Recent Responses
Is it wrong to share copyrighted songs and video over the internet? I think the law should be changed to take away the protection of copyright. What do you think?
David Papineau
January 29, 2006
(changed January 29, 2006)
Permalink
I'm going to comment on the question of whether copyright laws arein fact justified, rather than the question Bernard Gert addresses,namely, of whether it is morally wrong in general to violate laws(though in passing I can't stop myself observing that, when it comes tointernet activities,... Read more
How to settle the emptiness when a relationship ends? Going out with friends won't help, reading and music don't help neither. What is this emptiness? Is it from me (something I can control) or is it from emotion (something people can't get control with)?
Jyl Gentzler
January 28, 2006
(changed January 28, 2006)
Permalink
This might be a question that is best answered by professional psychologists rather than philosophers, but it does raise interesting questions about the nature of love. Several philosophers (e.g., Solomon, Scruton, Nozick) have suggested that when one person loves another, the lover’s sense... Read more
Am I morally bound to tell my sex partner if I fantasize about someone else whilst making love to her? Or the subject of the fantasy for that matter? SteveB
Alan Soble
February 2, 2006
(changed February 2, 2006)
Permalink
In my reply to Tom's reply, I asked for argument, reasons, what philosophers are supposed to do as philosophers, if not duty-bound to do. And, finally, he did it. Thank you, Tom. Maybe I am thick and hence couldn't read the argument(s) that really did exist between or amongst those three short... Read more
Am I morally bound to tell my sex partner if I fantasize about someone else whilst making love to her? Or the subject of the fantasy for that matter? SteveB
Alan Soble
February 2, 2006
(changed February 2, 2006)
Permalink
In my reply to Tom's reply, I asked for argument, reasons, what philosophers are supposed to do as philosophers, if not duty-bound to do. And, finally, he did it. Thank you, Tom. Maybe I am thick and hence couldn't read the argument(s) that really did exist between or amongst those three short... Read more
Some years ago I heard one of the Beatles in the course of a conversation about his career opine that 'after all I might easily have been someone else, mightn't I'. I remember not being sure about this proposition. One half knows what is being got at but on the other hand, it seems barely intelligible. Could I easily have been someone else? Ian g
Jyl Gentzler
January 27, 2006
(changed January 27, 2006)
Permalink
Several years ago, in a fit of anger at her father, my daughter turned her anger on me and demanded that I explain to her why I had ever gotten involved with him. I pointed out to her that she had no right to be angry at me on these grounds, since she wouldn’t have existed had it not been f... Read more
How do formal logicians respond to Marxist/Leninist/Dialectical logic claims? For example, in "An Introduction to the Logic of Marxism", George Novack explains that the law of identity of formal logic, that "A is equal to A", is always falsified when we try to apply it to reality. Here is a quote from the book, in which he quotes from "In Defense of Marxism" (it is long, I apologize): "... a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true -- all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, color, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself at 'any given moment.' "Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this 'axiom,' it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word 'moment'? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that 'moment' to inevitable changes. Or is the 'moment' a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; ... time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom 'A is equal to A' signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist." He goes on to say that since everything exists in time, the law of identity of formal logic is never applicable to the real world. Presumably at least one reason we use logic is to help us arrive at beliefs that will then guide our actions, so presumably if the law of identity of formal logic were in fact falsified when applied to the real world, that would be a problem. What do you make of all of this?? Thanks.
Jyl Gentzler
January 27, 2006
(changed January 27, 2006)
Permalink
According to a standard conception of identity, if A is identical to B, then A and B haveall of their properties in common. This principle is commonly known asLeibniz’s law, after the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a 17thcentury German philosopher, who articulated this implication o... Read more
I once took a graduate course in education in which I was the only non-teacher. One day, I disagreed with something said by another student, and her response has always baffled me. She said: "Who are you? You can't question me until you've walked in my shoes." In other words, she felt that I was unqualified to question her, to cast doubt on anything she said. Who was I to say? Well of course her response was nonsense but how so? As a matter of logic or illogic, was her remark an example of an appeal to authority? She certainly felt that she was an authority.
Jyl Gentzler
January 27, 2006
(changed January 27, 2006)
Permalink
I have such a visceral reaction to your fellow student’s comment. I just want to slap her on your behalf, which of course I’d never do, but I’d want to! But then I wonder what your comment was. Maybe she was just verbally slapping you, and while verbal slapping is no better than physical... Read more
I've really enjoyed reading the answers to the questions posed on this site and I've come up with a question that was inspired from an experience my 5 year old daughter recently had. My question is this: Why is it wrong to snitch on a friend? I can see in cases of minor mischief that snitching on a friend would seem to be unloyal but just how far should our duty to our friendship extend? I'm asking this from the context where you know your friend has done something wrong and in which you were not involved but your friend has requested you remain silent on their behalf.
Jyl Gentzler
January 27, 2006
(changed January 27, 2006)
Permalink
I know that you’re primarily interested in the more sophisticatedquestion concerning the extent of our obligations to friends, but I’mstuck on childhood “snitching,” or as it’s known in my family,“tattling.” “Don’t be a tattle-tale,” I’m often tempted to tell my fiveyear old when she tel... Read more
I've been wondering for some time now whether it is logically/morally defensible to be an absolute pacifist while practising a martial art. It's particularly troubling because I'm in that situation and I haven't - as yet - found a resolution to what appears to be an adherence to two conflicting philosophies.
Bernard Gert
January 26, 2006
(changed January 26, 2006)
Permalink
I am not sure what you mean by "an absolute pacifist." If you mean that you would not even disarm a person who was attempting to kill you, then you may have a problem reconciling it with practising a martial art. However, there does not seem to be any good nonreligious reasons to be an absol... Read more
Am I morally bound to tell my sex partner if I fantasize about someone else whilst making love to her? Or the subject of the fantasy for that matter? SteveB
Alan Soble
February 2, 2006
(changed February 2, 2006)
Permalink
In my reply to Tom's reply, I asked for argument, reasons, what philosophers are supposed to do as philosophers, if not duty-bound to do. And, finally, he did it. Thank you, Tom. Maybe I am thick and hence couldn't read the argument(s) that really did exist between or amongst those three short... Read more