Recent Responses
Is striving after self-improvement inherently valuable, and if so, how? Otherwise, is it merely a means to a mundane end such as money, prestige, or such? If the latter is the case, is there some reason not to be content with only moderate success and/or exertion and how would this not lead to a slippery-slope of laziness?
Nicholas D. Smith
October 21, 2005
(changed October 21, 2005)
Permalink
I just responded to two other questions that are really related to this one, so please have a look at my replies to those others.
But to focus briefly on your question, I would say that it really depends upon what you mean by "self-improvement." This can come in loads of forms, of co... Read more
Why do humans continually put a higher value on material goods (such as diamonds and gold) than life. Is it some sort of adaptation through evolution for survival to obtain these goods at any cost? Were greed and jealously formed through some sort of hardwired drive in the human mind as population control? If so would there ever be a way to end this cycle? Nick
Nicholas D. Smith
October 21, 2005
(changed October 21, 2005)
Permalink
Hello Nick from another Nick. In a sense, your question is more one of psychology than philosophy. We philosophers do not so much ask and answer questions about why people actually do things or act the way they do, so much as to inquire about how, perhaps, we should do things, or how... Read more
Could the pursuit of happiness be considered the purpose of all life? Is it not what all life strives for?
Nicholas D. Smith
October 21, 2005
(changed October 21, 2005)
Permalink
It really depends upon what you mean by "happiness." If you mean the somewhat fleeting and temporary experience (like the "happy" in "happy hour"), I think a life aimed at happiness would turn out to be fairly meaningless and empty. But if by "happiness" you mean something like "flour... Read more
Hi, My roommate claims that it is impossible for an omnipotent being to exist. His logic is that if a being can create a rock so big it cannot lift it, then that being is not omnipotent because its lifting power is not infinite. But also, if it cannot create the rock so big it cannot lift, then it's creation power is not infinite. And because of this paradox, an omnipotent being cannot possibly exist. My boss was a philosophy major in school. He claims that this explanation is completely wrong. However, I do not understand his explanation as he said it very quickly and with many names of old philosophers and theorems and such that I cannot remember. So who is right? Regardless of whether or not an omnipotent being does exist or not, can one exist? Thanks.
Mitch Green
October 21, 2005
(changed October 21, 2005)
Permalink
I'd like to add one further point to the two made so far. Many contemporary philosophers infer from the so-called Paradox of the Stone that omnipotence is not a matter of being able to do anything, but only a matter of *being able to do anything it is possible to do*. That observation sugg... Read more
If you don't have any reasons whatsoever to believe that a certain thing exists, should you deny that it exists, or simply withhold judgment on the question?
Nicholas D. Smith
October 21, 2005
(changed October 21, 2005)
Permalink
I agree with Peter, but would mention a famous debate on just this subject--the debate between William James (in his famous essay, "The Will to Believe"), who contends that there can be non-evidential reasons for certain kinds of belief of the sort you seem to be talking about, and W. K... Read more
Why is beauty important to humans? We seem to seek out beautiful things, whether visually beautiful such as a location or a painting, or beautiful music. Why does beauty tend to calm and soothe?
Mitch Green
October 21, 2005
(changed October 21, 2005)
Permalink
Your question has many dimensions. First of all, it might be taken as asking why our species seeks out beauty while others do not. If that is the question, then one point to note is that it might be the case that other species seek beauty as well. For instance, males in other species of an... Read more
Say I'm in a romantic relationship and I'm trying to decide whether I'd be happier remaining in it, or leaving it to philander. Of course, experimenting with both options isn't an option, since I would lose the initial romantic relationship for good. Also, suppose I really love the person I'm with, and they really love me. Do we have an obligation to each other to stay together, since one person choosing to leave would cause extreme emotional pain to the other? I'm not referring to an ethical obligation since I'm aware that there are different moral theories, but an obligation derived purely from the fact that I love someone. Finally, do I violate either an ethical or other obligation if I cheat on my romantic partner in order to get a comparison?
Alan Soble
October 21, 2005
(changed October 21, 2005)
Permalink
Your intelligent questions are disturbing and difficult ones, both theoretically and practically. I'd like to proceed by dividing your message into pieces.
(I) "Say I'm in a romantic relationship and I'm trying to decide whether I'd be happier remaining in it, or leaving it [period]." Many peo... Read more
Was it ethical for Jews to evade taxes in Nazi Germany? Professor Robert McGee asked this question in a recent survey of international business professors and they seem to think that it was unethical. The abstract of the study is posted at http://ssrn.com/abstract=803964. The full study may be downloaded by hitting the DOWNLOAD button.
Oliver Leaman
October 21, 2005
(changed October 21, 2005)
Permalink
It is an interesting question how far living in a state which persecutes a group of people justifies their retaliation by not obeying the law. Of course, as far as the practicalities of these things go, the choice to pay or not pay taxes is not much of a choice, since one has to pay them, a... Read more
How can one get rid of his/her memories, either bad or good ones? Is there any way to forget a happening in the past?
Alan Soble
October 21, 2005
(changed October 21, 2005)
Permalink
Fifty First Dates (Drew Barrimore, Adam Sandler) is a sour-funny treatment of loss of memory. After an automobile accident, she can remember only what happens during the course of one day. She begins again (from the point of the accident) when she wakes up the next morning. In a hospital scene... Read more
Is it that philosophy is competitive or is it just the way in which we (as humans) have come to be in general that is competitive? I'll try and spell out the distinction. My professor seems to vie for his idea. Descartes defends his position. Hobbes attacks Descartes' idea. Spinoza attacks both. There are dissertational "defenses". These are just a few examples of competitiveness in philosophy. Are humans just competitive? But if we are trying to get at truth, how does competition help? I can't understand why I feel the need to be the smartest person in my class. If I am not, I feel anguish and despair. Is it that anguish and despair come from losing and philosophy for me is just a competition and for other people it is not that way at all? But that is not true. Does philosophy harbor competition, and if it does, is it intrinsically flawed? Would art be a better way to get at truth? But art is competitive too! Is existence, then, a Schopenhauerian nightmare--endless striving to overcome, when you can't overcome yourself (as a competitor) how do you find time to even think about any other issue? Is my thinking somewhere flawed? Is there anything in life that I don't need to struggle for?
Peter Lipton
October 22, 2005
(changed October 22, 2005)
Permalink
Here is one reason why one limited form of competition in philosophy (and many other areas of inquiry) is good. Faced with a philosophical problem, our best bet is to propose a possible solution, criticise it, and on that basis to try to improve it, or improve on it. But almost all philoso... Read more