Recent Responses
Quantum behaviour says that before a phenomenon is observed there may be a number of possible outcomes. Once observed, the number of possible outcomes becomes one; what actually happened? Surely the present moment consists of an infinity of phenomena which, with the benefit of Quantum hindsight, may be seen to have *actually* been certainties. Uncertainty exists only in the mind of an imperfect observer; there’s no such thing as foresight outside of a limited, dry mathematical framework. This leads me to think the following; i) That everything is as it is because it could not possibly have been any other way. ii) All the things in the universe whose extremely improbable existence we marvel at and things which everything else depend on who, if they were any other way, lots of other things wouldn’t work either, were actually (in retrospect), absolute certainties. Is this a gross misunderstanding of Quantum theory, an obvious conclusion, or a line of thinking with some mileage? I can see it leading in some interesting directions although I’d like to know if they’re theoretically blind alleys. M. Nicoll
Daniel J. Velleman
December 13, 2005
(changed December 13, 2005)
Permalink
The problem you raise in your first paragraph is called the measurement problem: What happens when a measurement takes place?Most physicists would not agree with your statement that "Surely the present moment consists of an infinity of phenomena which, with the benefit of Quantum hi... Read more
Other than the fact that it is your job, why do you practice philosophy now? Bob West
Nalini Bhushan
December 13, 2005
(changed December 13, 2005)
Permalink
I actually think that the idea that one "practices" philosophy is an intriguing one. While I agree with Alex that one doesn't practice philosophy as one might practice religion or playing piano, there is certainly a habit of the mind that one has, as a philosopher, that is nurtured by... Read more
Other than the fact that it is your job, why do you practice philosophy now? Bob West
Nalini Bhushan
December 13, 2005
(changed December 13, 2005)
Permalink
I actually think that the idea that one "practices" philosophy is an intriguing one. While I agree with Alex that one doesn't practice philosophy as one might practice religion or playing piano, there is certainly a habit of the mind that one has, as a philosopher, that is nurtured by... Read more
Hello. I have just read the introduction to this site and was interested in the "paradox" you mention -- that everyone confronts philosophical issues but not everyone has the opportunity to learn philosophy. In my ears, this statement has a twinge of arrogance about it, and my question is whether you think philosophy must, almost necessarily, make its practitioners arrogant. In the first place, regarding the claim itself: it seems that far from everyone confronts philosophical issues in their lives. Many people are confronted with practical issues, like how to get themselves out of poverty, or save their daughter from leukemia. Philosophy has nothing to offer here, it seems. Secondly, still regarding the claim that everyone confronts philosophical issues: while it may be true that many people (though probably mostly wealthy people, no?) confront SOME philosophical issues, there seem to be a great many philosophical issues that would never occur to people to be interested in. Issues in the philosophy of history, aesthetics; the mind-body problem, paradoxes about motion and space (like zeno's); issues in the philosophy of language, etc., don't occur to most people, and I suspect if confronted with them most people would find them irrelevant to their lives and consequently uninteresting. Shouldn't philosophy face up to this irrelevance, or at least admit that many of its issues are for aficionados only? Do philosophers think they live their lives better than others, or know more about how to live better lives? Are they like Socrates, thinking others live mistakenly by not examining their lives, but simply hide this opinion, fearing to voice it? If philosophers do think this way, I think many would find this objectionable. They would say that improving their lives and thinking critically about it is something they can do and has nothing to do with how much philosophy they've learned. Does philosophy claim to have a monopoly on exploring the "important" questions, or questions about value? And if a philosopher thinks he knows more, mustn't he necessarily become arrogant and aloof? He thinks he has knowledge about the important questions. Thus when asked to speak about them he speaks with care, weighs his words, etc., thus making him generally distasteful to company and socially awkward. Just as we don't need to know what a hammer is at its essence to use it properly and effectively, it seems neither do we need to know what love is at its essence, or happiness, or any of those things in a philosophical way, in order to use them and experience them in life. So, in sum: the charges against philosophy are its irrelevance and propensity to create practitioners who are likely to be arrogant and anti-social. How do you plead?
Alexander George
December 13, 2005
(changed December 13, 2005)
Permalink
Your first point in your third paragraph appears confused. You say that many problems in everyday life are not philosophical. Agreed. Thus, the claim that all problems in everyday life are philosophical is refuted. But that wasn't the claim you set out to refute. You initially dis... Read more
Why do philosophers become Philosophers, is it purely intellectual or is it because all they are good at is thinking, and why for that matter aren't they out, thinking up the answers to the world's problems?
Lynne Rudder Baker
January 7, 2006
(changed January 7, 2006)
Permalink
Although I agree with Alex about there being no general answers to your questions, I want to emphasize one point. Many people think that philosophical problems have no practical import or that it simply doesn't matter whether there are philosophers or not. Now it does seem that a socie... Read more
What, if anything, distinguishes natural beauty from artistic beauty?
Aaron Meskin
December 12, 2005
(changed December 12, 2005)
Permalink
I don't think that natural beauty and artistic beauty are fundamentallydistinct, but the beauty of art often depends on representation in away that the beauty of natural objects does not. Works of art can bebeautiful because of what they represent. For example, a portrait orlandscape paint... Read more
You seem to have to know the cultural context of a piece of art to appreciate it. For example a painting may not be particularly outstanding on its own but it may have been the first in a new style or movement in art. However this means that a piece of art has different asethetic value depending on the past works or future developments. It seems counter-intuitive for the same object to be of differing value due to different outside circumstances.
Oliver Leaman
December 12, 2005
(changed December 12, 2005)
Permalink
It is for that reason that many think that the context within which a work of art is produced is of no relevance to its aesthetic value or analysis. Certainly we might for historical or cultural reasons be very interested in the context - what the artist had for breakfast on the day she p... Read more
Why is it considered morally wrong for a man or a woman to have a romantic or sexual relationship with someone significantly younger than themselves?
Alan Soble
January 5, 2006
(changed January 5, 2006)
Permalink
The idea -- "I would hazard a guess that most such relationships pair much older men with much younger women--while again acknowledging that there are exceptions to this generality. Given the prevalence of sexism, such relationships seem to raise reasonable suspicions that they are embodiments o... Read more
Has there every been anything which refutes Descartes' theory that all we can be sure of is that we are thinking things? Is there any proof that we can be sure that other people exist?
Peter Lipton
December 11, 2005
(changed December 11, 2005)
Permalink
It does seem possible that nobody else exists: I just have a very lively imagination. An interesting line of thought to the contrary is that my very ability to think contentful thoughts depends on the existence of other people. In that case, if I can have the contentful doubt whether oth... Read more
Is it possible that the Universe and how we perceive it are just fractions of what is really out there? How would we know that the universe is not some completely different place that we could not even begin to undestand or perceive? For example ants live their lives without ever knowing of our existence so how would we know that there is not a lot going on in this world that we can not sense?
Peter Lipton
December 11, 2005
(changed December 11, 2005)
Permalink
David has given you two arguments for extra universes based on scientific considerations. These sorts of case are particularly neat because, as I understand it, we are physically cut off from other universes: there is no causation between worlds. But your ant analogy suggests that you al... Read more