Is it disrespectful to try and tell somebody that you know their thoughts and motivations better than they do? For example, to tell an engineer that the real reason they are passionate about engineerng is because they are unable to connect with human beings?

My question concerns whether or not questions should be taken into consideration in understanding the answers to those questions. Let's take the following question and answer as an example: Q: What time are you leaving for your lecture today? A: I'm leaving at 2:00. The answer could be interpreted to mean that the the answerer is leaving for the lecture at 2:00 today. Yet the answer could also be interpreted to mean that the answerer is leaving at 2:00 on some day (not necessarily today) to go somewhere (not necessarily the lecture). Another example follows and it is this one upon which I ask your opinion. Given the following question and answer, which of the two possible interpretations of the answer would you choose if you were required to select only one without being able to provide an explanation of any kind. This is not a hypothetical question as I, along with other people, faced the exact same situation recently. Q: Is anybody in all of Athens wiser than Socrates? A: No. No one is wiser...

Hi, I was hoping for some clarification from Professor Maitzen about his comments on infinite sets (on March 7). The fact that every natural number has a successor is only true for the natural numbers so far encountered (and imagined, I suppose). Granted, I can't conceive of how it could be that we couldn't just add 1 to any natural number to get another one, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It seems quite strange, but there are some professional mathematicians who claim that the existence of a largest natural number (probably so large that we would never come close to dealing with it) is much less strange and problematic than many of the conclusions that result from the acceptance of infinities. If we want to define natural numbers such that each natural number by definition has a successor, then mathematical induction tells us there are infinitely many of them. But mathematical induction itself only proves things given certain mathematical definitions. Whether those definitions indeed...

My question concerns ethics and moral obligation. One of my professors consistently presents views that are unsupported, and the content of our class is restricted to reading authors who agree with her political position. I find this irritating, and I object to that kind of indoctrination. But I have more or less remained silent. Recently, however, she had a guest speaker present a very anti-medical view to the class, and discouraged them from listening to their doctors concerning the health risks of obesity. I did some independent research on the information the speaker presented, and found that the information she used was false or misleading. I think that allowing the speaker to present this slanted information, while presenting no contrary opinions from doctors or scientists, was irresponsible and dangerous. I'm worried that these girls will take this advice to heart and ignore their doctors, which will ultimately hurt their health. I kept my mouth shut when I was simply irritated, but now I'm...

I have a friend who argues that hobbies and non-social passions are unethical. He claims that ethics derives from our relationships to and feelings about one another, and that all ethics is ultimately situated in the community. To pursue a passion that is non-social - such as to collect rocks, study fluid dynamics or stargaze - is to place value in non-social relationships that can therefore never be the source of ethical value. What say the philosophers?

I love reading the Qs and As on this site, and a recent post recommended a book "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" by Rachels. I got the book from my local library and really enjoyed it. What would be a good follow-up book on these topics? I have a hard time slogging through the original basic philosophy works, so I really value a book like this that is serious but not too technical for a layperson. Thanks.

In his response to an earlier question about physical beauty, Nicholas D. Smith responded: "Unfortunately, a lot of good-looking people are not very beautiful in any way other than the way they look." Though there might be some rare exceptions in the world, for the most part I agree with his statement. And I'm wondering about the relationship between physical beauty and virtue... If, hypothetically speaking, Mr. Smith's claim were a natural law (Good-looking people are not very beautiful in any way other than the way they look) what then would be the most likely cause for its validity? In other words, do external factors such as our society/culture make it difficult for good-looking people to develop in more internal ways, such as through character, morality, kindness etc. Or does physical beauty itself inherently impede the good-looking ones from ever becoming beautiful in more virtuous ways?

A very common retort when critizising somebody for a reprehensible action (like selling drugs) is that "If I don't do it, somebody else will". Does this kind of bad reasoning fall into any of the classical categories of argument fallacies?

Hello, I am currently studying philosophy and ethics at my school. We are doing an assignment at the moment on human nature and three element of human nature and how they link in with society itself and help to form and maintain it. I was wondering, could selfishness (a definite part of human nature) in any way, benefit society? As in, would it be able to help form or maintain a society? Thankyou for any responces.

If we assume that both computers and the human mind are merely physical, does it follow that a sufficiently advanced computer could do anything that a human brain could do?