Recent Responses
I've heard many philosophers promote skepticism. But it seems that skepticism is self-defeating, since the skeptics would have to be skeptic about their own doubts. Therefore, by virtue of that, they should not be skeptic. Is this argument valid?
Whether this argument is
Yuval Avnur
December 19, 2015
(changed December 19, 2015)
Permalink
Whether this argument is valid really depends on what you mean by some of the key terms (this happens a lot in philosophy). But first: I don't think that a lot of philosophers promote skepticism. Most philosophers aren't skeptics, in the sense that they don't think t... Read more
What would happen to ones mind if they were to experience the sight of an entirely new color never before seen through human eyes?
I don't think anything too
Yuval Avnur
December 19, 2015
(changed December 19, 2015)
Permalink
I don't think anything too spectacular would necessarily happen. One reason is that one might not even notice it when it happens. For example, at some point in history, we can imagine that no one had experienced the sight of the color of coca cola in a green g... Read more
When faced with a lack of any conclusive argument one way or the other, how does one avoid total scepticism?
By 'conclusive' argument, I
Yuval Avnur
December 19, 2015
(changed December 19, 2015)
Permalink
By 'conclusive' argument, I assume you mean some argument that proves, or guarantees, its conclusion. By 'total skepticism' I assume you mean to have no opinion one way or the other at all, or to completely lack any confidence in both the conclusion and... Read more
why is it difficult to define philosophy?
I am not trying to be
Charles Taliaferro
December 17, 2015
(changed December 17, 2015)
Permalink
I am not trying to be difficult, but I am not sure philosophy is difficult to define, or at least I suggest it is not any more difficult to define than (for example) the sciences, the humanities, love or works of art, war and peace, and so on. I usually define "... Read more
I don't know if this question falls as a scientific question but to my knowledge, this is more of a question on the nature and extent of science, so I think this is more philosophical than scientific. My question is: is it possible for scientists to create a well-functioning human brain, or is the nature of consciousness so intractable that creating a brain would be next to impossible?
If scientists were to create
Charles Taliaferro
December 17, 2015
(changed December 17, 2015)
Permalink
If scientists were to create a well-functioning human brain, I suggest it probably would have to involve the brain being part of an anatomically well-functioning body, whether the body is human or humanoid or mechanical (in which case one would have a cybo... Read more
It is common to characterize emotions as unhelpful in moral discernment. When faced with a situation that requires careful moral deliberation, emotion is often set aside, while reason and evidence are taken to be very important. Isn't always this the case? Do emotions really have no value in moral discernment, or they have to some extent but some philosophers have just neglected their part?
You're certainly correct that
Michael Cholbi
December 17, 2015
(changed March 5, 2016)
Permalink
You're certainly correct that there is a tendency in suppose that reason and emotion are antagonists, and that with respect to morality in particular, we should be guided by reason rather than emotion. And there may be major figures in the history of philoso... Read more
To a philosopher, there likely comes a time when the error in another's crazy ideas -say, at a party or dinner- can be so apparent as to invite some criticism. What's a good moral position on whether to correct someone's logic when it's uninvited and suspectedly unwelcome? Idea eg. UFOs, 'crystals', ESP, conspiracies, etc.
Maybe a golden rule helps:
Charles Taliaferro
December 11, 2015
(changed December 11, 2015)
Permalink
Maybe a golden rule helps: one should intervene to the extent that, if it was you who had the crazy ideas, you would want to be challenged? In general I suggest that philosophers (and here I do not mean professionals, I mean those who are committed to the l... Read more
Is terrorism ever justified?
Good question. Someone who
Charles Taliaferro
December 11, 2015
(changed December 11, 2015)
Permalink
Good question. Someone who is a consequentialist --that is, a person who believes the morality of an act is contingent on its actual or expected consequences such as the act's producing great happiness or unhappiness-- might have to answer "yes." This is... Read more
In the light of the current state in philosophy, do skeptics still get an upper hand? Can we really know anything with certainty?
I'm going to refer you to two
Stephen Maitzen
December 11, 2015
(changed December 11, 2015)
Permalink
I'm going to refer you to two websites. At the PhilPapers Survey, you'll discover that only 4.8% of "target faculty" said that they accept or lean toward skepticism. Among specialists in epistemology (the theory of knowledge), that figure increases to 9... Read more
Moral disagreements seem to suggest that there may be an objective moral truth out there but it seems next to impossible to discern about it. Is there a way out of intractably difficult moral disagreements so that both opposing sides will be able to discern the truth of the matter being discussed, or the situation is just hopeless?
In no way a simple question!
Michael Cholbi
December 10, 2015
(changed December 10, 2015)
Permalink
In no way a simple question! First, you ask whether the "opposing sides" in a moral disagreement can "discern the truth" of the moral issue at hand. That raises some terrifically complex questions in moral epistemology, namely, just how do we know moral truth... Read more