Recent Responses
Have there been any systematic attempts to determine what the most difficult language(s) to learn as a second-language may be? Is the difficulty of second-language acquisition necessarily tied to the second-language's similarity to one's first language, or otherwise dependent on some inherent or acquired capacity of one's brain to learn a given second-language? Or are there some languages which are more difficult to learn as a second-language across the board, so to speak? If so, what sort of formulae might be used to determine the difficulty of the acquisition of a given second-language?
Richard Heck
October 30, 2006
(changed October 30, 2006)
Permalink
Human beings and human languages are made for each other. So far aswe have reason to believe, any (normal) human being can learn any humanlanguage as his or her first language, and young children are capableof learning many languages, if they are exposed to them.It seems that, as one matures... Read more
Dear all, Am I right in thinking that what William Paley's mistake in his design argument, was not to suggest a designer but he was mistaken to 'specify' how design came about, so he came up with the concept of 'special creation' i.e. design coming instantaneously. Therefore that was his pitfall, not that the design argument is wrong, but just that he was stipulating conditions on how God should create. I think it was Bohr who said 'Don't tell God what to do'. I think to further show my point is where some argued that this creation was special because the earth was the center of the universe, and when this was proven wrong, certain religous figures acted violently because this assumption was proven wrong. Am I right in the above? Many thanks :) Kind regards!
Richard Heck
October 30, 2006
(changed October 30, 2006)
Permalink
I'm not sure I fully understand that question being asked here, and I should say, straight off, that I'm not familiar with Paley's particular version of the argument from design. (The argument goes back, in one form or another, a very long way.) But it's certainly true that, if the argument... Read more
Is philosophy the love and pursuit of truth? If so, do the members of this panel believe that there are other ways to attain truth (life experience, religious experience, aesthetic experience, etc.) other than by doing philosophy? Could an old man with a rich life of varied experiences understand more about morality than Kant, despite not having gone through such a rigorous process of reasoning? And, if so, can one have this knowledge without being able to translate it into philosophical jargon (aka (?) reason)?
Mark Crimmins
October 29, 2006
(changed October 29, 2006)
Permalink
Sure! One way to pursue truth is to open your eyes and look around. You discover, for instance, that there is a computer screen in front of you. That's a truth. Reading science books, or for that matter seed catalogs, is another way to pursue truth.
But it seems to me that you are reall... Read more
This question is about free will: When I write this sentence I am not quite sure what I will think of to write next. Every word just seems to pop up into my head just a fraction of a second before I write it. It seems that I do not control what it is that I will write. It seems however that it is possible to not write something that pops into my head - but, then again, that counter-urge not to write a word also seems to just pop into my head. If performing any kind of action is like writing, can I be said to have a free will?
Mark Crimmins
October 29, 2006
(changed October 29, 2006)
Permalink
It sounds as though you take the model of a free and controlled action to be one over which you have deliberated like a judge at a tribunal. This is a bit surpising, because some have taken the sort of spontaneous, apparently unforseen actions you describe to be indeed more paradigmaticall... Read more
Why should we have BOTH life sentences and the death penalty? By definition, a life sentence without parole takes away people's free lives. Upon entry into the system, they are now a permanent financial burden on the state, and there is no possibility that any reform improves their life on the outside, because they are never going outside again. Isn't it, in a system with capital punishment financially gainful, saving in both maintainance and facilities, and ethically equal to kill a man outright as opposed to containing him until you cause his death? -Bunsen
Mark Crimmins
October 29, 2006
(changed October 29, 2006)
Permalink
It's apparently really expensive to shepherd a capital case all the way through to eventual execution--some say, much more expensive than life in prison.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7
That aside, there are plenty of other ethically relevant considerations.... Read more
I hope you can help me answer a question I've been thinking about for some time... How do we really know if objective reality exists at all and, even if it does, what is to say that our view on objective reality is correct?
Richard Heck
October 28, 2006
(changed October 28, 2006)
Permalink
What do you mean by an "objective" reality? Do you mean a reality that exists outside of my mind? It isn't obvious to me that there is any better answer than that given by the British philosopher G. E. Moore: I know that I have two hands, and my hands are certainly not inside my mind but att... Read more
My question will be introduced at the end of this post. I have thought on this question for some time now. But first off let me say that I do not know all there is to know about the theory of Solipsism. From what I gather, the definition can be summed up in the phrase: The theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. Holding this to be true, person A kills himself. Moments before doing so, he scribbles down on a sheet of paper: If You can read this when I am dead, the theory of Solipsism is false. This seems to be a great way to find out if the theory of Solipsism is true or not, but I have come up with a counter: Person B discovers person A's body and the note. If Person A kills himself, having written down what he did, then he would have only been acting in person B's perception of the world; hence, the theory of Solipsism would be true to person B, because person B can still only be sure of his own existence- and cannot be sure that person A ever did exist. This brings up yet another oddity: Although this scenario would infer that the theory of Solipsism is true to person B, would that not also infer the theory of Solipsism to be false to person A- even though he is now dead? If I am person A, I am 100% sure of my existence- the theory of Solipsism is true to me, because I can only be sure of my own existence. If I kill myself, and person B is still around to read my note, than to person B the theory of Solipsism is still true, because he cannot be sure that I ever existed, the way I was sure of it before I offed myself; but to person A the theory is false- right? Can a philosopher please afford an opinion on this for me? Am I just thinking incoherently, or do my thoughts amount to anything?
Richard Heck
October 28, 2006
(changed October 28, 2006)
Permalink
I would suggest that the problem here is that the term "Solipsism" is being applied to more than one view. Solipsism, as I understand it, is the view that only I exist. This is obviously true. Nonetheless, my experience contains streams of sensations that I am able to organize, for my conven... Read more
I know a little that Galileo changed the Aristotelian world view; but would like to learn more. What is the Aristotelian world view? How did Galileo change it? Could you please give me some explanation? And it would be most appreciated if you kindly suggest me some helpful webpages. THANKS
Alexander George
October 28, 2006
(changed October 28, 2006)
Permalink
Perhaps as a start, you might look at the relevant entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Galileo and on Copernicus.
Log in to post comments
Is the study of "ancient philosophy", (i.e., Socrates, Plato, etc..) just a historical endeavor or is it still an important and fruitful field of philosophical study in itself? Seems to me that much philosophy, even pre-1800 or so, has been made irrelevant through relatively recent scientific studies. (I'm thinking about early philosophy on perception, for example.)
Jyl Gentzler
October 28, 2006
(changed October 28, 2006)
Permalink
The history of philosophy is studied in philosophy departments forthe purpose of understanding whether a particular philosophical claimis true. To this end, historians of philosophy examine the particulararguments that have been offered for views held in the past, becausearguments, if they a... Read more
I know a little that Galileo changed the Aristotelian world view; but would like to learn more. What is the Aristotelian world view? How did Galileo change it? Could you please give me some explanation? And it would be most appreciated if you kindly suggest me some helpful webpages. THANKS
Alexander George
October 28, 2006
(changed October 28, 2006)
Permalink
Perhaps as a start, you might look at the relevant entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Galileo and on Copernicus.
Log in to post comments