Recent Responses
Are affirmative action programs ever necessary or just? While the admirable goal of these programs is to boost equality (or equal opportunity) don't they cause definite lowering of standards (compared to a pure meritocracy)? Further, isn't there also resentment of the non-preferred group to be dealt with? Finally, how long should such programs be kept running?
Thomas Pogge
November 11, 2005
(changed November 11, 2005)
Permalink
Affirmative action programs can be morally acceptable or even required when they benefit a group that is prevented from competing on fair terms. Consider a group that had much inferior access to schooling and therefore did not have a fair chance of attaining the educational achievements th... Read more
Is it morally wrong to profit from other people's mistakes or stupidity?
Thomas Pogge
November 11, 2005
(changed November 11, 2005)
Permalink
Much depends on whether one is profiting passively or actively (taking advantage). Passive profiting is generally alright (as when you continue to enjoy the great view from your living room because your neighbor mistakenly believes that it would be illegal to build a highrise on the adjace... Read more
Is the Liar paradox, stated as "this sentence is false" false? The Liar surely means, "The proposition expressed by this sentence is false", but this implies that there is one and only one proposition contained within the sentence. If this is not the case then the whole statement is false because "The proposition" must pick out exactly one object. The direct proposition expressed is "This sentence is false", yet surely since the predicate "is false" applies to the sentence in question, "This sentence is false" is false is a proposition that is also logically entwined with the sentence. Since the sentence expresses two propositions, and not one, there is no object which corresponds to "The proposition expressed" and so the whole sentence becomes false.
Daniel J. Velleman
November 10, 2005
(changed November 10, 2005)
Permalink
There are two aspects of your argument that worry me:1. If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that the liar sentence expresses two different propositions, namely: (a) This sentence is false. (b) "This sentence is false" is false.But don't (a) and (b) me... Read more
Even if determinism has been somewhat refuted by Quantum Uncertainty (a fact that is peddled by the layman, and never acknowledged by the leading scientists - Einstein, Bohr etc.), isn't it still the case that all events on a slightly larger scale are still determined. After all a gust of wind isn't random (as to transcend causation). Determinism is, in part, the prerequisite to sanity as none of us expect the Earth to stop turning or our cars to stop working for no mechanically justified reason. As a note of interest, a computer cannot be programed to do something random.
Daniel J. Velleman
November 10, 2005
(changed November 10, 2005)
Permalink
I'd just like to add one comment to Peter's response. His statement that "most large scale systems behave as if they were governed by deterministic laws" is not only compatible with quantum mechanics, it is actually predicted by quantum mechanics. In most cases, quantum mechanics p... Read more
Can you give any instances of any philosophical problems that have been 'nailed' so to speak by philosophy - that is, solved?
Richard Heck
November 10, 2005
(changed November 10, 2005)
Permalink
There are other examples, too, though some of them are more complex. Philosophers used to spend a lot of time trying to understand the difference between "Every student read some book" and "Some book was read by every student" and, more generally, why sentences like the latter logically im... Read more
What are the limits on my obligation to be sure about something before acting? I know that my life is finite, so I can't study economics, history, sociology, and psychology, as well as law (this last is what I do professionally). And yet I am called on to comment on laws or problems that, to provide a sure answer to would require knowledge of all of those things and more. So do I do nothing, and let the problems of the world go by, people starve and murder and so on, or do I act knowing that I may in fact cause more harm because I am factually incorrect about something, for example the harmfulness of GM crops, or the likelihood of re-offending, or the weight to be given to tribal rituals.
Mark Crimmins
November 10, 2005
(changed November 10, 2005)
Permalink
This is a very good question. My thinking about it owes a lot to the philosopher Michael Bratman.
The obvious, quick answer is that there are few or no certainties, life is a gamble, and so you have to run with the odds. But this answer really doesn't get us very far. How much time sh... Read more
Socrates said, "All I know is that I know nothing". What I'm trying to figure out is this: if I know NOTHING, how do I KNOW that I know nothing? It just goes round in circles thus becoming nothing more than a paradox. Would you agree?
Jyl Gentzler
November 13, 2005
(changed November 13, 2005)
Permalink
Peter is right. Many have taken the Socrates of Plato’s early dialogues to be a skeptic at least with regard to knowledge of the most worthwhile things. My own view is that, at least as he’s represented in the Platonic dialogues, Socrates is not a skeptic. He did not believe that it wa... Read more
I've read that philosophers claim that the sorts of things that can be true are things that could be potentially talked about in words. It also seems held that truth is essential to knowledge. Hence, it seems that the claim is that language is essential to knowledge. But I was looking at an intricate (but ugly) carpet yesterday, and it really did seem to me that it wordlessly expressed knowledge, as much as many sentences do. Why cannot a visual idea express knowledge as well as a word idea?
Peter Lipton
November 10, 2005
(changed November 10, 2005)
Permalink
Ugly carpets don't do much for me, but I'm sympathetic to your thought that there may be knowledge that is carried by non-verbal representations. For example, animals without language can I think nevertheless have perceptual knowledge. Even my old chow chow dog Mishka, not an Einstein ev... Read more
Even if determinism has been somewhat refuted by Quantum Uncertainty (a fact that is peddled by the layman, and never acknowledged by the leading scientists - Einstein, Bohr etc.), isn't it still the case that all events on a slightly larger scale are still determined. After all a gust of wind isn't random (as to transcend causation). Determinism is, in part, the prerequisite to sanity as none of us expect the Earth to stop turning or our cars to stop working for no mechanically justified reason. As a note of interest, a computer cannot be programed to do something random.
Daniel J. Velleman
November 10, 2005
(changed November 10, 2005)
Permalink
I'd just like to add one comment to Peter's response. His statement that "most large scale systems behave as if they were governed by deterministic laws" is not only compatible with quantum mechanics, it is actually predicted by quantum mechanics. In most cases, quantum mechanics p... Read more
Do you think there are two distinct kinds, 'male' and 'female', in terms of gender, biological differences, or social and cultural constraints? I know this seems like a broad question but it is asked with the idea/intention of feminism behind it. If any of you have a brief (or extensive!) philosophical opinion on any issues within this query I would be very interested to know. Thank you for your time.
Louise Antony
November 11, 2005
(changed November 11, 2005)
Permalink
Most philosophers now recognize a distinction between the biological category "sex" and the social category "gender." One's sex is determined by a collection of biological factors that typically (though not always!) go together: chromosomes, anatomy, and hormones. Gender is the social r... Read more