Recent Responses
I was once asked at a University PPE interview, Does time have a colour? I found it both extremely interesting and baffling. My opinion was that as time was not a physical property it could not have a colour yet I questioned myself countless times. What's your opinion - could time have a colour? K(17)
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 16, 2006
(changed February 16, 2006)
Permalink
I suspect the point of this question was to see whether you could articulate the idea of a "category error," that is a statement that is syntactically correct but is nonsense because its predicate cannot meaningfully be attributed to its subject.
If this is what the interviewer had... Read more
I was once asked at a University PPE interview, Does time have a colour? I found it both extremely interesting and baffling. My opinion was that as time was not a physical property it could not have a colour yet I questioned myself countless times. What's your opinion - could time have a colour? K(17)
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 16, 2006
(changed February 16, 2006)
Permalink
I suspect the point of this question was to see whether you could articulate the idea of a "category error," that is a statement that is syntactically correct but is nonsense because its predicate cannot meaningfully be attributed to its subject.
If this is what the interviewer had... Read more
Does the word 'chance' (or 'accident', 'luck', or 'random') refer to the absence of causation, or does it express our ignorance of causation? Equally, does the word 'infinite' refer to the unlimited, or to our ignorance of limits?
Alexander George
February 15, 2006
(changed February 15, 2006)
Permalink
You might also have a look at some of the other entries in the category: Probability.
Log in to post comments
Can an ideal be achieved? If my understanding of what ideals are is correct (i.e., a mental conception regarded as a standard of perfection), then it seems that they are, by their very nature, unattainable (at least in a corporeal sense). Yet, nations are built, wars are fought, and people are killed over ideals. If they are only "perfect ideas", doesn't that seem a bit absurd and irrational? Is my understanding of what an "ideal" is incorrect?
Douglas Burnham
February 16, 2006
(changed February 16, 2006)
Permalink
In ordinary English, 'Ideal' has at least two meanings. One is an exemplar of perfection, as you say. E.g. an ideal professor, or an ideal partner. There seems no reason why this necessarily could not be attainable; that is to say, why such an object could not in fact exist.
The other... Read more
Does the word 'chance' (or 'accident', 'luck', or 'random') refer to the absence of causation, or does it express our ignorance of causation? Equally, does the word 'infinite' refer to the unlimited, or to our ignorance of limits?
Alexander George
February 15, 2006
(changed February 15, 2006)
Permalink
You might also have a look at some of the other entries in the category: Probability.
Log in to post comments
Can acts of terrorism, as choreographed performances of something, be consider art?
Thomas Pogge
February 14, 2006
(changed February 14, 2006)
Permalink
Terrorist acts can be considered art, surely. I know an artist who, when he saw the WTC burning from his loft window, thought this was art (namely the filming of a movie). But his judgment was based on a factual error. So you might ask: What may rightly be considered art? I think the best... Read more
On the tube in London many years ago, I was reading a piece in the Evening Standard by Ayer on some educational matters. In there he made the surprising statement 'After all all education is indoctrination anyway'. Bearing in mind education and indoctrination are characteristically opposed to each other, what could Ayer have been getting at? Or is this simply an example of a gifted philosopher not bringing his usual acumen to bear upon the topic under discussion? Ian g
Catherine Wearing
February 14, 2006
(changed February 14, 2006)
Permalink
I don't know Ayer's work well enough to comment on what he had in mind, but here are a couple of general observations about the relationship between education and indoctrination. First, there are certainly some similarities between the two. There is a sense in which they do the same k... Read more
Hello philosophers. I was just wondering about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. What exactly is it and does it limit what we are capable of knowing? I have no training in mathematics or formal logic so if you could reply in lay terms, I would appreciate that. Thanks, Tim.
Richard Heck
February 25, 2006
(changed February 25, 2006)
Permalink
Regarding your second question, whether the incompleteness theorem limits what we are capable of knowing, people disagree about this question. But the short answer is: There is no decent, short argument from the incompleteness theorem to that conclusion. If it does limit what we are capabl... Read more
Assuming that life is objectively meaningless (i.e. no God, ultimate destruction of the universe, certain death...), can making the decision to continue living be justified? In other words, how can a person justify his existence coherently if he acknowledges that whatever he does has no real and meaningful purpose? Surely life is neither worth nor not worth living. So why does everybody insist that it is worth living? It is irrational, isn't? --- Icarus
Thomas Pogge
February 11, 2006
(changed February 11, 2006)
Permalink
I find this hard to respond to because the meaning of the relevant expressions and especially the background assumptions are not clear to me. For example:
Why do you so easily deny that life it not worth living (while also denying that it is worth living)? What's the third possibility her... Read more
'Zoophiles', as they call themselves, often claim that committing sexual acts with animals is okay because animals are capable of consenting, either by sexual displays (lifting tails, humping hapless human legs, etc), or by not biting/fighting back, or by allowing the human access to them, so to speak. The problem I have with this is that an animal can't attribute the same idea to sex as a human can - for a human sex may be bound up with love and other types of emotions where by and large for animals it is another biological duty. In my opinion that would mean that there is no real consent between an animal and a human because the two are essentially contemplating a different act. Am I missing something here? And is there any validity in the idea that it is wrong to engage in sex with animals because for most humans it is intuitively wrong? If it doesn't really harm anyone - if the animal is unscathed - does that make the whole argument pointless?
Jyl Gentzler
February 11, 2006
(changed February 11, 2006)
Permalink
I haven’t given much thought to the ethics of sex between humans and non-humans, but it seems to me that the fact that sex between humans requires consent does not imply that sex involving non-human animals requires consent. We require consent in sexual relations between human beings beca... Read more