Recent Responses
I seem compelled to subscribe to the somewhat Panglossian idea that as everything is as it is, and could not have been any other way (cos it isn't), then it is the best it can be. Therefore, we should just be happy with it and make the best of it. Am I being naive or stupid or is there a reasonable defence to this way of thinking?
Alexander George
December 2, 2005
(changed December 2, 2005)
Permalink
Everything certainly is as it is. (I think Dr. Pangloss' idea was that nothing could be better than it is.) I don't see why it follows that things couldn't have turned out differently. It's true that I didn't have pizza this evening. But I could have ordered it. And if I had, things... Read more
A very popular view in academic philosophy is that knowledge of the history of philosophy is important for doing contemporary work in philosophy. But so much of the history of philosophy is filled with bad arguments and false theses, which serious people would never subscribe to. How does painstaking familiarity with ancient mistakes and false propositions help us do philosophy today? It seems to me that false claims cannot ground anything -- or add anything valuable to what we know now. They are false!
Catherine Wearing
December 2, 2005
(changed December 2, 2005)
Permalink
I completely agree with the reasons Sean Greenberg gives for thinking that the history of philosophy is philosophically valuable, but I'm inclined to think that knowledge of philosophy's history is important for doing contemporary work, for exactly the reasons he offers. Knowledge of th... 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
Hello I am an Australian and there is a lot of anger here at the moment: an Australian citizen was caught transporting drugs in a different country, where that offence carries the death penalty. The person in question is about to be hung. In Australia, the man would have faced a jail term, but here the death penalty seems far too excessive for the crime. The government of the country about to execute the man claims it is doing so in the interests of its citizens; seeking to protect them from illegal drug trafficking by showing strong intolerance to it. Many people here are angry because the man was only a drug mule: a naive person tricked (or blackmailed) into carrying a package of white powder for powerful drug organisations: key figures in which seem immune to law even though they seem to be the real villains. In another recent case, an Australian citizen travelled to another nearby country, with which Australia enjoys friendly relations. This man did something there that would be completely legal and morally unexceptional in Australia: he had consensual sex with an another man, a citizen of the other country. The Australian was sentenced to years imprisonment: the judge on the case making statements that sound extremely draconian from an Australian perspective. Does any country have the right to demand of another country how it should treat citizens of that first country? It seems that most want to say of some things: 'That is not acceptable treatment of individuals by governments, by any standards', yet where, exactly can we draw the line between 'universal' ethics (decided by whom?) and what is the prerogative of individual countries?
Thomas Pogge
December 2, 2005
(changed December 2, 2005)
Permalink
It is worth distinguishing two issues: anger that another country applies its laws to one of our citizens; and anger that another country (any country, actually) applies unjust laws to one of our citizens (to anyone, actually).
Though your question seems more focused on the former issue, I t... Read more
Most people believe they have a duty to help those that are closest to them such as families and friends. Many people also would agree that they have a duty to help those who are not that close to them but share the same nationality. But, sadly, few people would agree that they have an obligation to help those who are deeply in need but far removed from them. Can philosophy help convince us of a duty to help people in very poor countries that live far-removed from us?
Thomas Pogge
December 2, 2005
(changed December 2, 2005)
Permalink
Philosophy can help convince some, as the efforts of writers like Peter Singer, Henry Shue, and Peter Unger have shown. But most people in the more affluent countries have not been moved by their arguments. It is therefore worth thinking about what else philosophy might do in response to the... Read more
What's the relationship of freedom to justice? Where is the balance between the two? Is freedom protecting the rights of individuals and justice protecting the rights of communities and societies against the wills of free individuals? Again, how can we find the balance and where is it?
Peter S. Fosl
December 1, 2005
(changed December 1, 2005)
Permalink
I must honestly say that this question is beyond my capacity and perhaps beyond anyone's. I have my doubts that a clear, enduring point of balance between the two can be formulated--or even that it's meaningful to think about formulating one. Perhaps the best thing to say is that the impo... Read more
What books are most important for a neophyte philosopher to read?
Peter S. Fosl
December 1, 2005
(changed December 1, 2005)
Permalink
I recommend Plato's Apology, Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy, Camus's Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays, Bryan Magee's The Story of Philosophy, David Cooper's anthologies, and perhaps The Philosopher's Toolkit.
Log in to post comments
Is the sentence of death really a punishment? Yes, the man/woman who committed the act loses their life, but doesn't it also mean that the person in the end gets away with the act that he/she committed? Wouldn't it make more sense to punish this person with life in prison without the possibility of parole? It just seems to me that the death sentence is just a way to show sympathy or mercy towards criminals. It seems that this would be a harsher punishment; just sitting in your cell day by day, for the rest of the person's life.
Peter S. Fosl
December 1, 2005
(changed December 1, 2005)
Permalink
An interesting thought. My suspicion, however, is that most sentenced to death would prefer life in prison. That may not conclusively demonstrate much, but if true it at least shows that those convicted of crimes regard life in prison as a less severe punishment. Keep in mind that even i... Read more
Why is murder considered a crime when the person who was murdered was going to die whether or not that person killed him or her?
Jyl Gentzler
December 3, 2005
(changed December 3, 2005)
Permalink
While it is true that, given the current state of technology, each of us will eventually die, it is not true that, no matter what, each of us will have a life of a particular length.
A longer life is often more valuable than a shorter life because it often contains more good things than a... Read more
Hume lobs some pretty convincing skepticism at the entire discipline of philosophy in the last chapter of his <i>Enquiry</i>. Besides Kant, have other philosophers tackled these doubts head-on? Since his skepticism is not just about metaphysics, but about all philosophy, do contemporary analytic philosophers regard these doubts seriously?
Peter S. Fosl
December 1, 2005
(changed December 1, 2005)
Permalink
Hume's skepticism is a fascinating thing, isn't it. For myself, I suspect you and I differ on what it means to say that his skepticism is about "all philosophy." In my view, while I think that in a sense that's true, it doesn't follow for Hume that philosophy is pointless. Rather, his sk... Read more