I think, is that philosophy emerges best, for me, at least, in conversation and spirited collaborative reflection. Thus, Joe... Read more
Mill seems to think that the same action could be a right action in one set of circumstances and wrong in another. Would his theory be considered relativistic ?
Joseph G. Moore
March 15, 2006
(changed March 15, 2006)
Permalink
We might hold that the moral status of a given action-type depends upon the circumstances in which it occurs. So, knocking your opponent over might be entirely permissible on the football field, but not in a presidential debate. Some have held that lying is permissible in some circumstances (... Read more
If something logically exists (or logically does not exist) in one possible world, why is it necessary for that same something to logically exist (or logically not exist) in all possible worlds? I do not have any background in modal logic and I am trying to understand the argument for the nonexistence of time as described in Yourgrau's recent book on Gödel and Einstein.
Joseph G. Moore
March 15, 2006
(changed March 15, 2006)
Permalink
Suppose we know through logic alone that something is true about the world. I don't know if there are such truths (or even such ways of knowing), but a good candidate might be the claim that no state of affairs simultaneously holds and doesn't hold of the same portion of the world. If conside... Read more