Recent Responses
I LOVE this site. Wish I'd stumbled across it sooner! Ok, I have a question that I've wanted to ask for some time (ahem) but have been afraid to ask, assuming it would be duplicative. But I've gone through all the questions (26 at this point) and I don't think it's really been asked -- at least the way I'd like to ask it -- though one answer (cited below) touches on it directly then backs away. My question is "Isn't everything always happening or not happening at a given time and for a given duration from a God's (or someone greater than God) Eye perspective? Even if Time "stopped", wouldn't it be stopped for a certain amount of time? Even if time reversed (i.e., the Superman example and Stephen Hawkings old theory that time would reverse and broken objects would re-form etc. if the universe contracted (I know we now believe it's expanding and won't contract) wouldn't that take a certain amount of time? Even if someone went back in time, wouldn't they be gone for a certain amount of time that's continuing forward with or without her? If everything ceased to exist, wouldn't TIME still be there (and I hope it doesn't sound silly, but even if TIME ceased to exist , wouldn't it still be there?). Sorry for the long winded question. Now that I've typed this I guess this is the same as asking if time is relative or absolute. I'm comfortable with the assertion that for any particular individual time is relative (and I know that the Response from Peter S. Fosl on November 28, 2005 says "relative") but I still like the idea of Mr. Garfield's "Supertime" and would like to hear the argument for it (even if I have to wait some amount of time to hear it, yuk yuk). Am I missing something simple? Am I just conflating different definitions of time and causing my own confusion? Thanks! Bobby M.
Mark Crimmins
July 31, 2006
(changed July 31, 2006)
Permalink
Let's distinguish between physics and common sense: an adequate physics might or might not include a temporal dimension along which events occur, and this dimension might or might not possess various of the features that common sense attributes to time. That much is familiar from Einstein: it's... Read more
I don't understand the approach in answering some of the questions. When asking if something is "important" or what "duty" is or what "right" is, why answer with examples of stuff that's one of those terms or give an insight on the subject rather than attacking the word itself and finding what it means. We're already in a hole due to the problem of causation and must find associations and directions of fit. So why not really get deep within the skin to find out what a word like "important" or "right" or "duty" means (at least to the best of our abilities). Isn't the source of much dispute in other fields that people aren't on the same page as to what a particular word or term means? Philosophy is much better than that. Or am I missing something?
Richard Heck
July 30, 2006
(changed July 30, 2006)
Permalink
I think most people here would agree with much of what you have to say, though with some differences.
First, the question isn't so much what the word "right", say, means but, rather, what rights are. And similarly, it isn't so much that people don't agree about what the word "right" means: It's t... Read more
Can you define 'own' without using another word for it, (belong, possess, etc.?) (And I mean 'own' as in possess, not in 'I can do it on my own.') 'Cause I know everyone sort of knows what it means and entails and whatever. But, what does it really mean to 'own' something? And how can you even 'own' something? (I unserstand it's an abstract idea.)
Alan Soble
September 3, 2006
(changed September 3, 2006)
Permalink
Let's suppose my general points are even slightly well-taken. Marks asks (1) whether rights are natural or (more positivistically) grounded, say, in social convention, and (2) whether (or when/if) a person has the right(s) about which he speaks. But he doesn't ask what a right is or what the... Read more
Can you define 'own' without using another word for it, (belong, possess, etc.?) (And I mean 'own' as in possess, not in 'I can do it on my own.') 'Cause I know everyone sort of knows what it means and entails and whatever. But, what does it really mean to 'own' something? And how can you even 'own' something? (I unserstand it's an abstract idea.)
Alan Soble
September 3, 2006
(changed September 3, 2006)
Permalink
Let's suppose my general points are even slightly well-taken. Marks asks (1) whether rights are natural or (more positivistically) grounded, say, in social convention, and (2) whether (or when/if) a person has the right(s) about which he speaks. But he doesn't ask what a right is or what the... Read more
Hi there. I have a question about Searle's Chinese room argument. In it he seems to argue that purely syntactic programs are not sufficient for semantic content. From a biological perspective, I was wondering what if the program (genetic material) used the symbols themselves (proteins) to build a machine (a brain) that was capable of understanding meaning? What effect, if any, would this have on Searle's argument? I don't have any training in philosophy, so if you could pitch your answer with that in mind that would be great. Thanks, Tim
Mark Sprevak
July 20, 2006
(changed July 20, 2006)
Permalink
Searle's argument is that merely running a program cannot be enough for understanding, provided one understands 'running a program' in terms of symbol shuffling, rather than shuffling any particular physical stuff around. The response that you suggest involves shuffling particular physical stuff:... Read more
The demise of the Soviet Union, and the dominance of the U.S.A, in military terms, does not seem to have produced a stable world, or a "peace dividend". If the "West" were to succeed in installing representative democracy, and a liberal capitalist economic regime, throughout the world, could we expect a better life for the world's citizens. If not, why do the world's leading powers invest such massive resources in this project?
Louise Antony
July 20, 2006
(changed July 20, 2006)
Permalink
There is no expertise a philosopher can provide that's pertinent to this question -- it's one that any thoughtful, well-informed person ought to be able to answer. But since you did ask a philosopher, and since I consider myself to be a thoughtful and well-informed person, I'll give you my opinio... Read more
I'd like to ask a question about aesthetics and philosophy in general. As an undergraduate student of philosophy, looking around at different traditions and particular, dominant thinkers, it seems that aesthetics is generally discounted as a strong motivation or deciding force in many facets of our lives. For instance, I think that most people will find it an odd when one suggests that aesthetics is an important part of ethics, economics, politics, science, mathematics, logic, ontology, epistemology, and so on. Yet in each of the disciplines I've just mentioned, it seems that an 'elegant' definition, solution or description is strongly praised by most people over 'messy' ones. For instance, we wonder at the simplicity and power of both Newton's laws and Einstein's e=mc2. An elegantly 'neat' solution to an ethical dilemma between two parties is generally preferred to an obscure, complex one. Plato is praised by many for his elegant use of illustrative metaphors. Elegance is surely an attribute firmly within the domain of aesthetics; and hence, aesthetic concerns do play a part in these disciplines. These examples are minimal: no great labour of thought was required to think them up. I am coming to suspect that (for whatever reason) aesthetic sense (whatever that is) is actually a fundamental part of the human experience; far greater than its proportional representation on library shelves suggests. I notice that on this web site, aesthetics is not even listed as a separate category: inferentially it has to be tacked on as a potential property of art, beauty, justice, medicine, knowledge, sex, sport, suicide, and so on. This contrasts to, say, ethics, which could also be described as a potential property of all the same categories, yet has its own category. My question is: are there philosophers who take aesthetics to be of as fundamental importance in philosophy as, say, ontology or epistemology? Also, is this an area of thought that is mobile in its degree of interest in the general philosophical community? Can we wait with suspenseful breath for a new Heidegger who reshapes our thinking about fundamental issues in terms of aesthetics?
Douglas Burnham
July 12, 2006
(changed July 12, 2006)
Permalink
An interesting question, and well-observed. Of course, it might be the case that the term 'elegant', despite appearances, is being used in a non-aesthetic sense. For example, it might mean something like clear, simple or self-contained. In which case the preference for elegance of which you spe... Read more
When you give a homeless person money is it wrong to attach conditions or have expectations about what that individual will do with the gift?
Thomas Pogge
July 12, 2006
(changed July 12, 2006)
Permalink
Such conditions or expectations would not be wrong when giving money to a friend or colleague. Seeing the holes in her shabby sweater, you might give her some money and ask her to buy a new sweater with it. And you would then expect that, if she accepts the gift, she will use it the way you stipul... Read more
If I say that all faces are beautiful, the word "beautiful" is meaningless, because, as far as I can see, it only has meaning if something can be "ugly". Now what if I say that all music is perfect, does that make sense? I think not, but it's not as obvious why not. What if I say that all days are cold, does that make sense? It might, if there was some kind of independent standard of coldness, which all days complied with. I'm looking for some kind of rule which tells me what kind of sentences of the form all X is Y are meaningless and what kind of sentences are not. Is there a rule? Thank you.
Richard Heck
July 11, 2006
(changed July 11, 2006)
Permalink
It was a central goal of Logical Positivism to discover a criterion for meaningfulness. None was ever formulated that satisfied anyone for very long.
There are a couple more specific things to be said here. First, it would not follow that "All faces are beautiful" is meaningless even if, as you cl... Read more
Why has Ayn Rand become so inconsequential to modern philosophy? The point is underscored by the lack of any references to Rand on your site, save one instance where someone asked if there were any refutations of Rand's Objectivism available – to which a link was dutifully supplied. The point is further underscored by some questions in regards to women in philosophy (or the lack thereof) which, to my amazement, Rand was not referred to (even begrudgingly) as a positive example. My pet theories about this situation have something to do with her aligning herself strongly with Capitalism, while philosophers historically have been left leaners or overtly aristocratic (of sorts) but never very money orientated, which is probably seen as a very Earthly consideration to dwell on. Some say that Rands format of conveying philosophical ideas in the form of novels has not helped her cause much. If this consideration is to be given weight then why should Socratic dialog, for example, be so revered? The methodology of presenting a dissenting opinion in Plato's Republic is rendered null when that very opinion is not only authored by the same person as the opposing view, but can only be interpreted as being rather strawmanish anyway. I'm not trying to diminish Plato's works – they are brilliant, I'm criticizing the assumptions that may have effected Rand's popularity unfairly.
Peter S. Fosl
August 6, 2006
(changed August 6, 2006)
Permalink
I agree with Richard Heck on this one. Rand's view of the human person, of freedom, of perception, of markets, etc., seem to me and to most philosophers I've spoken too about it, unpersuasive, overly simplistic, and sometimes objectionable. But I would add two bits:First, I have encountered a... Read more