Recent Responses
How is critical thinking different to thinking philosophically?
Interesting question,
Charles Taliaferro
June 5, 2015
(changed June 5, 2015)
Permalink
Interesting question, especially insofar as some philosophy departments offer as their rationale in higher education the claim that philosophy is especially well suited as a discipline in promoting critical thinking, a skill that philosophy professors claim (with good reas... Read more
Is evolution a problem for Platonists? Can there be a form for organisms that by there nature change, even if individual examples of species do not? Another way of saying it is that species are organic processes, and I have difficulty imagining an essential, unchanging process.
The problem you describe is
Nickolas Pappas
June 5, 2015
(changed June 5, 2015)
Permalink
The problem you describe is obviously a threat to Aristotle's view of nature and of the species of plants and animals (which may be why Aristotle argues against Darwin in Book 2 of the Physics). As you say, "species are organic processes" -- although you ought to recog... Read more
I recall reading, in the past, about a philosopher who acknowledged that the existence of God was completely irrational and that he probably didn't exist. However, he emphasized that despite this fact, people should and need to believe in religion to feel happy, moral, and fulfilled in life, and so, belief is necessary. I can't recall who this is although I'm leaning towards Kant or Aristotle. Do you know who I can attribute this idea to or where I can read more?
On Kant and Aristotle: Kant
Charles Taliaferro
June 4, 2015
(changed June 4, 2015)
Permalink
On Kant and Aristotle: Kant did not think belief in the existence of God was completely irrational nor that God probably does not exist, but he did argue that the traditional arguments justifying belief in God (and indeed the traditional domain of metaphysics) went b... Read more
If someone were presented the option to permanently undo a major aspect of their own life, and "rewrite history", would it be morally wrong to do this? Consider the following scenario: a person dedicates their life to an ideal such as justice or peace or any morally sound ideal such as those. They sacrifice so much of their time, energy, life, and sanity to the fulfillment of this ideal. However, due to unforeseen circumstances their actions lead to an outcome they were unsatisfied with. Would it be wrong for this hypothetical person to change their entire life to avert this terrible fate?
Before I could consider the
Stephen Maitzen
June 4, 2015
(changed June 4, 2015)
Permalink
Before I could consider the ethics of this scenario, I'd have to satisfy myself that it's a coherent scenario. Let's call the person in question "Jane." The scenario seems to require that something like the following be true: "Jane sacrificed much of her time and energ... Read more
I have a question about Verificationism. As I understand it Verificationists criticise theists whose beliefs aren't verifiable. How would they respond to the following scenarios; (1) A theist determines her belief based on a single coin toss. It came up heads this verifying her belief in God. She went into the test accepting it could come out either way and saying she would genuinely disbelieve if it came out tails and genuinely believe if it came out heads. (2) She repeats this process every morning. And thus ends up some days believing others not. Or, something different; (3) A particular believer believes Christ will return in 10, 000 years. Thus his belief is meaningful and verifiable, one needs only wait a very long time. Would they say he should remain in a suspension of belief? I have heard of the theory of eschatological verification, did verificationists disregard this too? On what grounds?
Verificationists typically
Miriam Solomon
June 4, 2015
(changed June 4, 2015)
Permalink
Verificationists typically say that for a claim to be meaningful it must be empirically testable. Tossing a coin might test claims about gravity, mechanics, or the symmetry of the coin, but it does not test an unrelated claim.
It is probably meaningful to believe that Ch... Read more
How compatible is a double major between philosophy and one of the natural sciences?
Entirely! Philosophical
Stephen Maitzen
June 4, 2015
(changed June 4, 2015)
Permalink
Entirely! Philosophical training is an excellent complement to scientific training. Indeed, I wish more scientists had received it (see this response). The sciences abound with interesting questions for the philosopher.
A philosophy/science double major can be logistically... Read more
How compatible is a double major between philosophy and one of the natural sciences?
Entirely! Philosophical
Stephen Maitzen
June 4, 2015
(changed June 4, 2015)
Permalink
Entirely! Philosophical training is an excellent complement to scientific training. Indeed, I wish more scientists had received it (see this response). The sciences abound with interesting questions for the philosopher.
A philosophy/science double major can be logistically... Read more
If there could be a counter-argument against a premise, does that make the premise false and the argument unsound?
The mere possibility of a
Stephen Maitzen
June 4, 2015
(changed June 4, 2015)
Permalink
No. The mere possibility of a counter-argument (i.e., "there could be a counter-argument") doesn't imply that the premise is false or that an argument containing the premise is unsound. The counter-argument itself must have a true conclusion in order to guarantee that the... Read more
It's often said that we cannot predict which scientific discoveries will turn out to have practical value, and so we should encourage scientific curiosity and investigation even in cases where the subject matter seems frivolous or esoteric. To take one famous example, G.H. Hardy thought that number theory was perfectly useless, but it is now indispensable to cryptography. Could the same be said of philosophy? Are there philosophical theories that have had unforeseen benefits? Or is it safe to conclude that at least some philosophical pursuits really are just "useless"?
As useless as art, literature
André Carus
June 3, 2015
(changed June 3, 2015)
Permalink
As useless as art, literature, music, or just about anything you do as an end in itself rather than a means toward some other end in itself. Most important science wasn't done for the purpose of achieving "practical" results, but to satisfy some inner compulsion, of the... Read more
Most all ethical theories have a problem with them, whether it has some sort of internal inconsistency, has no answer for a certain scenario, or whatever. How can anyone accept an ethical theory that they know is flawed? Don't the flaws mean we need to keep looking and thinking?
There are two sorts of things
Allen Stairs
May 28, 2015
(changed May 28, 2015)
Permalink
There are two sorts of things that might be at issue here and they call for different answers.
If I want the best ethical theory we can come up with, and the available alternatives all seem flawed, then that's a reason to keep looking and thinking—especially if the goal... Read more