Recent Responses
Is there a good definition of magic which does not rule out the existence of magic, but also does not imply that actually magic exists? Magic cannot be "the ability to do impossible things", since this is a contradiction. I wonder if we could define magic as "the ability to violate the laws of physics". The problem is that if we discovered, for instance, that uttering "abracadabra" was a good way to make rabbits appear inside hats, he would have found a new law of physics, wouldn't we? And is it possible to argue that there is no magic without implying that most religions are false? My feeling is that the concept of magic has a reasonable sense only if we accept some religion: magic would be something like the wrong use of entities posited by such religion.
Allen Stairs
December 4, 2014
(changed December 4, 2014)
Permalink
It's an interesting question, and I think it's best considered the context of times and settings in which the idea of magic was taken seriously. I also doubt that there's a lot to be gained by looking for a full-blown definition, but we can learn something by looking at broad commonalities.... Read more
I am in love with my brother's ex-girlfriend of 2 years. Over those 2 years, we became best friends and I developed feelings for her. My question is, now that my brother and her are no longer together, is MORALLY wrong to start a relationship with her? Here is what I have considered: From what I have learned about objective morality/ethics I could follow the Golden Rule "Treat other as you would want to be treated". I have dismissed this on the basis that yes, if I were my brother I would be annoyed by my brother dating my ex, but I would also want my brother to be happy and, after weighing everything on both sides, I would concede to allowing my brother to do what makes him happy. If I take an egoistic approach, I probably wouldn't be asking this question because I would do what is best for me. If I take a utilitarian approach I would consider everyone I am affecting equally, and do what is best for the majority and in that case, I would harm one person (my brother) and do what's best for the majority (me and her). So far, all I have gotten from people are opinions which range from "do what your heart tells you" to "That's wrong". Have not received a reason as to why it is wrong. P.S.: (1) I know she is not the only girl in the world that I can fall in love with, but fact is I am in love with her now and she is my best friend, (2) I don't want opinions, I want a reason as to WHY it is wrong that is not biased and that is based on some fundamental, objective moral standard, and (3) I am fully aware of the implications with my family and hers, I know their opinions on the matter (my brother personally says he doesn't care, but that he would be disappointed, but offered no reason for his disappointment). Thank you.
Allen Stairs
November 28, 2014
(changed November 28, 2014)
Permalink
It's hard to see why it would be morally wrong. No doubt it would upset a few people for a while, but it's not clear that they'd be entitled to be upset. Beyond that. it's not clear what else might make it wrong. If both families are mortally opposed, then I suppose someone might say that... Read more
Recently, the NFL has become embroiled in high profile cases of domestic violence by its players (most notably, Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson). Many critics demand that the league suspend or otherwise discipline the guilty parties. But why, in general, should an employer be expected to address bad actions by its employees when those actions fall outside the scope of work-related duties? What business is it of my employer's whether I commit crimes when I leave work?
Oliver Leaman
November 27, 2014
(changed November 27, 2014)
Permalink
I suppose the argument is that anyone who might serve as a role model for young people has to abide by a higher moral standard than everyone else. If he or she misbehaves and is tolerated by their employer, that might suggest to those who admire them that such behavior is acceptable. That... Read more
People trying to defend philosophy often point out that the natural sciences ("natural philosophy") grew out of it. Does that really recommend philosophy, or does it just mean that we use the word "philosophy" much differently now than in Newton's time? Is it at all likely that philosophy as it is practiced today will result in the creation of significant new disciplines?
Andrew Pessin
November 27, 2014
(changed November 27, 2014)
Permalink
nice question! hard to predict of course ... but some might say that psychology and now cognitive science have partly grown out of 'philosophy' fairly recently ... and some would argue that philosophy is essential for the continued development of cognitive science .... but more importantl... Read more
I just watched the movie "Interstellar," in which the heroes try to begin a colony on another planet in order that the human race survive. Is there any compelling reason to do something like this? To be clear, as far as the heroes know, everyone who is currently alive on earth will die. The point is not to save those people, but only to see that there are future generations of humans that live after them. I can see that we have reasons to save actual, living people--they're capable of suffering, they have various interests, and so on--but those reasons don't apply to the hypothetical inhabitants of a future colony. Why should we care that humanity survive this larger sense?
Andrew Pessin
November 27, 2014
(changed November 27, 2014)
Permalink
great question! What I might say is ask your genes (a la "selfish gene", by Richard Dawkins). our DNA seems to have built into us this force for survival, if only for the sake of our DNA ... But that of course doesn't answer your question, b/c that perhaps descriptive account of where our... Read more
The question comes out of an thought experiment which goes like this: Suppose i ask you to choose a random word from English dictionary. And I tell you to find its definition. Now the definition of the word will also contains some set of words. I ask you to find the definition of all words taking one at a time. The definition of this second word will also contain some set of words, so you have to repeat this definition finding until you reach a word which has already been defined. Now you take the second word from the definition of the very first word you chose and keep repeating this process. As there are finite number of words in English dictionary, you will reach a point where there is nothing to define. Hence, if a set of definitions(in this case the English dictionary) there are finite definitions for each unknown. Accordingly, if our laws of universe are finite, then there will be finite answers to explain the entire universe. Or we can say existence of each physical process can be satisfactorily explained and is related to each other. Now coming back to our dictionary process, if someone asks you to define the word again, such that while defining you have to define each and every word you say. But it is not possible as each definition will go on in an infinite loop. So we cannot really define the word in a single sentence unless the number of words in the dictionary are finite. So, the question is given the finite number of physical laws, is theory of everything really possible?
Andrew Pessin
November 27, 2014
(changed November 27, 2014)
Permalink
This is a first-rate question, if a little complicated, and deserves a longer (first-rate) answer. But it's Thanksgiving so I have to be brief! First your point about the dictionary is quite fascinating. I'm pretty sure Wittgenstein (and maybe Augustine) made roughly similar or closely re... Read more
If we have no free will, then is the entire legal system redundant since no one can be held accountable for anything since no one has control over their own actions?
Consider two worlds, in one
Jonathan Westphal
June 16, 2015
(changed June 17, 2015)
Permalink
Consider two otherwise identical worlds, in one of which determinism is true, and in the other of which it is not. In the second world there is freedom of the will. What difference does this make to the legal system and the moral system? Ex hypothesi, none. When I... Read more
If we have no free will, then is the entire legal system redundant since no one can be held accountable for anything since no one has control over their own actions?
Consider two worlds, in one
Jonathan Westphal
June 16, 2015
(changed June 17, 2015)
Permalink
Consider two otherwise identical worlds, in one of which determinism is true, and in the other of which it is not. In the second world there is freedom of the will. What difference does this make to the legal system and the moral system? Ex hypothesi, none. When I... Read more
Is there any point to attempting to better society, or is it better to live in self interest?
Allen Stairs
November 20, 2014
(changed November 20, 2014)
Permalink
There is a point in trying to make society better: if you succeed, society will be better.
Is it better to live purely self-interestedly? It might be better for you. But that doesn't mean it would be better.
However, I assume that the point behind your question is why anyone should ever b... Read more
As practicing philosophers, how do you react to known academics and intellectuals who are dismissive of philosophy, like Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss? Are there some truths to what they are saying about the nature and value of philosophy?
Stephen Maitzen
November 20, 2014
(changed November 20, 2014)
Permalink
Speaking just for myself, I react much as I did in answering Question 4636 and Question 4759. For reasons that I hope those answers make obvious, I don't regard the dismissive remarks of Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins, Tyson, and their ilk as worth taking seriously. As far as I can tell, thei... Read more