Recent Responses
Some people define a set of propositions as science only if they make testable (or perhaps falsifiable) predictions, and those preditions are verified. Is that a good working definition of science? If not, how do philosophers distinguish scientific claims about the world from non-scientific claims? (This question comes up in the current controversy over whether Intelligent Design is science.)
Alexander George
November 21, 2005
(changed November 21, 2005)
Permalink
Just to amplify on the excellent point in Peter's last paragraph.The reason Intelligent Design (ID) shouldn't be taught in science classisn't that it's not science. (That debate leads to all sorts ofdreadful philosophical attempts to demarcate science from non-science.)The reason ID sh... Read more
Are virtues something innate within all people at birth, or are they things that one learns over time, and could the same thing be said about one's morality and motivations? Thanks, Gene Mauldin
Bernard Gert
November 21, 2005
(changed November 21, 2005)
Permalink
If one means by virtues, character traits such as prudence, courage, kindness, and honesty, then, as Aristotle says, they are developed by education and training, although it must also be true that most people are born with the capability of developing the virtues. Hobbes points out that c... Read more
I've read that <i>The Prince</i> by Machiavelli is all about how the ends justify the means. However, it seems to me that the means are also justified in themselves. I think that many of Machiavelli's tactics are just common sense that should be practiced in any case, though obviously in today's world you'd take care of political enemies by propaganda (for example) rather than killing them. Is there a philosophical case for this idea that the means are justified?
Bernard Gert
November 21, 2005
(changed November 21, 2005)
Permalink
It is not clear what it means to say that anything, especially means, are justified in themselves. It may be that the means do not need to be justified as they do not involve doing anything wrong. It is only actions that would be wrong if not justified that need to be justified. Many of th... Read more
Some people define a set of propositions as science only if they make testable (or perhaps falsifiable) predictions, and those preditions are verified. Is that a good working definition of science? If not, how do philosophers distinguish scientific claims about the world from non-scientific claims? (This question comes up in the current controversy over whether Intelligent Design is science.)
Alexander George
November 21, 2005
(changed November 21, 2005)
Permalink
Just to amplify on the excellent point in Peter's last paragraph.The reason Intelligent Design (ID) shouldn't be taught in science classisn't that it's not science. (That debate leads to all sorts ofdreadful philosophical attempts to demarcate science from non-science.)The reason ID sh... Read more
What is the best way to introduce philosophy to children? Are there any books specifically designed for this purpose?
Alexander George
November 21, 2005
(changed November 21, 2005)
Permalink
In the lower right-hand corner of this page, you'll find a link to the site "Philosophy for Kids", set up by Professor Gareth Matthews of the University of Massachusetts, who has long been very interested in philosophy and children. At his website, you'll find suggestions, as well as... Read more
philosohpy is for the stupid. now im not trying to offend but after reading some of your articles and some deep thinking it is. in my opinion (not to say my opinion is right or wrong) philosohphy is just big word for question and answering. its not a typical learning field, for example math and science your taught something you wouldnt know any other way. or atleast with out spending countless hours finding out yourself. so you cant say math is for the stupid. its for the inexperienced or unapplied mind. where as philosohpyQNA is common sense or ones opinion of whats right or wrong. and your born with common sense(please dont lecture me on how your not born with common sense you get the jist of what im saying) by the age of 18 your common sense you have then is pretty much all your gonna have for the rest of your life) so well say philosophy is for the stupid, unless your under 18 then its for the inexperieneced. and a person who ask questions in the field of philosophy and doesnt know the answer is stupid (I use the term loosely) all philosophy is, is opinion and a person who doesnt have there own opinion is stupid. (so ill say philosophy is QNA/opinion not to blanket that if you ask a philosophical your stupid. so if a person asks a another person about an opinion and they dont know the answer themselves there mind still needs to grow there stupid alright I kinda over thought this but i dont want my question to get an easy answer. that dodges the question so with all that in mind philosophy is for the stupid, agree or disagree?
Alexander George
November 21, 2005
(changed November 21, 2005)
Permalink
OK, so I enjoyed your spirited attack! I agree with you that philosophy isn't like mathematics or science. But where I think we fundamentally disagree is about your claim that philosophy is just a matter of common sense. In general, that's not so: many of the greatest philosophical... Read more
I was walking down my school hall today and was thinking about just some random things, such as how this hallway smells, who that person looks like, etc. Then, about 2 minutes later I began to think the same basic thoughts, just in a seperate location and at a later time. Since nobody else heard these thoughts the first time, maybe my mind did not really think of them 2 minutes ago but was just telling myself that 2 minutes ago I thought those things. What I mean to say is, how can I be sure that I thought of something earlier if my mind may have just fabricated its own memories?
Alan Soble
April 3, 2006
(changed April 3, 2006)
Permalink
In my salad days, I would have replied: keep an accurate, comprehensive diary; take a lot of photographs; and hang on to all your receipts. Now I know better. None of this solves the logical problem. For example, when you are writing down your thoughts or acts in your diary, are you remembering corr... Read more
Dear Scholars: At what point can the end ever justify the means? I am particularly interested in your response in the context of criminal justice. For example, is it ever acceptable for a police officer to perjure himself/herself to ensure a conviction of a defendant he/she knows to be guilty? Pete C.
Jyl Gentzler
November 21, 2005
(changed November 21, 2005)
Permalink
What else could justify the means other than the end? Thequestion, though, is what end we should have in view.
In the case thatyou imagine, it seems that the relevant end is getting a guiltycriminal in jail. Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that wehave no reason to doubt tha... Read more
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
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we decide what we think. Then why can't we make everything appear to be beautiful?
Peter Lipton
November 20, 2005
(changed November 20, 2005)
Permalink
Even if beauty itself is is not in the eye of the beholder, the appearance of beauty is. But we don't always decide what we think. For example, you can't come to believe something just because I ask you to, even if you want to please me. Similarly, you can't decide what you will like an... Read more