Recent Responses

If slavery is so intrinsically (and obviously) wrong, why did it take so long to recognize this? I pose this to the philosophers who rant for moral realism and against moral relativism, and especially to the philosophers with religious sympathies.

Jay L. Garfield November 10, 2005 (changed November 10, 2005) Permalink Self-interest can drive ideology, and ideology grounded in material interest dies hard. People are neitherr as good nor as smart as you might think. Sad, but true. Log in to post comments

Philosophy

The question I have arises from a number of phenomena I have noticed of late. One is that a number of reasonably respected philosophers have publicly made asses of themselves by demonstrating serious ignorance of the empirical data available in the recent evolution/ID 'controvercy'; a second is that there have been a lot of suggestions that unsupported pseudo-scientific hypotheses (such as 'irreducible complexity') should be assigned to the philosophy classroom (as a kind of dumping-ground for ill-thought-out ideas); and the third is that a lot of the most promising philiosophy seems to be coming from 'thinking scientists' (in neuroscience, physics, and so on) rather than from professional thinkers. So, is there a crisis in philosophy? Science - at least in principle - is grounded in the systematic study of verifiable phenomena; a scientist whose knowledge outside of science is weak and who has little philosophy may not be satisfying as a person but as a scientist can still produce work with real meaning. In contrast, deep scientific knowledge can directly inform philosophy. A philosopher of the mind (for exampple) who is unaware of the latest discoveries in neurobiology is more likely to develop flawed hypotheses than one who is and who thus has access to a better dataset. If the above is true, whither philosophy? Should philosophers become scientists? If not, should they limit themselves to the non-empirical? Is there still room for philosophy as a discrete discipline? (Please don't dismiss this as an attack on philosophy - it's an appeal from a non-scientist who has recently been finding the armchair increasingly uncomfortable!)

Alexander George November 11, 2005 (changed November 11, 2005) Permalink See also Question 169 and Question 220. Log in to post comments

Rationality Religion

I was having an argument with a religious friend of mine and I told him that I didn't think I could argue with him anymore because his belief in God was irrational. He replied that my belief in reason was irrational. Is belief in reason irrational?

Jay L. Garfield November 10, 2005 (changed November 10, 2005) Permalink You friend is reviving a delightful argument from Sextus Empiricus (Outlines of Pyrrhonism) to the effect that any justification of the value of rational proof has to be either a rational proof and hence circular, or irrational and hence inconsistent with the conclusion one is trying... Read more

Philosophy

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

Philosophy

Does the existence of this website suggest that the panelists agree with the accusation often levelled against modern academic philosophy that it has become too insulated from regular people by its own jargon and institutionalisation, and gotten too far from the Socratic method of marketplace philosophy?

Jay L. Garfield November 10, 2005 (changed November 10, 2005) Permalink It doesn't to me. In fact I think that it provides evidence that that is false. Log in to post comments

Value

Hi I'm just a 15 year-old kid in PA and I was wondering if you could verify what I believe to be the meaning of life. I believe that the meaning of life is to search for the meaning of life, because doesn't that give us a meaning to our lives? And if we finally find a meaning to life, what else do we have to live for? But as long as we keep searching for the meaning of life, we have a meaning of life. Do you agree or disagree?

Jay L. Garfield November 10, 2005 (changed November 10, 2005) Permalink Hey, don't call yourself JUST a 15 year old kid from PA. You are asking a very deep question, and proposing a very thoughtful answer. I would agree that thinking reflectively about the meaning of life is ONE of the things that makes life meaningful. But I wouldn't agree that it is t... Read more

Freedom Rationality

What is the link between rationality and free will. Can one exist without the other?

Sean Greenberg November 10, 2005 (changed November 10, 2005) Permalink On certain conceptions of free will, freedom is bound up with rationality. On other conceptions of free will, however, freedom consists in a capacity to be a first cause of one's choices or actions, and so on such a conception, freedom seems to float free of rationality. Indeed, on suc... Read more

Logic Philosophers

According to Descartes' demon hypothesis, would it be possible for the demon to deceive us about the rules of logical inference e.g. could my belief in the law of non-contradiction be caused by the demon?

Peter S. Fosl November 12, 2005 (changed November 12, 2005) Permalink May I weigh in a bit? I think that panelists are right to suggest that while the dream argument addresses the veracity of perception about the world, the demon argument goes farther and addresses mathematical and logical inferences. I'd like, however, to return to Peter Lipton's question... Read more

Biology Sex

Me and a friend were arguing about this question: Is sex ultimately for reproduction or pleasure? I said reproduction, but he argues that you can have sex and never have a child, which would prove sex is for pleasure and children are the aftermath of a choice when having sex (to ejaculate and fertilize the egg). Is there any way to clear this up with the logic of evolution (to evolve, one must reproduce)?

Joseph G. Moore November 10, 2005 (changed November 10, 2005) Permalink It depends what you mean by "ultimate purpose".Sex and all that goes with it (the associated pleasures, the urges, the courtship-instincts) has clearly evolved because of its role in reproduction. It wouldn't exist if it didn't play this role. So if something's "ultimate purpose" is to... Read more

Philosophy

When you get past the rhetoric on 'most convincing arguments and logical reasoning', are people's preferences for a certain type of philosophy merely subjective 'taste'?

Alexander George November 10, 2005 (changed November 10, 2005) Permalink I don't think it's rhetoric. Philosophers (and people generally) dochange their positions on the basis of the arguments. Maybe you thinkit should happen more often than it does. But theforce of arguments is one that makes itself felt regularly inphilosophy. That said, I think there is... Read more

Recent Responses

Pages