Recent Responses
Do computers defy the law of conservation of mass? Because, if a computer can copy a program there is twice the amount of space taken up. But how can you just duplicate an amount of space (MB, KB, GB,etc.) if you add nothing to it?
Richard Heck
January 4, 2006
(changed January 4, 2006)
Permalink
One way to think of why this might seem puzzling is in terms of the type-token distinction. To understand that distinction, consider the question how many words there are on the next line:
The The The The
You could answer "four" or you could answer "one", and both are correct. It's just that... Read more
In the UK there are the 'Page 3' models (in case you are unfamiliar with them, they are topless models that appear everyday in <i>The Sun</i>, usually with snippets of text about how young they are, and suggestive speech bubbles). Because <i>The Sun</i> is such a widely read publication and because that particular page is so popular, Page 3 is readily accessible on the bus, in the tube, on the kitchen table, in the newsagents, etc., etc. A while ago the politician Clare Short tried to get Page 3 outlawed because she said that it promoted sexism. She quickly got shouted down by other politicans and by the public who mocked her for being unattractive and whining. It seems to me that Clare Short had a point. If people, especially young kids, see this type of woman everywhere they go they might believe that woman are there to be eternally young and up for it, so to speak, and that it is okay to see them purely as sexual objects. Equality between men and women could be suffering from this, surely? Or is that sexuality is an important part of human life and people are just expressing themselves, and therefore to suppress it would be artificial? Any answers you can give would be great, thanks!
Nicholas D. Smith
January 5, 2006
(changed January 5, 2006)
Permalink
Surely anything that promotes sexism is, to the degree and for that reason, a bad thing. Truth is, the popular media and advertising reinforce all kinds of biases and prejudices (against older people, against people who do not fit social standards of beauty or attractiveness, against poo... Read more
Why do we imagine that one may/should compensate for a lack of skill with hard work? Do we really have any reason to believe that one's capacity for (or at least one's inclination to) "hard work" is any more under our control than one's "skill" level? - ca$h money hobo
Thomas Pogge
January 3, 2006
(changed January 3, 2006)
Permalink
Skill level is under one's control to some extent: one can become more skilled -- in juggling, say -- through practice. One has less control over how far one can improve one's skill, and how fast; that's more a matter of inborn endowments (dexterity), upbringing, environment.
Hard work, as yo... Read more
I really love my wife and of course I never want to hurt her, but is it moral to cheat on her if I'm 100% sure that she won't know (and therefore she won't be hurt)?
Richard Heck
January 2, 2006
(changed January 2, 2006)
Permalink
Extending Alex's last point, one might say that you would harm your wife were you to cheat on her, whether or not she ever discovered your infidelity. Of course, it wouldn't cause her emotional pain, but one might suppose that she has an interest in your fidelity that is quite independent of h... Read more
Logically, the view entailed by solipsism (i.e., that I cannot prove that there exists anything beyond my own consciousness) seems impossible to refute. How do philosophers persuade themselves not to stop at this position and abandon all further enquiry as futile?
Richard Heck
January 2, 2006
(changed January 2, 2006)
Permalink
As has often been mentioned here, one cannot "prove" very much, if "prove" means something like: Establish beyond absolutely all doubt, reasonable or otherwise. It simply does not follow, however, that one cannot know very much. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that one can know only what on... Read more
If it was proved tomorrow that plants can feel pain, what would happen to the arguments of vegetarians who are vegetarians because they don't believe in causing animals pain?
Peter Lipton
January 4, 2006
(changed January 4, 2006)
Permalink
The main way we cause pain to aminals is through the way we raise them in factory farms, so even if plants could feel pain (though like Richard, I bet they don't), we might be able to grow and harvest them without causing them any more pain than, say, we cause a free-range chicken. But if for... Read more
If I hypothetically make something that is widely accepted as beautiful, then I reproduce it and put it everywhere so that everyone in the United States will see it at least once a day, but probably more than that, will it be considered less beautiful? If so, why do objects become less beautiful if they become more accessible? How much do wonder, curiosity, and imagination contribute as factors in defining something's aesthetical value? A friend of mine studying architecture said this: "In the context of architecture, the original modernist designs were considered stunning in their simplicity... but once they were reproduced over and over, and classical/victorian/old buildings were knocked down and destroyed, the situation reversed: those old buildings were considered beautiful again and the now over-abundant modernist buildings were now just noise in the background." How much of aesthetics is determined by the attribution of favorable nonaesthetic traits? If I look at a logo for a company whose functional work I am impressed with, and whose business model is beyond admirable, do I associate its sense of design with beauty? Is beauty a byproduct of functional compatibility? [Note: I realize there are many questions here, and I don't anticipate answers for all of them -- the one I'm most curious about is our attribution of accessibility to aesthetics.]
Richard Heck
January 1, 2006
(changed January 1, 2006)
Permalink
I don't know that the beauty of a thing is diminished by its prevalence. Roses, blue jays, and the newfallen snow, for example, continue to strike me as stunningly beautiful no matter how often I am privileged to see them. Perhaps there is something different about human creations. Or perhaps,... Read more
Can randomness be defined? Since I believe that the word means the absence of order, the proving of randomness involves proving a negative. What, then is the meaning of the terms random number and random sequence? Does the designation of any events e.g. radioactive decay, as random mean anything other than "uninfluenceable by any known agency" and/or "not showing any regularity discernible by humans"?
Richard Heck
January 1, 2006
(changed January 1, 2006)
Permalink
Someone who knows more about the physics than I do would need to answer the latter question, but I believe that certain physical phenomena are supposed to be random in a much stronger sense that just "unintelligible to humans". There is supposed to be nothing other than probabilistic facts abo... Read more
If we do not experience* time when we are asleep then does that prove that time is subjective? *Meaning that when we are asleep we do not acknowledge the time that passes in the same way in which those who are awake do. Steve, 17
Richard Heck
January 1, 2006
(changed January 1, 2006)
Permalink
No, it doesn't prove that time is subjective. It just proves that we're not aware of it when we sleep. Indeed, since time clearly does pass while we're asleep, that would seem to suggest that time isn't subjective in the strong sense you are suggesting it is.
Log in to pos... Read more
Does not Descartes beg the question when he argues "I think therefore I exist?" My problem with Descartes' argument arises from his attempt to treat "existence" as a predicate that can be applied to subjects. When he says "I think", the word "I" will have a referent if and only if I exist. So, if the proposition "I think" is meaningful -that is, if it succeeds in attributing the property of thinking to a subject "I"-, it is trivial that I exist. However, in order for the proposition "I think" to be meaningful, I must exist in the first place. So, Descartes seems to beg the question of "my" existence. One might just as well assert, "I dance the funky chicken therefore I exist" or my favorite "I outgrabe therefore I exist" (a reference to Lewis Carroll). Thanks...
Peter Lipton
January 1, 2006
(changed January 1, 2006)
Permalink
I'm not sure that the sentence 'I exist' would be meaningless rather than just false if there were no referent for 'I', but the worry about question begging remains. And you are in good company with the funky chicken. Thomas Hobbes, in his objections to Descartes, asks why 'I think therefore... Read more