Recent Responses
The notion of "free will" implies an agent can make its own choice independent of the deterministic laws of nature. However, within a causally closed system this is impossible. Why then would evolution endow agents with the feeling of control? Would it not be more efficient (and more expected) for evolution to produce automata without subjective (and superfluous) mental phenomena?
Sean Greenberg
October 12, 2005
(changed October 12, 2005)
Permalink
One way to respond to this question is to reconceive the notion of control at issue. Rather than accepting that the control that agents feel they have requires that they be able to make choices independent of the laws of nature, one might argue that all the control that agents need in ord... Read more
Critical thinking: We are bombarded with information all the time so I think it's very important to use "critical thinking" but it's not easy. So my question is: what are the basics in critical thinking?
Andrew N. Carpenter
October 13, 2005
(changed October 13, 2005)
Permalink
I think it is also useful to think about the separate skills that are necessary for applying the concepts and techniques that Joseph described to complex real-life situations.
Alas, we often have the most need for critical thinking when confronting the situations where this is the har... Read more
What is the connection, if there is any, between enjoyment of art and the judgment of its aesthetic merit?
Aaron Meskin
October 11, 2005
(changed October 11, 2005)
Permalink
In many cases enjoyment and positive judgment go hand in hand. But enjoyment and positive evaluation can come apart in a number of ways. Some works of art do not seem to be designed to be enjoyed. Consider works of art that might be characterized as ‘difficult’ (e.g., some paintings of ho... Read more
I am married to a man who earns a considerable amount of money doing a job he enjoys. It is possible for me to earn a similar amount of money, but I now feel considerable discomfort in the profession that over the years has allowed me to do so. My preferred work (writing fiction) will bring in no money in the short term and has little chance of a lot of money in the end. Is it ethical to choose to earn less, and yet to share the rewards of my husband's salary - the big house, nice car, holidays and so on?
Richard Heck
October 11, 2005
(changed October 11, 2005)
Permalink
I would have thought that this sort of decision was one to be made by you and your husband jointly. How your household earns its income is for the two of you to decide, and it is also for the two of you to decide how that income will be used. I can well understand that there might be emotion... Read more
Is it philosophically defensible, or morally right, to inculcate your child to an organized religion when you yourself do not firmly believe in it? Along the same line, is there anything wrong about avoiding religious topics with your child with the intent that the child will choose her own set of beliefs when she becomes more mature?
Richard Heck
October 11, 2005
(changed October 11, 2005)
Permalink
The first sort of reasoning (not that I need to tell Jyl) goes bythe name "Pascal's Wager". It has been the subject of much controversy.The best recent paper I know is by Alan Hájek. See his"Waging War on Pascal's Wager", Philosophical Review 112 (2003), 27-56. Alan also wrote the Stanford E... Read more
If science (i.e. evolutionary psychology) can explain why I have the morality I do, does that mean morality is subjective? If what I believe about morality is just a product of my evolution and my upbringing, can I still expect other people to live up to my principles even though they may have had a different upbringing? What about myself? Can I still hold myself to my own standards or am I being deceived by my evolution into thinking it would be wrong to do so?
Roger Crisp
October 12, 2005
(changed October 12, 2005)
Permalink
It might be helpful to follow a strand of British empiricism and to think about 'morality' as a social phenomenon, involving various 'sanctions' such as blame, guilt, shame, and so on. (So in that respect it is rather like law, though the sanctions there are somewhat different.) Your worry i... Read more
ID theorists and creationists like to say that the Theory of Evolution is "just a theory." Is that true? What does that mean? What's the difference between "truth" and "theory"?
Peter Lipton
October 11, 2005
(changed October 11, 2005)
Permalink
Theories are descriptions, and they come in two flavors: true and false. So the Theory of Evolution can be both a theory and true, which is just what a great number of scientists believe. When evolution by natural selection is called a theory, however, this is sometimes intended to emphasi... Read more
If science (i.e. evolutionary psychology) can explain why I have the morality I do, does that mean morality is subjective? If what I believe about morality is just a product of my evolution and my upbringing, can I still expect other people to live up to my principles even though they may have had a different upbringing? What about myself? Can I still hold myself to my own standards or am I being deceived by my evolution into thinking it would be wrong to do so?
Roger Crisp
October 12, 2005
(changed October 12, 2005)
Permalink
It might be helpful to follow a strand of British empiricism and to think about 'morality' as a social phenomenon, involving various 'sanctions' such as blame, guilt, shame, and so on. (So in that respect it is rather like law, though the sanctions there are somewhat different.) Your worry i... Read more
How do you tell the difference between a reductio and a surprising conclusion?
Peter Lipton
October 11, 2005
(changed October 11, 2005)
Permalink
The crucial question is which is more plausible: the premise or the negation of the conclusion. Our answer may be influenced by diverse features of our broader 'web of belief'.
Log in to post comments
How do you tell the difference between a reductio and a surprising conclusion?
Peter Lipton
October 11, 2005
(changed October 11, 2005)
Permalink
The crucial question is which is more plausible: the premise or the negation of the conclusion. Our answer may be influenced by diverse features of our broader 'web of belief'.
Log in to post comments