Recent Responses
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 am a master's student in philosophy and my marks at least, show that I'm doing quite well. I'm also very interested in the subject even if it can get really difficult. My university is offering me a teaching post, but lately, I find myself contemplating on shifting to social work (and doing it full time) because I have this feeling that it's my "calling". How do you know that you are for professional philosophy? Do you think one can meaningfully practice philosophy outside the academe? Thank you very much.
Richard Heck
March 14, 2006
(changed March 14, 2006)
Permalink
When I asked this question of my undergraduate mentor, he asked me a series of questions: Does it keep you up at night? Would you do philosophy anyway, no matter what else you were doing? The point of these questions was that, to be a professional philosophical researcher, you really do have to... Read more
Do chimpanzees really enjoy eating bananas?
Mark Crimmins
March 13, 2006
(changed March 13, 2006)
Permalink
Perhaps you mistyped the URL for the "Ask Chimpanzees" website?
Chimps do have brains very similar to ours, and it's likely that when they eat the food that they pursue, they are in states that are physiologically like ours when we eat what we enjoy. Plus their brain states play similar roles... Read more
If I see some innocent lady being beaten to death and, though I could easily stop the robbery, I CHOOSE not to intervene just because I'm sure the guy will eventually be punished for his crime, does that make me a bad person?
Matthew Silverstein
March 12, 2006
(changed March 12, 2006)
Permalink
If you really could "easily" stop the robbery and save someone'slife (without putting your own life in grave danger), then surely you do havea moral obligation to intervene. The fact that the violent man will certainly be punished seems to be entirely irrelevant to question ofwhat you oug... Read more
'Nature' is commonly understood as, among other things, standing in contrast to the 'man-made'. However, can these two ideas be kept separate? Surely everything 'man-made' cannot occur contrary to the fundamental structure of the universe and does not oppose it, but rather occurs within it and perhaps even as a factor of the natural constitution of humankind? Or to put it more simply: surely there is nothing 'unnatural' about (for example) a parent deciding upon the genetic make-up of their as yet unborn child, despite this being to many peoples' distaste.
Douglas Burnham
March 12, 2006
(changed March 12, 2006)
Permalink
'Nature' is a difficult concept, with a long and varied history. Thus, whenever someone comes up with an argument that something is ‘natural’ or ‘un-natural’, the first question that should be asked is ‘what do they mean by ‘nature’, and how can this concept of nature be justified?’
Broadly s... Read more
If God exists and he knows it all, even the future, then he knew Hitler would go to hell before Hitler was even born. Why would God give someone life, just to send him to hell for all eternity? Is this fair to Hitler and all those doomed to go to hell or is this proof that God doesn't really know it all, not the future at least?
Alexander George
March 10, 2006
(changed March 10, 2006)
Permalink
Assume God knows that Hitler will go to Hell, because God knows all truths and it's true that Hitler will go to Hell. Does it follow that Hitler was "doomed" to that fate, that he had no say in it? I'm not sure that it does. For the reason it's true that Hitler will go to Hell might just... Read more
What if a person continues to wish evil, (e.g., that someone dies) but is only refrained from action (murder) by practical concerns (such as fear of incarceration)? What is the moral difference between that wish, and the act? (Btw, thanks Nicholas D. Smith for your excellent answer [to a related question: http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/974].)
Nicholas D. Smith
March 9, 2006
(changed March 9, 2006)
Permalink
Obviously, there are better reasons for desisting from some evil wish than others--it would be better not to murder someone, when you experience the wish, because you feel some compassion for others who might grieve the death, or because you realize that you could never forgive yourself for s... Read more
How malleable is meaning? Example: can we take a word that is commonly understood to mean/refer to a specific thing and give it an entirely new meaning (or at least one that, despite its slight similarity is still significantly removed from the original)? Example: referring to a traffic light as 'autistic' (given that it operates in one way, without change) without meaning this metaphorically.
Gabriel Segal
April 16, 2006
(changed April 16, 2006)
Permalink
Or, just following up on Amy's response, maybe the right answer is 'both'. Rather than thinking of the meaning of 'glory' in Humpty's mouth, we might think of what the word meant in Humpty's idiolect and what the word meant in English. Many linguists and philosophers (including Noam Chomksy)... Read more
Some people are born into privileged situations and some people into poverty. Do you think that those unfortunate enough to be in the second group can sometimes be justified in resorting to crime, say civil disobedience or theft, either through frustration or necessity? And if they were to resort to crime, is it fair to judge and punish them in the same way as more privileged people who might do the same things?
Thomas Pogge
March 9, 2006
(changed March 9, 2006)
Permalink
Extreme contrasts of privilege and poverty are often the result of unjust social institutions such as feudalism and serfdom, for example. In such a context, people in dire poverty may well be justified in violating their society's property laws, in practicing civil disobedience, and even in overth... Read more
I am a a high school teacher working for the Los Angeles Unified School District. I have been given approval to begin teaching a Philosophy survey course for the next school year. Although I am well read and schooled in Philosophy (I think?), I am unaware of possible textbooks for the study of Philosophy. I am looking for something that might be high school student friendly. Thus the Adorno Reader might be out of sorts for my pubescent high school students. In addition, I am fielding advice on the best approach to teaching Philosophy to high schoolers. I am interested in possible methods, assignments and projects. Any advice would be welcomed. Thank you, Ramon
Oliver Leaman
March 9, 2006
(changed March 9, 2006)
Permalink
I would add to the helpful suggestions that there is nothing like working with the students on an actual extended text, like one of the shorter Plato dialogues, perhaps, or some of Russell's essays, to bring them into direct contact with a philosopher. I have often found that this is effective i... Read more