Recent Responses

A few years ago I completed a masters degree; however, since that time I have been employed at a job that tends not to incorporate masters (and indeed undergrad) level philosophy. As a result, perhaps, of this I have found myself reading less and less intellectual work (and spending less and less time with literature in general). I long to get back into an intellectual mindset, but am having difficulty 'reading'. I have tried various different approaches - from attempting to get through Russell's History of Western Philosophy, to simply trying to read at least one text by each of the 'greats', but each time I find myself glancing at the texts for about half an hour and then losing concentration. Ideas that I would once understand quite quickly have become hieroglyphs that I cannot translate. Put simply, I am having trouble reading philosophy philosophically. I am not looking for a 'quick fix' solution to this problem (as I do not think that there exist such things) - however, do you have any recommendations as to what I could do? Do you think either of the above techniques might prove worthwhile? I realise that it will be me who discovers the 'right way', but I am in need of a little help - I miss reading on a critical level, and often worry that I might not be as able as I once was (if I was even ever able at all). thanks

Jyl Gentzler June 15, 2006 (changed June 15, 2006) Permalink I’d approach the problem in a completely different way. I suspect thatthe problem that you are facing is that none of the philosophical worksthat you are now attempting to read has obvious relevance to your lifeas you now live it– to your career, to your personal relationships, toyour choices abou... Read more

Education Philosophy

A few years ago I completed a masters degree; however, since that time I have been employed at a job that tends not to incorporate masters (and indeed undergrad) level philosophy. As a result, perhaps, of this I have found myself reading less and less intellectual work (and spending less and less time with literature in general). I long to get back into an intellectual mindset, but am having difficulty 'reading'. I have tried various different approaches - from attempting to get through Russell's History of Western Philosophy, to simply trying to read at least one text by each of the 'greats', but each time I find myself glancing at the texts for about half an hour and then losing concentration. Ideas that I would once understand quite quickly have become hieroglyphs that I cannot translate. Put simply, I am having trouble reading philosophy philosophically. I am not looking for a 'quick fix' solution to this problem (as I do not think that there exist such things) - however, do you have any recommendations as to what I could do? Do you think either of the above techniques might prove worthwhile? I realise that it will be me who discovers the 'right way', but I am in need of a little help - I miss reading on a critical level, and often worry that I might not be as able as I once was (if I was even ever able at all). thanks

Ethics

What was the ethical way to handle the mountain-climber on Mt. Everest, David Sharp, who was passed over by 40 climbers as they left him for what they thought was dead?

Nicholas D. Smith June 13, 2006 (changed June 13, 2006) Permalink I'm not entirely sure the facts are straight here. In the stories I read, many of the people who passed him by did not think he was dead. They could see that he was in trouble, but passed him by because they felt that if they attempted to help him, they would be denied the opportunity to re... Read more

Happiness

I read somewhere years ago, and it was in my mind that Aristotle claimed that happiness is the by-product of engaging in activity; that happiness is not a thing that can be held in one's hand and it does not drop into our laps as we sit alone in a room. However, I have not found this specific idea in anything I have read of Aristotle on happiness. I remember being profoundly affected by this idea as it explained the need to choose rightly the activities that bring happiness. I want very much to share this perspective of happiness with a 17-year-old girl so she can benefit. Do you know whose idea of happiness this is?

Nicholas D. Smith June 13, 2006 (changed June 13, 2006) Permalink Your memory is accurate. Have a look at Book I of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Great reading for young and old! Log in to post comments

Logic

Dear philosophers, I would just like to ask if you think "common-sense arguments" are "unphilosophical". I know it depends on what we mean by those two terms, so if you could give me some idea, I'd be very thankful. More power, Selene

Nicholas D. Smith June 13, 2006 (changed June 13, 2006) Permalink I see nothing at all about "common sense" that would make it inherently "unphilosophical." In fact, periodically throughout the history of philosophy there have arisen movements among philosophers in which "common sense" was embraced as providing the very best grounds for philosophical views... Read more

Ethics

A girlfriend showed me a short story in which a group of women on a kibbutz broke the hymen of an infant girl in a ceremonial, ritualistic manner. The act deprived any male from doing so--a kind of preemptive strike against male dominace, violence, etc. My question is, was this choice ethical? Is belief in an ideology or movement like feminism reason enough to alter the body of an infant who cannot object? If Jews perform a bris on infant males as a foundational religious practice, why not accept hymen perforation on secular feminist grounds? Thanks for your consideration.

Nicholas D. Smith June 13, 2006 (changed June 13, 2006) Permalink I hope others will also weigh in on this one, because I really find this kind of question quite complicated. On the one hand, I can understand your analogy to infant male circumcision: In both cases, a kind of decision that the child might wish to be able to make for him- or herself later in... Read more

Education Philosophy

A few years ago I completed a masters degree; however, since that time I have been employed at a job that tends not to incorporate masters (and indeed undergrad) level philosophy. As a result, perhaps, of this I have found myself reading less and less intellectual work (and spending less and less time with literature in general). I long to get back into an intellectual mindset, but am having difficulty 'reading'. I have tried various different approaches - from attempting to get through Russell's History of Western Philosophy, to simply trying to read at least one text by each of the 'greats', but each time I find myself glancing at the texts for about half an hour and then losing concentration. Ideas that I would once understand quite quickly have become hieroglyphs that I cannot translate. Put simply, I am having trouble reading philosophy philosophically. I am not looking for a 'quick fix' solution to this problem (as I do not think that there exist such things) - however, do you have any recommendations as to what I could do? Do you think either of the above techniques might prove worthwhile? I realise that it will be me who discovers the 'right way', but I am in need of a little help - I miss reading on a critical level, and often worry that I might not be as able as I once was (if I was even ever able at all). thanks

Ethics

Suppose I have a friend who keeps a stack $100 bills under her bed. For some strange reason she does not ever wish to spend the money; she just plans on letting it sit there. What's more surprising is the fact that she never counts it. So she would never know some went missing. Am I justified in taking a bit of the cash to, say, buy her flowers? She would be pleased to receive the gift, I'm sure; at the same time she would not have the slightest idea that the money use to pay for it was her own. So as far as she can tell she only benefits, meaning I'd be doing here favor. Yet, isn't it obviously cruel of me to even consider duping her like that? What is going on here?

Jyl Gentzler June 13, 2006 (changed June 13, 2006) Permalink Initially, the case that you are considering strikes me as an instanceof a moral principle to which I am generally committed, which might beput crudely, as “no harm, no foul.” If no one is harmed by, say,dancing, then moral prohibitions against it are unjustifiable. If noone would be harmed by you... Read more

Children Justice

George W. Bush has, along with many others, made the claim that marriage is the fundamental basis of civilization. Is there any reasonable argument to be made supporting this claim? If not, is there another institution that makes a better candidate for being the fundamental basis of civilization?

Jyl Gentzler June 13, 2006 (changed June 13, 2006) Permalink I agree with Richard that, to the extent that there is anything to thisidea, it is based on a particular view about the importance of thefamily to human civilization. Traditionally, the family is the social unit inwhich human children are raised, acquire values, and develop moralcharacter (i.e., a... Read more

Environment Ethics

I get the impression that arguments for nature preservation hinge largely on the idea that what industrial nations are doing to the earth is somehow "unnatural," that in uprooting forests and clubbing baby seals we are throwing off some "balance" in nature. If we as humans are in fact animals, however, in what sense could anything we do as a species be considered "unnatural"? aren't we and our actions necessarily an internal element to that "balance" many say we have disrupted from without? Locusts destroy fields; we, rainforests -- what's the difference? I understand that it may be in our best interest to preserve earth's flora and fauna (i.e., we shouldn't drive pandas to extinction, because they are nice to have around), but many seem to argue that our exploitation of the environment is somehow "wrong", and I don't know how this sentiment can be justified. -andy

Richard Heck June 12, 2006 (changed June 12, 2006) Permalink I have encountered this argument before, but I don't really understand it. In short, it seems to go: We are part of nature, so nothing we do can be counted unnatural. So far as I can see, that is a simple fallacy based upon no more than word play (or, perhaps, a confusion between purely descriptiv... Read more

Recent Responses

Pages