Recent Responses
Most people would probably think that when we say something is 'real' we mean this in a physical sense (e.g., this table is real) and we contrast it to imaginary things (e.g., unicorns, Elvis being alive). Is it, however, also possible to claim that all things are real in different ways, and that something that might ordinarily be considered 'not real' only 'exists in a different way'?
Alexander George
January 17, 2006
(changed January 17, 2006)
Permalink
You might not want to withhold the term "real" from all entities that don't exist in the physical world. For instance, you might want to say that the number 17 is real or that the thought that 17 is prime is real -- though you might be reluctant to say that that number or that thought e... Read more
Given the difficulty (or perhaps impossibility) of reaching a solid and uncontested 'definition' of art, can it be talked about? More generally, must we know what a thing 'is' in order to talk about it, and if so how do we go about finding out what it is?
Alexander George
January 17, 2006
(changed January 17, 2006)
Permalink
Can it be talked about? Well, we do, so it can. If we could talk only of that for which we possessed definitions, there'd be precious little talking. But you raise a puzzling question: What must we know about an object in order to talk about it? You might think you'd need to know so... Read more
How is it possible for me to be conscious of myself? How can a molecule in my brain or foot or whatever feel that it exists? I assume anyone would agree that an atom is not self-conscious, that neither is a rock or a cell or an insect... a baby human? Yet it seems, somewhere along the line of increasing brain capacity one becomes self-conscious. How is it that when a system such as myself becomes complex enough it becomes self-conscious? If we assume that a unit, one thing, can only be conscious of other things, is it that somehow we are many things conscious of each other, who mistakenly think of themselves as one thing. Is self-consciousness just an emergent property? Is it an illusion? These are extremely important questions for me as I think so much hinges on self-consciousness: the concept of soul/spirit and mind-body duality, free will, death.........
Noga Arikha
January 17, 2006
(changed January 17, 2006)
Permalink
To the question 'how' corresponds some sort of scientific description of the phenomenon - and many scientists are indeed engaged in trying to understand 'how' the human brain has developed, indeed evolved, the sort of consciousness that enables us to ask questions about ourselves in the first... Read more
Can we conceive of something being a psychological pollutant, in the same way we conceive of physiological pollutants? Consider for example a clothing advert that features extremely skinny women in expensive clothing (as they often do). It seems clear that this is harmful to the consumer in a number of ways. Most clearly, it is damaging to women, who are pressured to meet unrealistic and unhealthy standards for appearance. Being that one cannot isolate oneself from these advertisements (you can shut off your TV but you can't avoid the big billboards on city streets), does it not make sense to outlaw such billboards on the basis that they are unavoidable psychological pollutants? And if not, is it only because it's harder for us to quantify and locate psychological damage than it is to locate physiological damage?
Peter Lipton
January 15, 2006
(changed January 15, 2006)
Permalink
Freedom of expression is a very great good and so justifies allowing considerable (though not unlimited) psychological pollution. There may not be such a potent compensating good in the case of physiological pollution. It may be that a policy of additional legal restriction on psychological... Read more
Telescopes and microscopes do not enlarge reality, they only enlarge images of reality. Everything seen through a lens is an image of reality, not reality. But our eyes have lenses, so everything we see is only an image of reality. Can this be true?
Peter Lipton
January 15, 2006
(changed January 15, 2006)
Permalink
Perception is not ingestion: when you see a tree, the tree does not enter your brain. Moreover, seeing does involve the creation of an image on the backs of your eyes. But it does not follow that you only ever see an image. Maybe an analogy to a photograph will help. A photograph of a tr... Read more
In the first Superman movie, after Lois Lane is killed in the earthquake, Superman appears to reverse time by flying around the Earth and reversing its rotation. Thinking about it, this makes no sense. But in the movie, it has a certain plausibility. So what gives Superman's feat its plausibility? (A friend of mine suggested that the Earth didn't actually reverse its rotation due to Superman flying around it, but that the reversing rotation was just meant to suggest that Superman, by flying so fast, was able to go back in time himself. But this, too, makes no sense.)
David Papineau
January 14, 2006
(changed January 14, 2006)
Permalink
You are right that Superman's feat of resurrecting Lois Lane makeslittle sense. The same is true of nearly all films (or stories)involving time travel. The trouble arises when characters 'change thepast'. That whole idea is of doubtful consistency. If Superman makes itthe case that Lois di... Read more
Can cardiac rescusitation of an individual with an inoperable brain tumor be justified? Who benefits? Glen.
Peter S. Fosl
January 14, 2006
(changed January 14, 2006)
Permalink
Hey Glen,An interesting question, indeed. It reminds me, too, about why medical care is provided to people who've been sentenced to death.Look at it this way, though, all of us are going to die at some point. You might say that those with inoperable brain tumors just have a clearer pictur... Read more
There've been a lot of questions recently about how far different cultural values can be reconciled with the law of a country (assuming the law is secular). It seems easier to answer extreme questions like whether female genital mutilation should be permitted (no in my opinion), or something much milder like whether headscarves and other religious dress should be banned in schools (no in my opinion again), but what about the questions that fall somewhere in between? For example, is it right to force Sikh people who can't cover their turbans with anything to wear helmets when they ride a bike, and to punish them when they don't? How far can you force people to obey the law where there might only be a potential risk to them if they don't, but there will definitely be harm to their religious or cultural beliefs? Thank you for answering.
Nicholas D. Smith
January 12, 2006
(changed January 12, 2006)
Permalink
The question does not seem to me to have a general answer. But you have left out at least one of the factors that must be taken into account. Helmet laws (for bicycles and motorcycles) are not just for the protection of the riders. These laws also protect those who are dependent upon... Read more
Is there a clear-cut distinction between morality and ethics, or is the distinction to be found largely in linguistic usage? For example, immoral behaviour suggests behaviour that breaks some socially accepted code, but so does unethical behaviour. However, in the latter case, the code may be less widely applicable, such as a journalistic code of ethics. Or is it that morality has, at its base, religious belief, while ethics need not necessarily have that, but is more secular? Andrew Taylor
Nicholas D. Smith
January 12, 2006
(changed January 12, 2006)
Permalink
I agree that most philosophers use the terms interchangeably, and that there is no generally agreed upon distinction. But one reasons for thinking that there is a distinction to be made is to consider whether the general approach to values is rule-based or agent-based. Virtue theorist... 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