Recent Responses
I am looking for a good introduction to Continental philosophy, giving an overview of the key players, but written in lay-accessible language. Any suggestions of good books or the like?
Catherine Wearing
January 31, 2006
(changed January 31, 2006)
Permalink
The label 'Continental philosophy' tends to cover an extremely diverse collection of philosophers and approaches, and there's a lot of disagreement about who and what exactly should be included. So I'll just recommend two books that I (as someone who works in 'analytic philosophy') foun... Read more
Is infinity a number or not and why?
Daniel J. Velleman
January 31, 2006
(changed January 31, 2006)
Permalink
I think it's worth pointing out that there are many different number systems, which mathematicians use for different purposes, so your question is really ambiguous. If you are interested in determining how many things of some particular kind there are, then the appropriate numbers to... Read more
Is it possible for it to be proven that evolution is wrong? Could there not be (or have ever been) a missing link? If so, how did we get here? Were we put here? Thank you for your time. ~Kris S.
Richard Heck
January 30, 2006
(changed January 30, 2006)
Permalink
Of course evolution could be proven wrong. Maybe we will find out that our planet was actually created by an alien race. Once you dig deep enough, you can actually see the scaffolding they set up. Maybe our ancestors were middlemen on a distant planet who were sent away on a spaceship becaus... Read more
The questioner for http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/149 got the question wrong, so the response was wrong too. The question isn't do animals feel pain, because the consensus among animal behavorists is that they certainly do experience pain sensations which are in almost every way akin to the pain which humans feel. The correct question is whether animals can experience "suffering", and by extension, whether it is possible to "torture" an animal. For example, if someone were to step on your toe accidentally, a human (or animal) would feel a sensation of pain. But the pain would be momentary, and you wouldn't "suffer" from it unless you thought they had done it on purpose or vindictively. For that matter, a human can be harmed or "suffer" from some real or imagined act done to them when there is no pain (or even when there is pleasure) associated with the event. The argument being made by some researchers is that all animals (including apes, dolphins, etc.) except humans lack the mental sophistication to reflect upon the reasons for or context of the pains they experience, and hence are unable to feel suffering or be tortured. Of course, there are other convincing grounds for not inflicting pain on any animal, and whether or not the animal itself can be tortured, it could be torture for any humans directly involved or even just aware of what is being done, and hence objectionable for those reasons alone. For the record, I do not advocate mistreating animals. And yes, I do recognize the danger to animal rights (whatever they turn out to be) of even discussing the possibility that there are meaningful differences between animals (in the wild, in the zoo, in the lab, in the home, or whereever) and humans which have important moral or ethical implications. I invite anyone who cares to explore either side of this argument further to do so here.
Richard Heck
January 30, 2006
(changed January 30, 2006)
Permalink
A few points. First, I don't understand why you think one can't suffer without reflecting on the reasons for one's pain. That just seems false, and the OED seems to agree with me:
suffer (v.) To have (something painful, distressing, or injurious) inflicted orimposed upon one; to submit to w... Read more
Why is it that Christianity is so hugely believed as the absolute truth? Many religions appeared before Christianity, and why aren't they believed true? Could you please explain why millions of people dedicate their lives to a religion based upon a book with questionable origins?
Richard Heck
January 30, 2006
(changed January 30, 2006)
Permalink
There are a lot of questions here, but not many of them are philosophical in content. Nonetheless, I'll have a shot.
Plainly there are many people throughout the world who subscribe to faiths other than Christianity, including faiths, such as Judaism, that are older than it.
As to the quest... Read more
If reproducing is our "ultimate goal" in life, is it possible that evolution made an "error" of some kind by allowing us to think? Biologists say that evolution happens to allow a species to thrive more than it previously did, and that evolution experiments with combinations of properties that species have. Is it possible for evolution to undo our ability to think? Could you say according to this theory that instead of the human species being smarter it has actualy masked itself from its ultimate goal by being able to ponder the question "why?". These days, some people have no plans of creating offspring because they can choose whether or not they want to have children, and I believe choice is a product of thought. Is this theory plausible?
Marc Lange
January 29, 2006
(changed January 29, 2006)
Permalink
Yes, the theory of natural selection implies that a trait is more likely to spread insofar as (roughly speaking) the creatures possessing it are better at producing greater numbers of fertile offspring. But this does not mean that the "ultimate goal" of a creature is to reproduce. To speak of... Read more
Did Einstein ever engage the "scientific method" of empirical investigation in the course of his work on special and general relativity; and if not, wasn't he more a philosopher of science (albeit an exceptionally productive and influential one) than a scientist? If Einstein simply engaged in a priori reasoning and conceptual analysis (using his famous thought-experiments) then I don't see why the physics community has any more claim to him than the philosophical community. After all, it seems that his methodolgy bore a much stronger resemblance to that of contemporary philosophical efforts than it does to anything going on in or commonly associated with physics departments. -Will Leonard
Marc Lange
January 29, 2006
(changed January 29, 2006)
Permalink
An excellent question!
Many of Einstein's most famous papers make shockingly few references to the details of previous empirical work by other scientists. To put the same point in another way, many of Einstein's most famous arguments arise largely from "philosophical" considerations. For insta... Read more
In relation to the debate raging in the US about evolution and Intelligent Design, I would like to know whether positing the existence and prior activity of an intelligent designer is a scientific or a philosophical question. Is it scientifically conceivable that the existence of a designer and of things having come about purposefully as opposed to randomly could ever be deduced from available or putative evidence?
Douglas Burnham
January 29, 2006
(changed January 29, 2006)
Permalink
If I may add one additional point to the ones already given: there is an all important difference between an intelligent designer that is a human being or an advanced alien civilisation, and an intelligent designer that is divine. The former could have evidence in its favour, and could be... Read more
Is it sensible to think that time is more fundamental than space, because one can just close one's eyes and relive memories, going back in time or prospectively go forward in time to predict something, without actually changing your position in space?
Douglas Burnham
January 29, 2006
(changed January 29, 2006)
Permalink
The thesis that time is more fundamental than space is not uncommon among philosophers -- although the significance attached to this, and the meaning of 'fundamental' varies widely. At least arguably, Aristotle, Leibniz, Kant and Heidegger, are committed to some variety of this claim.
Kan... Read more
What is the reasoning behind the existentialist claim that existence precedes essence?
Douglas Burnham
January 29, 2006
(changed January 29, 2006)
Permalink
Unfortunately, there is not one reasoning, since there are many different philosophers who have been called 'existentialists'. However, generally, the line of argument has to do with understanding the ontological differences between human beings and other types of beings.
Other types of... Read more