Recent Responses
Is the universe infinite? And if it isn't, what is outside it? Are there lots of universes, or is it all just fractals? And what about other dimensions? Is it possible that time and laws of physics work differently in other universes? Helen from Worcester, age 12
Marc Lange
November 22, 2006
(changed November 22, 2006)
Permalink
Hello Helen from Worcester! Thank you for your excellent questions!
Let's start with whether the universe is infinite. The answer is: We don't know! But suppse it is NOT infinite. Then what is outside of it? Perhaps the answer is that there is no such thing as "outside" of it. The universe c... Read more
I've heard it said recently that we all analyze too much and that instead of thinking about things we should just act? An example, (in a <i>New York Times</i> Op-ed, though I can't remember the date) was given that rather than laboring in thought over what it means to be a good person, we should just do things such as help old ladies across the road (though I don't know how often that opportunity arises). What do you as a philosopher think of this advice? Is it necessary or important for us as humans to think, or can we just be? Won't we all be happier if we just existed (...and loved one another) rather than convoluting ourselves with thought?
Nicholas D. Smith
November 22, 2006
(changed November 22, 2006)
Permalink
The advice, "Act; don't think!" would be good advice if thoughtless action was likely to be good action. Since I see no reason to suppose that people would reliably act well when they fail to deliberate, I think the advice to act thoughtlessly is bad advice. There are several proble... Read more
I am a (first year) graduate student interested in the philosophy of science and of biology. I have no formal training in natural science. Assuming that I do a PhD in this area how important is it to get a formal grounding in science and what's a good way to go about getting it?
Marc Lange
November 22, 2006
(changed November 22, 2006)
Permalink
This is a difficult question. Different philosophers of science have different opinions regarding how much background in science one needs to do good philosophy of science. In the olden days, less scientific background was needed than is the case today. A great deal of philosophy of science... Read more
Pride gets a bad rap in theology and folk wisdom: It's one of the Seven Deadly Sins, and we are told that "Pride goeth before a fall". But it seems to me that a lack of pride can be just as bad, too. And some forms of pride can be good. The belief that some things are beneath one's dignity might keep one from committing certain immoral acts or lapsing into certain degrading conditions. Isn't pride a capacious category that contains both beneficial forms (such as self-respect) and pernicious forms (such as arrogance and egotism)?
Douglas Burnham
November 22, 2006
(changed November 22, 2006)
Permalink
I do agree with you; a measure of self-esteem is essential. The problem may be a simple one: 'pride' in modern English has an ambiguity about it, meaning both to be perfectly acceptably pleased about one's achievements, but it also means to be too proud. In previous centuries, however,... Read more
If one accepts the premise that human beings are, a priori, ends unto themselves, and not means to ends, can any form of economy be considered moral? In communism, the good of the whole outweighs the good of the individual, although one could argue that for the whole to maximize its good, the individual would need to maximize his or her good. In capitalism, I am inclined to say that each individual is treated as an end, and not a means, through the exchange of mutually acceptable value equivalents (money, labor, being the key ingredients). But aren't we also assuming that another person will be a means to our ends (by selling you my goods, I gain energy in the form of whatever you give me, and you gain the goods for a price, each of us thus engaging in a form of means to an end)? Is it moral to allow two people to use each other as means to their own ends, even if they do so freely? And can we even argue that in a free society, persons engaing in commerce do so freely? are they not bounded by the society in which they live? Is it then moral to say that survival within the context of one's life is in itself a moral reason to use another as a means, rather than strictly as an end?
Douglas Burnham
November 22, 2006
(changed November 22, 2006)
Permalink
An excellent set of questions. What needs to be clarified first is what does it mean for a person to be an 'end' in themselves? The most common way of defining this, coming from Kant, is roughly as follows. (I am paraphrasing pp. 63ff in the Groundwork.) All actions have ends (sometime... Read more
Okay, before you read my question - please read it with a "voice-tone" of curious respect. How does one becomed "recognized" as a philosopher? I suppose the simplified version of my question is "What makes a Philosopher a Philosopher"? I mean, we all have ideas about how things work, and spend time considering the great mysteries of life. If I want to become a philosopher, how can I make a living at it? It seems there are few options aside from teaching philosophy in universities or writing philosophy books. Thanks.
Alexander George
November 22, 2006
(changed November 22, 2006)
Permalink
It's hard to answer what makes someone a philosopher for perhaps the same reason it's hard to say what precisely philosophy is. These days (and probably it's never been very different) most people who are able to make contributions to philosophy (and in that sense are philosophers) ha... Read more
Can we think without words? If not, how can we explain the very first intention to build a language when our ancestors had no word? (sorry, I must improve my English I am from Argentina)
Alexander George
November 22, 2006
(changed November 22, 2006)
Permalink
For an answer to a similar query, see Question 953.
Log in to post comments
In a critical thinking textbook I’m trying to study from, there is an exercise which gives groups of three different independent reasons from which I must select the one which supports a stated conclusion. For example: Conclusion: Blood donors should be paid for giving blood. (a) The blood donor service is expensive to administer. (b) People who give blood usually do so because they want to help others. (c) There is a shortage of blood donors, and payment would encourage more people to become donors. (Anne Thomson, <i>Critical Reasoning - a practical introduction</i>.) For each question I must pick the answer which could be a reason for a conclusion, say why it is the right answer, and why the other options are wrong. I’ve had absolutely no problems selecting the correct answer, but I can’t seem to say why. It would seem that I could easily say THAT a particular reason gives or doesn’t give support to a conclusion, but I can’t seem to put into words HOW or WHY. So my question is, why and how do reasons support conclusions? Or what does ‘support’ or ‘gives us reason to believe’ mean? Or why and how do conclusions 'follow' from reasons? Thanks.
Daniel J. Velleman
November 19, 2006
(changed November 19, 2006)
Permalink
One way of further spelling out Alex's standard for deductive inference ("if the reasons are true then the conclusion must be as well") is to use the idea of "possible worlds"--different ways that the world might be. To say that if the reasons are true then the conclusion must also... Read more
Is it possible to 'see' existence (the world) without any bias? Can a lack of bias be considered a bias or just another perpective? Is there a 'true' way to see the world?
Douglas Burnham
November 23, 2006
(changed November 23, 2006)
Permalink
'Bias' here might mean 'a distortion of thought caused by the nature of thought being something essentially different from what is thought about'. This notion of bias is discussed in Professor Lipton's answer above. However, a related but not identical definition of 'bias' is 'preconcep... Read more
I was just playing chess against my computer, and suddenly I realized that computer chess has no rules. In computer chess there are things that happen and things that don't happen; there are "laws of nature" (although "nature" is here a computer running a certain software), but there are no rules in the sense of "things regarded as customary or normal", as my dictionary says, or in the sense of "a convention set forth or accepted by a group of people". This way, computer chess is very different from over the board chess. Do you agree?
Alexander George
November 17, 2006
(changed November 17, 2006)
Permalink
I'm not sure that any of your reasons for thinking that the computer is not following rules is convincing. After all, for humans too "there are things that happen and things that don't happen." There are laws of nature that our bodies and brains are acting in accordance with, etc. A... Read more