Recent Responses
Why aren’t the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution - James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Alexander Hamilton, etc., people who wrote the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, and a lot more - considered great Philosophers up there with Locke and Rousseau? The Federalist Papers were used to justify the constitution, and the anti-federalists papers used to justify a bill of rights are great philosophical works, with more completing arguments than anything Locke tried to say (which is a whole different question, with its many flaws - and how Locke wasn’t as much an influence on the Founding Fathers as people once thought). What these people wrote has had as much influence over the world as any other "great" philosopher - but they are not taught as philosophers and are only learned about in history class. Any reason for this?
Richard Heck
June 12, 2006
(changed June 12, 2006)
Permalink
Not everything influential counts as philosophy, any more than it counts as science or literature.
Yes, of course, the Federalist Papers and the like have had enormous influence, but they do not contain arguments for the same kinds of positions that you find in Locke's Two Treatises on Civil Gove... Read more
Do students of philosophy have much to gain by travel, study abroad, or cultural immersion?
Douglas Burnham
June 9, 2006
(changed June 9, 2006)
Permalink
A quick addition to Professor Heck's response. Most but not all of the usual list of 'great' philosophers have been travellers. Kant is the most notorious exception. But he lived in a cosmopolitan sea-port, and 'cultural immersion' came to him rather than he to it. I say this only in order to rem... Read more
Why is it that homosexuality is not accepted in general? In society there is only the role model of man and woman to build a family and that the family is the foundation of the society. But has this necessarily to be so? Is there an ethical or philosophical argument to not accept homosexuality?
Alan Soble
October 26, 2006
(changed October 26, 2006)
Permalink
Yes, it's a joke, and in various versions a good one. (We could, in the manner of the Aristocrats, tell it a hundred different ways. Let me know if you want to hear the version that involves President Coolidge -- or go to http://fs.uno.edu/asoble/pages/bermant.htm.) But even though a joke, it... Read more
I am really interested with philosophy and I can get why many things are put into question. What I do not get is why some people even bother with questions such as: Can there ever be a truly random event? Why should we even care about something like this? It seems like the answer (if it were ever reached) would add no value to our lives. Steve, 17
Richard Heck
June 8, 2006
(changed June 8, 2006)
Permalink
Are you sure there's nothing to be learned from such a question? The question in what sense radioactive decay, for example, is random is an important question in the foundations of physics, and improving our understanding of the world seems a valuable enterprise. The question how we understand rando... Read more
Locke and Reid wrote essays, Hume and Berkeley wrote treatises, Reid also wrote an inquiry and Hume wrote an enquiry, etc. What's the difference between an essay, an enquiry, an inquiry and a treatise? Thanks, T
Richard Heck
June 8, 2006
(changed June 8, 2006)
Permalink
I don't believe Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Reid were using these terms—which you take from the titles of their books—in terribly specific senses. There may have been historical echoes. Certainly Leibniz's New Essay Concerning Human Understanding was so-called to echo the title of Locke's Essay Conce... Read more
If someone (person A) was put into the position to consider someone (person B) as a possible romantic interest, is it ethical to consider person B's lack of physical attractiveness a kind of automatic off/no switch for person A's consideration? - Michael f
Richard Heck
June 8, 2006
(changed June 8, 2006)
Permalink
As Alex notes, this question is pretty well answered elsewhere. But please note: Saying that there is no moral bar to considering physical attractiveness when evaluating someone as a potential romantic interest says nothing about how heavily it is wise to weigh physical attractiveness. It is not, in... Read more
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
Is it possible to establish that dogs dream? If not, are there any possible future developments that could?
Gabriel Segal
June 16, 2006
(changed June 16, 2006)
Permalink
I think it probably has been reasonably well established. There is a plausible article about this by Susan Daffon at www.pet-tails.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=234
Sleeping dogs exhibit a lot of behavioural signs of dreaming: they make running motions, lick their lips and so on. They exhibit rapid... Read more
During a 'debate' with a friend about same sex marriage, he raised the issue of marriage being 'by definition union between a man and a woman', and appeared to hold that this was grounds for rejecting same sex marriage. My question does not relate to the ethics surrounding the issue, but rather to the fallacy I thought he had commited in saying this. It seemed to me as if he was stating the conclusion of an argument that had not been argued (at least, not by us either at or prior to that time) namely whether marriage is, in fact, the union as mentioned - is this what is known as 'begging the question' (i.e., stating a point that remains to be proven as foundation for another conclusion)? If not, then what is the formal term for this fallacy (if it is, indeed, fallacious)?
Gabriel Segal
June 16, 2006
(changed June 16, 2006)
Permalink
The argument from definition was actually put forward in the Canadian courts a few years ago, when they were debating the question of whether gay marriage should legalised. It was argued (roughly speaking) that it makes no sense to try to legalise gay marriage, because, by definition, marriage... Read more
If someone (person A) was put into the position to consider someone (person B) as a possible romantic interest, is it ethical to consider person B's lack of physical attractiveness a kind of automatic off/no switch for person A's consideration? - Michael f
Richard Heck
June 8, 2006
(changed June 8, 2006)
Permalink
As Alex notes, this question is pretty well answered elsewhere. But please note: Saying that there is no moral bar to considering physical attractiveness when evaluating someone as a potential romantic interest says nothing about how heavily it is wise to weigh physical attractiveness. It is not, in... Read more