Recent Responses
I am beginning to think this question is a big question mark not only to me, but to some of you Sirs as well--as I have submitted it a couple of times now, and it hasn't even been posted. But let me restate it. A position which holds that there are no absolutes (by which I refer to something akin to the noumena, in Kantian terms) is necessarily wrong. Such position could in fact be synthesized as follows: "I believe there are no absolutes." But such a claim is an absolute in itself. Thus, absolutes must exist. The alternative would be something like "I believe there might not be absolutes". Which nonetheless leaves room for the possibility of the existence of absolutes. Hence, absolutes can, indeed, exist. How do we, as "relativists", argue against the claim that seems to follow logically from what was said--and, that is, that "absolutes necessarily exist"? Thanks...
Richard Heck
June 29, 2006
(changed June 29, 2006)
Permalink
This is a version of a familiar argument against radical relativism. As one usually sees it, it involves the claim "All truth is relative", and then the question is whether the truth of that claim is relative. If so, then relativism may well be false, relative to something or other; if not, then,... Read more
I'm a female philosophy student, and I had an argument with my sister about the lack of female philosophers taught in college classes. She claimed that this was because of current sexism in the field of philosophy -- the mostly male philosophy professors disregard many great female philosophers and don't teach them. I thought that it was just a product of past sexism -- there historically haven't been many women in the field of philosophy, and therefore very few great female philosophers. Who's right? And if there aren't great female philosophers, should texts by women be taught anyway, as a kind of affirmative action?
Louise Antony
June 27, 2006
(changed June 27, 2006)
Permalink
I doubt that philosophy has ever harbored more sexism than any other academic discipline, now or in its history. But sexism has nonetheless played a role in keeping women from doing philosophy, and from being taken seriously when they tried. And this is still true, to a discouraging extent.
I w... Read more
Are machines able to have knowledge?
Louise Antony
June 27, 2006
(changed June 27, 2006)
Permalink
Clearly, machines can process information. For the machine to have knowledge, however, this information has to be information for the machine – the machine would have to understand the information it processes. What would that involve?
In the first place, the states or events in the machine that... Read more
Is the field of Biotechnology really posing a threat to the moral and ethical values of the people? Does this field assure us to improve the quality of life and deciphering entirely the blueprints of life!?
Louise Antony
June 27, 2006
(changed June 27, 2006)
Permalink
Developing technologies have always caused new ethical challenges to arise, often by making once impossible states of affairs possible. Insofar as our ethical thinking has failed to take account of these new possibilities, our ethical systems will be tested. But I see no reason to think that f... Read more
I was thinking that philosophy should adopt a standardized terminology that's used when discussing philosophical matters. It would be a huge task and would divert discussion for a while but it may be become indispensable because philosophy could then make good progress. It just gets frustrating to hear the answer "It depends what you mean by ..." to philosophical questions. For example, the question posed on this site "Are there really any random events"? It's 2006 and we're still discussing the definition of random? If such a simple question cannot be answered unequivocally, how are more complex questions going to be answered? What do you think? Perhaps it's already been done in academic circles? Is it just the human condition that causes all this uncertainty?
Louise Antony
June 27, 2006
(changed June 27, 2006)
Permalink
I think this is an excellent idea, and should be implemented, and hereby declare myself, forthwith, Supreme Arbiter of Philosophical Usage. I leave it to you to notify all the other philosophers.
Log in to post comments
Could you explain the relationship between intellect and morality? Obviously, from the questions I read on this site, many people expect these philosophers, i.e. brilliant men, to come up with answers about living in a good manner. But why is this assumption about the correlation between morality (applied and not theoretical) and intellect so persistent and enduring?
Louise Antony
June 27, 2006
(changed June 27, 2006)
Permalink
I don't know if there is any general presumption that intelligence and morality go together. And it's up for grabs, I think, whether there is any general faculty of "intelligence," equally applicable to, and equally present in all domains. But suppose we're talking about "school intelligence"... Read more
How much does a philosopher read per day? How long do you read each day?
Louise Antony
June 27, 2006
(changed June 27, 2006)
Permalink
This varies enormously from person to person, and from day to day., and on how hard the material is. When I'm working intensively on a paper, or trying to develop a new course, I might read one or two very challenging articles a day, or I might try to "blitz" through the relevant literature and... Read more
I never understood the bumper sticker "Against Abortion? Don't Have One." I mean, people who are against abortion believe that it is equivalent to, or close to, the murder of babies. But surely those who put this bumper sticker on their cars wouldn't favor a bumper sticker that suggested that if you're against infanticide, then the proper response is simply to refrain from killing babies. If it's murder, then shouldn't it be outlawed?
Peter S. Fosl
August 6, 2006
(changed August 6, 2006)
Permalink
Yes, I understand what you mean. I've also been known to smile wryly when reading "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" (as does taking someone off a respirator, killing a mouse or even a spider). Perhaps more controversially, "Women are Not Incubators" (many are, though none are "mere" incubators)... Read more
Do patients have an absolute moral right to the confidentiality of their medical records?
Thomas Pogge
June 24, 2006
(changed June 24, 2006)
Permalink
An absolute right is presumably one that cannot be outweighed, forfeited, and/or alienated. (Such a right can still be waived -- e.g., by allowing your doctor to show your medical records to someone you nominate.) Let's look at these three issues with regard to the assumed moral right to the confi... Read more
Bracketing the various legal issues surrounding restricting certain forms of entertainment and entertainment content to 'children', what are the moral issues? How do we, for example, determine what is 'appropriate' for someone of a certain age to view/hear/experience? What is it about - again for example - swearing that makes it so unattractive and thus renders it undesirable for children's entertainment?
Peter S. Fosl
June 23, 2006
(changed June 23, 2006)
Permalink
These are very good questions. For myself, I often think people overreact when children are exposed to human sexuality in entertainment, especially when they have so few compunctions about violent entertainment. Much of the question, however, depends upon psychological issues--when can children... Read more