Recent Responses
Suppose someone is thinking about killing himself. Can philosophers or philosophy give him reasons for or against doing it? Or isn't suicide a philosophical subject?
Alexander George
November 26, 2005
(changed November 26, 2005)
Permalink
Suicide is not murder unless you understand "murder" to mean "to kill a person". But we don't so understand it, as we don't usually speak of the hangman's murdering the convict, or of a soldier's murdering his enemy, or of someone's murdering in self-defense a man who was trying to ki... Read more
My question is whether or not my disagreement to the next statement makes sense, and what you philosophers think about my argument. There is a popular belief that if aliens were to "visit" us, it would be in a destructive and war-like manner. I disagree. In order for a civilization to evolve and grow to one capable of interstellar travel, it would have to be a culture strong enough and intelligent enough to grow into and support such an advanced race. - If a civilization had the mindset of destroying something like a planet and every intelligent being on it, its society could not develop into something so great as to travel among the stars. - On the other hand, war has given our world many technological advancements in the past. Does this thought process make sense, what are your thoughts concerning my thinking?
Alexander George
November 26, 2005
(changed November 26, 2005)
Permalink
Well, not really a philosophical question, but no, I don't agree withyour reasoning. I think there is little evidence for your claim that"If a civilization had the mindset of destroying something like aplanetand every intelligent being on it, its society could not develop intosomething... Read more
Can the proposition, "God is unknowable" be defended? If something is unknowable, how can we know that it is unknowable?
Peter S. Fosl
November 25, 2005
(changed November 25, 2005)
Permalink
You raise an interesting issue. At the outset, I'm afraid, I must say that much depends upon what in this sentence is meant by "knowable."On the face of it, however, the statement "X is unknowable" is paradoxical, even incoherent. To use the name or term, "X." meaningfully seems possibl... Read more
Do Existentialists believe that all actions are permitted because there is no God and no meaning to life?
Lynne Rudder Baker
November 25, 2005
(changed November 25, 2005)
Permalink
Existentialism is not really a single movement as it is a general outlook. Thinkers as diverse as Pascal, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, and Sartre have been called 'existentialists.' Only the latter two were atheists. (Pascal is famous for his proof for the existence of God--Pascal's Wa... Read more
Science states that space is endless, and ever expanding. But, if we are inside the planet earth, the planet earth is inside the galaxy, the galaxy is inside space, then what is space inside? What is it expanding in? And if space is endless, how can it expand?
Daniel J. Velleman
November 25, 2005
(changed November 25, 2005)
Permalink
Space is not expanding "in" anything else. The distances between points in space are increasing, but not because they are moving through some "superspace" that contains space.Mathematicians distinguish between two different approaches to defining geometric properties of a space: the... Read more
Surely Christians have to believe in free will. If they believe in a loving God who controls their destiny and that all bad things happen for an overall good (otherwise God would not let it happen), then wouldn't it be impossible to believe that God would send a person to hell as punishment for something they had done, as it would have been God's will for them to do so in the first place?
Richard Heck
November 25, 2005
(changed November 25, 2005)
Permalink
The standard sort of response to this question is that God does not will evil. There has been a fair amount of discussion of this in connection with question 1 and question 80. That said, it's another question whether one finds the resulting position at all plausible.... Read more
Of the many strong arguments against free will, I find the following to be the most convincing. Some theorists have suggested that free will seems to require one to be responsible for the way one is, "mentally speaking." For example, in order to be responsible for my decisions, I must have chosen, in a conscious way, to be in the particular mental state I was in at the time of my choice. Hence, free will seems to require preconsciousness; but this can be pushed into an infinite regress. Do you know of any possible answers concerning this argument?
Richard Heck
November 25, 2005
(changed November 25, 2005)
Permalink
The obvious response is that this premise
...[I]n order to be responsible for my decisions, I must have chosen, in aconscious way, to be in the particular mental state I was in at thetime of my choice.
is one we have little reason to believe. I don't see any particular reason to suppose I... Read more
As a beginner in philosophy, I got the impression that philosophy is all about arguments. You put in statements (premises), use some rules of argumentation to manipulate these premises, and reach other statements (conclusions). Is there a way to argue for the rules of argumentation themselves? I mean, we use them all the time but how do we know that they are true? What kind of rules would we use to prove the rules of argumentation? Can we use the same rules? Thanks.
Peter Lipton
November 26, 2005
(changed November 26, 2005)
Permalink
Many years ago a meteorologist told me that persistence forecasting compares favourably with other, more sophisticated rules for predicting the weather. When I asked the obvious question, she told me that persistence forcasting is the rule that says that the weather tomorrow will be the... Read more
If two things are the same thing under one concept, and yet two distinct things under another concept, is it logically possible that things of the second concept are things of the first concept? For example if two people have the same belief, but one has knowledge and the other doesn't, is it logically possible that knowledge is belief?
Richard Heck
November 25, 2005
(changed November 25, 2005)
Permalink
The last question asked here can be treated more generally. When we speak of two people's having the same belief, what we mean is that they believe the same thing, where what they both believe is, say, that Margaret Thatcher likes hot dogs.
Belief is usually regarded as a relation between... Read more
Say we could speed up matter and go further into time. I went and I saw my future self, no interaction, and I noticed that I had a finger missing or some dramatic change in my body since my present self. Could I dedicate my life to keeping my finger safe, or will it happen anyway?
Marc Lange
November 29, 2005
(changed November 29, 2005)
Permalink
I agree with Professor George's answer, but I would like to add one thing. Suppose you are a professor of English. You take a time-machine trip into the future and learn from a reliable source that you died in dramatic fashion: in the midst of teaching a Shakespeare class. You tend to get ve... Read more