While on a treadmill at a fitness club, I noticed a woman reading a book with a chapter title, "God Is Everywhere." I asked her how she knew God was everywhere. She said that she knew because she had a strong sense of him. I said that I had the strongest sense imagionable of Santa Clause when I was 8. She said, THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING! However, it is the same thing, is it not? In both cases, the entities are supernatural. In both cases, we have been told by elders to believe in impossible magic with zero empirical evidence. Doesn't it follow then that, just like a child must grow up one day to accept there is no Santa Clause, adults need to come to terms with the truth about their imaginary friend in the sky? Thanks, Jeff

I read somewhere that, in her professional lifetime, Martha Nussbaum has averaged 3-5 published pages per day. This raises two questions: 1) Wouldn't that make her a great panelist candidate for this site (not exactly a philosophical question, I admit)? And 2) what is the relationship between prodigious output of thought and quality/clarity of thought? In trying to read Nussbaum on my own, I find that she has some really great nuggets, but there is a lot of sifting before I find them (_Upheavals_of_Thought_ as a case in point). This seems problematic. Moreover, does the process of publishing sometimes work to diminish originality of thought (generally) and/or dilute the acuminity of thought? I suppose this melds into a third question: how has philosophy changed in relation to the changing dynamic of publishing (from an emphasis on treatises like books to shorter journal articles - and THIS as an effect of 'publish or perish')? And what may we say of this change - is it a 'good' change; what does...

I recently went to gamble at a casino. First timer that I was, I decided to stick with the roulette table. In particular, I decided to only bet on black and red (ALMOST 50% chance of success, as one must also factor the number 0, which is neither red nor black). After a while observing the results board (and not betting), I noticed that what appered to be a chaotic pattern of results, became a pretty steady and predictable 3-reds-3-blacks type of pattern. So I began betting, and, lo and behold, I began winning. Naturally, every now and then I would lose some (sometimes there would be 4 blacks in a row instead of 3)--but, overall, I was winning. Then this magical pattern vanished, giving way to the same chaotic (that is: to my eyes) pattern which I had observed at the beginning. After, say, 1 hour, the 3b-3r pattern was back in place. Days later, I returned to the same casino, and didn't even place one bet: my magical pattern just never manifested itself! Any explanations? I am no mathematician, but...

I have recently become interested in the following philosophical idea, and am wondering if it carries much weight. It rests on the idea that there cannot be any such thing as 'religious evidence'. Any religious claim cannot be made without some sort of evidence - this may differ from what a scientist would term 'evidence' as it may involve the mere 'feeling of truth' rather than a demonstratable proof. However, here is the problem that currently interests me. For any religious claim to have some sort of weight, it must rest upon some sort of evidence. The nature of evidence in general is that it is either empirical or theoretical in form - however, the status of the latter is such that it allows for future empirical verification or falsification, and as such does not rule out testing. With evidence, we either demonstrate something to 'be the case' through example, or show how a method carries value. Let me bring in an example of a religious claim: "We look around and see an order and structure to the...

I live in France, where, as you are probably aware, many universities have been physically blockaded by students protesting government policy. This prevents others from attending classes and lecturers from teaching, regardless of whether or not they agree with the protestors. Now, it strikes me that these same protestors would complain vehemently and denounce the violation of their own rights and freedoms if the police were to block a road to prevent them from marching down it. Would that be hypocritical of them? Would it not constitute claiming a right for themselves which they have denied to others?

Who gets to decide who is good and who is bad? From:Daniel.H

Child "A" is well behaved because he believes in Santa Clause. Child "B" is well behaved simply because he appreciates the concepts of courtesy and cooperation. Inherently, child B is more moral than child A because child A's behaviour is motivated by personal gain. Thus, isn't it logical to say that an adult who is well behaved without the belief in a god is more moral than someone who believes in heaven? Thanks, Jeff

I have read, recently, that it is better for a student of philosophy to have completely mastered the secondary literature before moving on to the primary. Is this really the best approach to a philosophical text?

Do games rest on an unresolvable contradiction? On the one hand, they are social affairs, designed to unite people. In chess clubs, for example, people of all ages, races, creeds, etc., come together and enjoy each other's company. On the other hand, games are competitive affairs, appealing to our most raw and neanderthalic impulses to clobber our enemies. To become good we must prey on and exploit every weakness of the opponent, and to do this we must make him the enemy, else we won't be motivated.

It seems like a lot of authors of literature have studied philosophy, and mention philosophers in their novels, and use philosophical ideas in their novels. It's almost as if they thought the knowledge of a lot of philosophy was a pre-requisite to writing a good, interesting novel. On the other hand, I can hardly think of examples of the other way around -- famous philosophers having studied lots of literature and talking about it to inform their philosophy. Do you agree that this is the case, and if so, why might it be? Is literature, which some might say contextualizes philosophy by placing it in the context of a world or a character's life, an outgrowth of philosophy? Is it taking philosophy to its logical conclusion, or to its next step?