Recent Responses
In math class at my school they drill into our heads that a real line goes on forever, while a line segment is a line with two ends. So my question is: if a line can go on forever wouldn't it take up every possible space? Can such a line even exist in the universe? If it can't then why do mathematicians use that term?
Daniel J. Velleman
October 19, 2005
(changed October 19, 2005)
Permalink
Yes, lines in mathematics go on forever, and such things most likely don't exist in our universe. So why do mathematicians study them?There are most likely only a finite number of elementary particles in the universe. Should mathematicians say that the positive integers end at some f... Read more
Is it possible for one to be in love with the feeling of being in love, instead of loving the person you believe you're in love with?
Alan Soble
October 24, 2005
(changed October 24, 2005)
Permalink
Both Jyl and Alex have covered the territory, and I have little to add. It seems to be true that loving a person (or even an animal) and loving an object or thing (chocolate, or a feeling) are different. In the philosophy of love the question arises: if both these two phenomena are in fact typ... Read more
Is it possible for one to be in love with the feeling of being in love, instead of loving the person you believe you're in love with?
Alan Soble
October 24, 2005
(changed October 24, 2005)
Permalink
Both Jyl and Alex have covered the territory, and I have little to add. It seems to be true that loving a person (or even an animal) and loving an object or thing (chocolate, or a feeling) are different. In the philosophy of love the question arises: if both these two phenomena are in fact typ... Read more
What does Kant mean by "intuition"? I've been reading a small book by Jaspers on Kant's whole philosophy, but he is so unclear about this word "intuition" and the word seem important in some way to what Kant is saying.
Andrew N. Carpenter
December 21, 2009
(changed December 21, 2009)
Permalink
A most interesting question from long ago, and two good answers! I don't know if you are interested in a more detailed response, but in case you are I'll add some more details. Please ignore if this is too much for your interests, and please understand that, as both Sean's and Doug... Read more
If I'm not mistaken, Kant claims that our experiences are ordered by "forms"--like space, time, and cause and effect--that foreclose the possibility of our knowing the pure Reality behind these forms. But how does he (attempt to) prove that these mental features are necessary aspects of our experience, and not contingent and thus changeable? I'm especially interested in how he shows that the law of cause and effect exists and must continue to exist forever.
Sean Greenberg
October 19, 2005
(changed October 19, 2005)
Permalink
One way to understand the structure of Kant's arguments for the existence of pure forms of intuition (space and time) and the categories of the understanding (such as causality), is to see them as starting from the premise that we have knowledge of a certain sort (for example, knowledge of... Read more
I started reading the first paragraph of Immanuel Kant's <i>Critique of Pure Reason</i>, and I fear I will die of mind strain pretty soon. But to my question. Why does he say in the first line that all knowledge come from experience, and just a little later say that a type of knowledge doesn't?
Sean Greenberg
October 19, 2005
(changed October 19, 2005)
Permalink
In the first line of the Introduction to the B (second) edition of the first Critique, Kant says that "there is no doubt whatsoever that all our cognition begins with experience, for how else should the cognitive faculty be awakened into exercise" (B1). So experience is necessary in order... Read more
How legitimate can history be if every document that has ever been written has some bias behind its writing? To what extent can we trust historical books written in a time we otherwise would have no knowledge of? How certain can we be that the "history" we're taught actually happened? And finally how do historians classify something as historical, what qualifications does a document require to become historical? Thanks for the help, Alex.
Alexander George
October 19, 2005
(changed October 19, 2005)
Permalink
Why do you think inquiry into what happened in the past is anydifferent from inquiry about what's happening on the other side of theMoon? In both cases, we lack direct access to the facts. We must makeinferences, based on many assumptions, from what we do observe to whatactually was (or... Read more
Hi. I was reading Leibniz's work <i>Monadology</i> and he mentions "monads" and how they make up everything and how they have no extension and do not interact with one another. My question is: if monads cannot interact with one another and if humans are monads and so is food, for example, how do we get nutrition from food? Thanks. Roniel Chand San Francisco
Sean Greenberg
October 19, 2005
(changed October 19, 2005)
Permalink
According to Leibniz, mere material things--like food--are not monads. So Leibniz doesn't believe that human bodies are monads, either. But this doesn't dissolve your question. For the fact remains that human beings have experiences as of eating food, and experiences of their bodies, a... Read more
I am a producer at a network news organization and am working on a piece on "cultural relativism" that will be televised later this year. My particular question is: how to describe cultural relativism in a way that the average television viewer would understand and is cultural relativism a GOOD or BAD thing?
Joseph G. Moore
October 18, 2005
(changed October 18, 2005)
Permalink
Cultural relativism, as it's restricted to moral matters, might be described as the view that what's right and wrong is relative to culture--the moral status of a given action or practice depends upon the moral code of the culture in which that action is performed.There are lots of variat... Read more
In an illegal drug such as LSD, the chemical reaction with your brain causes you to see things, such as motion trails or lighting effects, that cannot be seen by someone who is not on the drug. Assuming that is true, would it be possible that LSD gives its user the ability to see something that actually exists but cannot be seen by the human eye without the chemical adjustment of the drug in the brain?
Joseph G. Moore
October 18, 2005
(changed October 18, 2005)
Permalink
I suppose it depends upon how you understand these effects. Take "motion trails". If we regard these as illusions--that is, we hold that there aren't really colored trails that follow a moving object like colored silk scarves attached to the end of the object--then the drug may be allowin... Read more