Recent Responses
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
How should one judge an action: by its intent or by its result?
Thomas Pogge
November 25, 2005
(changed November 25, 2005)
Permalink
An action should be judged -- as either right or wrong -- neither by its intention nor by its result. For example, John burns down Susan's house while she is away. This action is wrong even if it is well-intentioned (John did this to help her out of her supposed financial difficulties thro... Read more
Can the taking of another's life, even in self-defence, ever be justified?
Thomas Pogge
November 25, 2005
(changed November 25, 2005)
Permalink
To be able to justify a killing, we must first and foremost be able to justify it to the victim. Here is one idea for how this might work.
Suppose you have a number of agreements with your neighbor: borrowing tools, babysitting, having no loud parties after midnight, and so on. If your nei... Read more
Is there a philosophical view that living the good life is an artistic endeavor? If so, what philosophers are known for this sort of view?
Jay L. Garfield
November 24, 2005
(changed November 24, 2005)
Permalink
Yes, Nietzsche. For a good discussion, see Nehamas' book, Nietzsche:Life as Literature. Laotze is often read this way, too. Read theDaodeching and see what you think.
Log in to post comments
if every one is just a product of their environment, then how are there original ideas, art, and imagination?
Peter S. Fosl
November 24, 2005
(changed November 24, 2005)
Permalink
Why can't environment produce original events? Let's say that every human being possesses a unique (original?) DNA sequence. One might say that a DNA sequence is a product of environment. Why not consider "original" ideas in the same manner--that is, as new combinations of precedent id... Read more
Is telepathy possible? I have never had a telepathic experience and nor have I met anyone who claims to have had one. I think I would be pretty sceptical if I did. But is it even possible to have a telepathic experience? How would you know you weren't the victim of some kind of psychosis? How would you be able to sort out the 'ownership' of thoughts and other mental states? When I think about telepathy I imagine it as some kind of telephony without the instruments and wires. Let's say I wanted to communicate with my friend Sandra. With a telephone I pick up the instrument, dial Sandra's number, hear some rings and clicks and then I hear Sandra saying 'Hello' (or whatever). I know it's Sandra because I recognise her voice. I know it wasn't me saying 'Hello' because I didn't open my mouth. But with telepathy all the physical actions and events seem to be eliminated. If I want to communicate with Sandra I presumably 'tune in' to her brain somehow. But then all sorts of problems start. How do I know I've really got Sandra's brain, and not somebody else's? Perhaps there is some unique quality of Sandra's mental states that immediately identify them as hers, analogous to the unique sound of her voice, but it's hard to know quite what this quality could be. When I 'hear' 'Hello' it will not have been produced by her vocal chords. If I became aware of a sudden yearning for pizza, would it me that was yearning for pizza, or Sandra? How would I be able to distinguish our yearnings? How would I know the 'voice' that I was 'hearing' was not a delusion, a case for psychiatric treatment? All these considerations lead me to think that the notion of telepathy is hopelessly problematic and can be ruled out a priori. But then supposing there is an advance in wireless telephony in the future. Instead of carrying portable handsets we will all have chips implanted in our brains. These chips will be wired up to the brain in such a way that if I want to dial, for example, Sandra's number, I just have to think of her number. Sandra's chip will then start 'ringing' in her brain (only she will hear it) and we can proceed to have our conversation merely by 'thinking' our words, rather than physically producing them as speech. This might seem far-fetched, but not beyond the realms of logical possibility. So one intuition is pulling me one way, and the other intuition is pulling me the other. Which intuition is better? Can they be resolved?
Peter S. Fosl
November 24, 2005
(changed November 24, 2005)
Permalink
I doubt telepathy is possible, as I can't figure out any causal mechanism to make it work. But that's an empirical matter. I'm reluctant to rule it out in any a priori sense. Must one "know" that the content of a telepathic event is some specified other's thought or mental state? Suppo... Read more
Does knowledge require the impossibility of doubt?
Peter Lipton
November 26, 2005
(changed November 26, 2005)
Permalink
As philosophers typically analyze it, knowledge requires belief, truth, and some kind of justification or reliability; but not certainy or the impossibility of doubt. Yet when I tell my wife that I know that the play starts at 8pm and she replies, 'Are you certain?', I find it difficult to... Read more
Jesus claimed that he was the son of God. Why is it that if one did that nowadays then they would get sent to a mental institution, instead of being praised and worshipped as that? Isn't it the same thing as what Jesus did but not in ancient times? -Jessica and Elise
Richard Heck
November 24, 2005
(changed November 24, 2005)
Permalink
It's also worth saying that, although the Biblical accounts can be read in very different ways, and the Gospel accounts themselves conflict, all the Synoptics (Matthew 26:57-67, Mark 14:53-63, and Luke 22:66-71) present the Jewish authorities as rather upset with Jesus for claiming to be t... Read more
Assuming that one's death means the end of one's consciousness. What purpose does a belief in God serve that a non-belief in God cannot?
Richard Heck
November 24, 2005
(changed November 24, 2005)
Permalink
I guess I find the question strange, because I don't think of beliefs as "serving purposes". One might simply say that, if God exists, then the belief that God exists is true, and that's quite good enough.
Then again, there is an interesting question what "belief in" something is. Zoltan... Read more
My AP English teacher has a bone to pick with Enlightenment philosophy, specifically Descartes and Rationalist Epistemology. She feels that the application of its arguments and principles would justify far too many egregious things - slavery, exploitation, war, genocide. Somehow I doubt her reasoning, although I am able to understand how she came to those conclusions. My question is whether or not there are arguments out there to refute hers? Any response would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Josh.
Richard Heck
November 24, 2005
(changed November 24, 2005)
Permalink
I doubt your teacher's reasoning, too, but mostly on the general ground that Descartes didn't talk much about these issues and I, anyway, have a very hard time seeing how any sort of epistemology could lead to the justification of slavery. I mean, epistemology is important and all, but it... Read more