Recent Responses
Since Hume clearly says that even children know truths about the unexamined, why do so many intelligent people take Hume to be skeptical of, as opposed to curious about the logic of (justified), inductive practice? I mean, he says, "as a philosopher who has some share of curiosity, I will not say skepticism. I want to learn the foundation of this [inductive] inference." So what's the deal?
Sean Greenberg
October 15, 2005
(changed October 15, 2005)
Permalink
Peter Lipton's reading of Hume is an instance of the skeptical reading of Hume that has prevailed since the eighteenth century. There is, however, another way to read Hume, that has become especially widespread in the last ten years or so, but which also has a long pedigree. On this read... Read more
How can one get rid of his/her memories, either bad or good ones? Is there any way to forget a happening in the past?
Alan Soble
October 21, 2005
(changed October 21, 2005)
Permalink
Fifty First Dates (Drew Barrimore, Adam Sandler) is a sour-funny treatment of loss of memory. After an automobile accident, she can remember only what happens during the course of one day. She begins again (from the point of the accident) when she wakes up the next morning. In a hospital scene... Read more
Why do the laws of morality and the laws of nature seem to be completely opposite one another? For example, most moral codes encourage monogamy while the theory of evolution states the strongest seed should be spread around.
Sharon Street
October 15, 2005
(changed October 15, 2005)
Permalink
I agree with everything Matthew Silverstein says about the crucial difference between descriptive and prescriptive theories. I'd add the following. There is a large body of work in evolutionary theory which explains how altruistic behavior, both in ourselves and other animals, might have... Read more
How can one get rid of his/her memories, either bad or good ones? Is there any way to forget a happening in the past?
Alan Soble
October 21, 2005
(changed October 21, 2005)
Permalink
Fifty First Dates (Drew Barrimore, Adam Sandler) is a sour-funny treatment of loss of memory. After an automobile accident, she can remember only what happens during the course of one day. She begins again (from the point of the accident) when she wakes up the next morning. In a hospital scene... Read more
When people speak of "morality", why does it always stem from a divine being? Why can't morality stem from reason?
Richard Heck
October 18, 2005
(changed October 18, 2005)
Permalink
I've often wondered whether anyone actually thinks that God's authority establishes moral principles. Of course, people say so. But when one asks such people why we ought to conform our behavior with the Divine Pronouncements, the answer, if it isn't to concede a moral standard independent o... Read more
If we changed the way we count, could 2+2 fail to equal 4? If, for example, we started counting with zero, we might count X X X as 0, 1, 2 X's. Then 2 + 2 would equal X X X X X X, and when we counted the X's, we would count, "zero, one, two, three, four, five." So 2+2=5. So, does this example show that 2 + 2 doesn't necessarily equal 4? Or, would we have to say that we were speaking another language when we truthfully say that 2+2=5?
Daniel J. Velleman
October 15, 2005
(changed October 15, 2005)
Permalink
I'd say we're speaking another language. In this language the numeral "2" means 3 and the numeral "5" means 6, so "2+2=5" means 3+3=6, which is true. But 2+2 is still equal to 4.This isn't really a fact about mathematics, it's a fact about language. If we changed the names we use to... Read more
On any given question, is there a way of identifying the proper perspective to take in order to arrive at the correct answer? This is a question that is interesting to me primarily in the areas where philosophy overlaps politics and economics. Here are two extremes to illustrate the question. Those who adopt a Marxist perspective seem to draw conclusions about what "society" should do based on what they suppose are direct observations of "society", then extending that to the realm of the individual. Those who adopt an Objectivist perspective seem to draw conclusions based on properties of individuals, and how they aggregate into "society". In this case, one is taking a macro "top-down" view, and the other a micro "bottom-up" view. Aside from ferreting out fallacies and analyzing the form of one's argument, are there any tell-tale signs of a problem that lend themselves to analysis from a particular perspective?
Alexander George
October 15, 2005
(changed October 15, 2005)
Permalink
It seems to me that you're asking whether there's a general rule of inquiry that one could adopt that will lead to the truth. I presume the answer is No. Inquiry requires judgment, taste if you will, and that has resisted all attempts at reduction to a collection of rules that can be m... Read more
Is philosophy above politics?
Alexander George
October 15, 2005
(changed October 15, 2005)
Permalink
There is a branch of philosophy called "political philosophy" (questions pertaining to it are in the category Justice). I take politics most broadly to be the practice or process of managing groups of people. Political philosophy is rather a branch of inquiry that seeks to determine wh... Read more
Since Hume clearly says that even children know truths about the unexamined, why do so many intelligent people take Hume to be skeptical of, as opposed to curious about the logic of (justified), inductive practice? I mean, he says, "as a philosopher who has some share of curiosity, I will not say skepticism. I want to learn the foundation of this [inductive] inference." So what's the deal?
Sean Greenberg
October 15, 2005
(changed October 15, 2005)
Permalink
Peter Lipton's reading of Hume is an instance of the skeptical reading of Hume that has prevailed since the eighteenth century. There is, however, another way to read Hume, that has become especially widespread in the last ten years or so, but which also has a long pedigree. On this read... Read more
Is it just a philosopher's presumption to think the referent of the 'because' in a statement like, "He did that because he wanted to" is a causal connection?
Peter Lipton
October 15, 2005
(changed October 15, 2005)
Permalink
'Because' is often used as the connective of explanation, and a great many of the explanations we give are causal. But not all: explanations in pure mathematics and at least most philosophical explantions are not causal, but are still given with a 'because'. So the appearance of 'because' in... Read more