Recent Responses
Is not the very concept of religion toxic to humanity? Never before has any species encountered a larger source of hate, bigotry and ultimate and utter lack of ethical direction. Surely such notions of fairies in the clouds ought not be taken seriously in a current day society, especially when such deluded notions can be used to promote acts such as crusades, act against contraception and promote the sexual abuse of children.
I have a feeling you aren't
Allen Stairs
November 13, 2015
(changed November 13, 2015)
Permalink
I have a feeling you aren't asking if the concept of religion is toxic; you're asking if religion is toxic. But I was a bit puzzled by this:
"Never before has any species encountered a larger source of hate, bigotry and ultimate and utter lack of ethical di... Read more
We feel we choose our moral choices but when somebody feels shame do they choose to feel that shame even though that feeling seems inescapable?
Most philosophers, me
Michael Lacewing
November 13, 2015
(changed November 13, 2015)
Permalink
Most philosophers, me included, would say that we do not choose to feel what we do. Ever since the ancient Greeks, emotions have been thought of as 'passions', because we are passive, not active, in experiencing emotions. We 'suffer' or 'undergo' them, rather than... Read more
Has philosophy learned anything from psychoanalysis? Kal
The quick answer is that
Michael Lacewing
November 13, 2015
(changed November 13, 2015)
Permalink
The quick answer is that 'analytic' philosophy has not, but 'continental' philosophy has. Almost all the major figures in continental philosophy after Husserl engaged with psychoanalytic thinking - Heidegger, Scheler, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Derrida, Foucault, a... Read more
what can philosophy do for the world peace?
First, philosophy can
Michael Cholbi
November 12, 2015
(changed November 12, 2015)
Permalink
First, philosophy can contribute to world peace by helping us think through the ethical importance of peace -- and of war. Philosophy has a long tradition of inquiry into the conditions for morally justifiable violence. A few philosophers have glorified war. Others h... Read more
Quine has put forward several arguments against the Analytical/Synthetic Distinction in the paper named "Two dogmas of empiricism" (I have not read the paper myself), one of arguments being that there is no non-circular definition of Analytic. while I argue with Quine on that, I do not find that to be a problem since I don't have any reason to think that Circular Definitions to be a problem. since Definitions are ultimately circular (Since the definition of words are relies on the use of other words), meaning that you have to reject the use of language all together (which is absurd since you have use language to come to that conclusion). Why are circular definitions bad definitions?
You should certainly read
André Carus
November 12, 2015
(changed November 12, 2015)
Permalink
You should certainly read "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" -- it's one of the best-known papers in analytic philosophy and can be said to have set a large part of the agenda for Anglo-American philosophy since its publication in 1951. Better to read the paper itself, an... Read more
Is an act less moral if it is done by a Christian to an atheist? It seems to be this way because Christians only act morally because they're told to by god. Atheists have no need to be good but seem to act that way because they logically realise that it is the right thing to do. Not from fear of god/hell.
On this question, I doubt I
Stephen Maitzen
November 12, 2015
(changed November 12, 2015)
Permalink
On this question, I doubt I can do better than to recommend to you an excellent article written by Professor Donald Hubin, available at this link:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/264974452_Empty_and_Ultimately_M...
Log in to post c... Read more
Friend A believes Friend B should try something before deciding not to like it. Friend B believes he shouldn't have to try something if he doesn't want to. Who is correct? Are they both correct? Who is more correct? Should Friend C help convince Friend B to try the thing or let him make his own choices?
I hope I don't come across as
Stephen Maitzen
November 12, 2015
(changed November 12, 2015)
Permalink
I hope I don't come across as pedantic, but I think that your questions may contain what philosophers call "false alternatives."
First, there's a sense in which both A and B can be correct. It might be that B is well-advised to try a particular somethin... Read more
When the word" exist "occurs like "numbers exist "does it mean what it means in sentences like "Dogs exist"?
I think it does, or at least
Stephen Maitzen
November 12, 2015
(changed November 12, 2015)
Permalink
I think it does, or at least I think the burden of proof is on anyone who says that "exist" is systematically ambiguous, meaning one thing when applied to numbers and another thing when applied elsewhere.
It's widely held that abstract objects such as numbers... Read more
Can a painting be *false* by not depicting reality? Suppose that some painter paints something that really happened, but adds or subtracts details that do not correspond to reality. Or suppose that the painter not only does that, but adds a title that makes it cleat that the painting to the real event. Or think about "photoshopped" photos. The reason why I am asking this is that I often read on the internet that (only?) sentences and "propositions" can be true or false, and a painting is not a sentence nor a proposition.
A nice question.
Allen Stairs
November 6, 2015
(changed November 6, 2015)
Permalink
A nice question.
Suppose a painter paints a scene with a person in it. Apart from very special circumstances, we wouldn't take this to be a matter of the painter telling us that the event really happened and the person depicted was really there. It might be that a real pers... Read more
Is glory a worthy goal for a person? In an Astérix book, Abraracourcix, the chieftain, tells his wealthy brother in law that all of the latter's money is not a match for glory. The brother in law replies that Abraracourcix's glory could not pay the "oxen hooves pie" they were having at the time. This seems to be false in the times of "reality television": glory can be readily turned into money. Actually I suspect glory has always given people some access to material goods. But my question is rather whether glory is valuable for other reasons, specifically whether glory is valuable from an ethical point of view.
A nice place to start in
Michael Cholbi
November 5, 2015
(changed November 5, 2015)
Permalink
A nice place to start in thinking about this question is book I of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html
There Aristotle addresses the nature of happiness and consider the pros and cons of three sorts of lives: the lif... Read more