Recent Responses
What's the source of the authority that parents commonly have over their children? For example, sayings like "My house, my rules" suggest that children and parents have a kind of agreement: in exchange for the food and shelter which their parents provide, children agree to follow orders. However, I'd guess that most people wouldn't really want to endorse this kind of justification. What then?
Oliver Leaman
September 18, 2014
(changed September 18, 2014)
Permalink
But normally we do regard ourselves as liable to respect the rules of whoever is offering us hospitality. This is not absolute of course, and children might see themselves as in a different position. They did not after all ask to be born, although after being born it is no doubt conveni... Read more
Does the future exist? In theory, is the future a 'place' that I can go to in a time-machine or does the universe alter in such a way that my desired era appears before me?
Allen Stairs
September 18, 2014
(changed September 18, 2014)
Permalink
A timely topic, if you'll pardon the pun. It's very much a live issue in contemporary philosophy and as you'd guess, there is more than one camp.
Very roughly, we can carve the territory up this way:
Presentists say that only the present is real. The future does not exist, and will only... Read more
Is it even conceivable to think about absolutely nothing?
William Rapaport
September 18, 2014
(changed September 18, 2014)
Permalink
"Nothing" is online at http://www.nothing.com/Heath.html
Log in to post comments
Is it even conceivable to think about absolutely nothing?
William Rapaport
September 18, 2014
(changed September 18, 2014)
Permalink
"Nothing" is online at http://www.nothing.com/Heath.html
Log in to post comments
What does Plato mean (in The Republic) when he identifies that moderation (in the case of the city in speech) is identified with the agreement over who rules the city? Where is the moderation in that? I really don't understand that word in the context of this metaphor.
Nicholas D. Smith
September 18, 2014
(changed September 18, 2014)
Permalink
Plato has a number of things to say about moderation in the Republic, but I think the most important one is where he associates moderation with the proper functioning of the appetitive part of the soul. The good news about that part is that it is responsible for the basic functions... Read more
Hi my name is Victoria! I was searching for some information about "what is the proper object of philosophy?" and couldn't find anything. Hope that I can get help on answering this question on the website. Thank you
Charles Taliaferro
September 13, 2014
(changed September 13, 2014)
Permalink
"Philosophy" is derived from the Greek for "love" and "wisdom" and it is often rendered as "the love of wisdom." So one reply to your question is that the proper object of philosophical inquiry is whatever is a fitting object of study in the practice of loving wisdom. So, histori... Read more
Dear sir/madam I would really appreciate it if you could help me please with finding the name of some books about early concept of the relation of art and morality. what I mean is after Plato and Aristotle to the time of Kant. Or if it is possible, please give me some names of philosophers during that time and then I'll try to find their books. I want to work on the early relation of them and later show how and why they became some how separate in later years. I guess Kant has the most effect on it but I still need more resources.
Charles Taliaferro
September 13, 2014
(changed September 13, 2014)
Permalink
I wish you all the best in your research and thinking about art and ethics. Here are some contemporary thinkers you would find engaging: Noel Carroll --his "Moderate Moralism" (originally published in the British Journal of Aesthetics in 1996 is not the "latest" but Carroll is a c... Read more
The reason that Pascal's Wager doesn't seem convincing to me is that to me it seems that you can't assign a probability to something that doesn't have any empirical evidence. So all gods seems equally improbable. And so I would be equally likely to suffer eternal torture if I chose Islam, Mormonism or nothing. Although on further thought, I don't feel so sure any more, largely because of the same reasoning that lead me to the question I'm about to ask. But, after I read the thought experiment "Roko's Basilisk," it seems to me that you could also make a Pascal's Wager-style proposition without metaphysical claims, one that would involve probabilities. Something along the lines of this: Biologists know a lot about the human body. Those that know a lot about the human body are more likely to have the capabilities to torture me for eternity. Those that are more likely to have the capabilities to torture me for eternity are more likely to torture me for eternity. If I go spend time near biologists it is becomes more likely that I will be tortured for eternity. I ought to minimize my chances of eternal torture. Therefore I ought to avoid biologists. So then you might say "If you fervently try to avoid biologists, they will be more likely to pick you, because that is how sociopaths function, and a biologist who would torture you would surely be a sociopath". So then I should spend more time around biologists? Even if you say, I should act normally to have the smallest chance of getting picked, it still seems weird to do anything *because* of something that has such a small probabilty and for which there is so little evidence that supports it. I just seems like, that once you have any evidence at all, there is always a larger probability of eternal torture for some choice. Of course all this seems absurd, but there is still some internal conflict within me, and I am feeling very uneasy, because the premises seem acceptable. Eternal torture seems like it's worth minimizing the chances of, no matter what, and I don't want to throw my life away, hiding on the North Pole, or following whatever course of action that would seem to have the lowest probability of eternal torture. Any help you'd be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated.
Stephen Maitzen
September 13, 2014
(changed September 13, 2014)
Permalink
I am much more familiar ... with human (or human-like) beings who lust after young peasant women than I am with ones for whom the very experience of lust is unimaginable ...To say nothing of the doctrine, central to one of the major monotheistic religions, that God became a flesh-and-... Read more
The reason that Pascal's Wager doesn't seem convincing to me is that to me it seems that you can't assign a probability to something that doesn't have any empirical evidence. So all gods seems equally improbable. And so I would be equally likely to suffer eternal torture if I chose Islam, Mormonism or nothing. Although on further thought, I don't feel so sure any more, largely because of the same reasoning that lead me to the question I'm about to ask. But, after I read the thought experiment "Roko's Basilisk," it seems to me that you could also make a Pascal's Wager-style proposition without metaphysical claims, one that would involve probabilities. Something along the lines of this: Biologists know a lot about the human body. Those that know a lot about the human body are more likely to have the capabilities to torture me for eternity. Those that are more likely to have the capabilities to torture me for eternity are more likely to torture me for eternity. If I go spend time near biologists it is becomes more likely that I will be tortured for eternity. I ought to minimize my chances of eternal torture. Therefore I ought to avoid biologists. So then you might say "If you fervently try to avoid biologists, they will be more likely to pick you, because that is how sociopaths function, and a biologist who would torture you would surely be a sociopath". So then I should spend more time around biologists? Even if you say, I should act normally to have the smallest chance of getting picked, it still seems weird to do anything *because* of something that has such a small probabilty and for which there is so little evidence that supports it. I just seems like, that once you have any evidence at all, there is always a larger probability of eternal torture for some choice. Of course all this seems absurd, but there is still some internal conflict within me, and I am feeling very uneasy, because the premises seem acceptable. Eternal torture seems like it's worth minimizing the chances of, no matter what, and I don't want to throw my life away, hiding on the North Pole, or following whatever course of action that would seem to have the lowest probability of eternal torture. Any help you'd be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated.
Stephen Maitzen
September 13, 2014
(changed September 13, 2014)
Permalink
I am much more familiar ... with human (or human-like) beings who lust after young peasant women than I am with ones for whom the very experience of lust is unimaginable ...To say nothing of the doctrine, central to one of the major monotheistic religions, that God became a flesh-and-... Read more
The reason that Pascal's Wager doesn't seem convincing to me is that to me it seems that you can't assign a probability to something that doesn't have any empirical evidence. So all gods seems equally improbable. And so I would be equally likely to suffer eternal torture if I chose Islam, Mormonism or nothing. Although on further thought, I don't feel so sure any more, largely because of the same reasoning that lead me to the question I'm about to ask. But, after I read the thought experiment "Roko's Basilisk," it seems to me that you could also make a Pascal's Wager-style proposition without metaphysical claims, one that would involve probabilities. Something along the lines of this: Biologists know a lot about the human body. Those that know a lot about the human body are more likely to have the capabilities to torture me for eternity. Those that are more likely to have the capabilities to torture me for eternity are more likely to torture me for eternity. If I go spend time near biologists it is becomes more likely that I will be tortured for eternity. I ought to minimize my chances of eternal torture. Therefore I ought to avoid biologists. So then you might say "If you fervently try to avoid biologists, they will be more likely to pick you, because that is how sociopaths function, and a biologist who would torture you would surely be a sociopath". So then I should spend more time around biologists? Even if you say, I should act normally to have the smallest chance of getting picked, it still seems weird to do anything *because* of something that has such a small probabilty and for which there is so little evidence that supports it. I just seems like, that once you have any evidence at all, there is always a larger probability of eternal torture for some choice. Of course all this seems absurd, but there is still some internal conflict within me, and I am feeling very uneasy, because the premises seem acceptable. Eternal torture seems like it's worth minimizing the chances of, no matter what, and I don't want to throw my life away, hiding on the North Pole, or following whatever course of action that would seem to have the lowest probability of eternal torture. Any help you'd be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated.
Stephen Maitzen
September 13, 2014
(changed September 13, 2014)
Permalink
I am much more familiar ... with human (or human-like) beings who lust after young peasant women than I am with ones for whom the very experience of lust is unimaginable ...To say nothing of the doctrine, central to one of the major monotheistic religions, that God became a flesh-and-... Read more