ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Knowledge
Religion

There are many attributes that are commonly attributed to God, or at least some versions of the Christian God, one of which is omniscience. I have my doubts that omniscience is a possible trait for any being to have because it seems to me to be a paradoxical trait. If God (or any being) knows everything that can be an object of knowledge can s/he know what it is like to not know everything that can be an object of knowledge? I say everything that can be an object of knowledge because there are obviously things that are unknowable like a round square or a married bachelor. However, I don't think that a being could know everything that was knowable and simultaneously know the experience of not knowing everything that it knowable (knowing the experience of not knowing everything that is knowable is something that is knowable because as humans that is how our experience is).

Just a minor addition to Mitch Green's astute observations: Some defenders of the coherence of omniscience (Richard Swinburne, for example), hold that omniscience does not include the knowledge of future free acts. Swinburne and R.M. Adams and others do so on the grounds that there is no truth or falsehood now about what a future free agent will do. Aristotle held this as well (or at least most commentators think so!). If this viewpoint is correct, "omniscience" would mean something like all that it is possible to know or all that can be known. If future free action is not knowable in principle then any being, even an omniscient being, would not know something and thus would know what it is like to be ignorant. For an excellent book on omniscience and other divine attributes, check out Richard Swinburne's The Coherence of Theism. Professor Green rightly notes that some philosophers have worried about the limits of knowledge that might be in play if a being is incorporeal. And I must agree...
Justice

Is power (its nature, its use, its definition) a philosophical issue? It seems as if the social sciences have appropriated "power" to themselves. I think that often power is presented as being everywhere, in every human relation, and that its use borders on obscurantism insofar as it substitutes the need for more detailed explanations of social problems. Is this right? Is there an alternative? How should philosophy address power and power relations? Should it do so? Andrés.

Yes, the social sciences certainly have been involved in the definition and study of power (e.g. Max Weber analyzed power in terms of command and obedience structures and came up with different models of power relations). Philosophers have sometimes taken on power as a topic in itself (e.g. see Power by Bertrand Russell), but the philosophical work on power is more commonly found in the different branches of philosophy. In epistemology we look at cognitive power (what can we know and how do we know it? what are the limits of our cognitive power?), in political philosophy and ethics we look at the ethics and morality of power relations (what form of government is morally acceptable? what acts are unjust or just?), in metaphysics and philosophy of science we might look at power in the natural world (what is causation? laws of nature?), in philosophy of religion power may be considered in the context of the divine (what is omnipotence? are there any limits on omnipotence?), and so on. Going on a bit...
Race

Why is it that when a white person says a racial slur, such as "nigger" it is thought to be the most heinous crime. However, when a non-white, in particular blacks call whites "crackers" it is dismissed as nothing. Why is there such a double standard in American society? Why is reverse racism rampant more than ever? Whites have to fear of being shunned for voicing their injustices, because if they do, they will be called a racist. If a white is mistreated due to race in the work place nothing occurs. On the other hand, if it happens to a black it gets mass media coverage. The politics are backwards, the NAACP, pushes racial equality for blacks, yet they are immersed with racism towards whites; not all are but it has been displayed. If a white were to make an Organization for the advancement of their race it would be an outcry for its dismantle. Shouldn't all race Organizations be abolished since we're under the same umbrella, the Human race? I too often experienced this firsthand, being of black decent. I...

This is a timely issue! For about 30 years now I believe that there has been a working definition on many (but not all) campuses in the USA of defining "racism" not as a general denigration of a person or institution or event by virtue of race but as a denigration of a person or institution or event by virtue of race by a person in a position of superior social (political - economic) power. I am not saying that for more than two decades that has been the majority position, but it has been one that definitely has played a role in class discussions and, in one case I know at my college one philosopher teaching an ethics course almost did not get tenure because he did not endorse this more specific definition. Whether or not this more specific definition has an important, fruitful role to play today, ideally we need to get where race (and today the very concept of "race" is highly contested) as well as gender is not used to discriminate, oppress, etc. In many cases especially involving overt behavior...
Justice
Religion

I find it hard to arrive at a conclusion for the following problem: suppose I live in country where my constitution upholds my right to practice my religion (I mean a secular country), how justified is another person when he tells me that my children are not welcome in a school that is run under some other religious guidelines ? I mean the religious foundation on which the school was found is different from the religion I (and my children) practice at home. Does this person have a right to say that I cannot practice my religion in his premises ? Even though we both live in the same (secular) country. Isn't my constitutional right being violated ? I also want to bring to light the recent proposal by France to ban burqua, which has gathered a lot of unwanted attention. Also, does being secular mean freedom from religion or freedom of religion ?

Thank you for these questions. Beginning with the last point, the meaning of "secular" has shifted over the years. Today, it is probably mostly used to indicate that someone or something is non-religious, but it used to mean worldly or being in the world as opposed to being in a monastery. Thus, a person might be a Roman Catholic priest serving a church and, so long as he is not part of a monastic order (e.g. a Benedicting) he would have been called a secular priest. The consitution in the USA forbid the establishment of religion and the freedom to practice one's religion, but when you refer to someone's "premises" and schools I take it you are referring to property and institutions that may be private or public. As for property say a person's home or land presumably the owner can control who is permitted on the property and can set up rules freely, e.g. only allow practicing Muslims access. In the case of schools, matters are more complex. If a school is private (not at least directly...
Freedom

(Firstly I am sorry if this or a similar question has been presented but I can not find one that sufficiently examines what I am trying to ascertain.) I have been relatively taken with the arguments surrounding determinism and free will. Chiefly the suggestion that there is no way to consolidate the two together into a singular idea. One such reason I have been presented with to support determinism is the fact that such base things as our values or beliefs might be influenced by outisde beings; parents being the example I will use. If people such as our parents can shape our values and beliefs do we actually have free will in what we decide to do when predented with a moral choice? (i.e. Catholic beliefs leading one not to have an abortion or so on). One such issue I saw with this is that through introspection I can see where the beliefs of my parents no longer hold for me. I have adapted and developed what I would consider my own set of beliefs; even though I did start with the beliefs taught by my...

A large number of philosophers believe that one may affirm both determinism and freedom of the will. Probably at least half the panel does, though I do not. I suggest that a person does an act freely if she does the act and has the power to do otherwise (all other things remaining the same). And if determinism is true (determinism is, roughly, the idea that every event is necessary given antecedent and simultaneous events and the laws of nature) then persons lack the power to do any act other than the act they do. In any case, for most philosophers who affirm that we are free, we rarely think that freedom is without any context or absolute. In other words, if you are free, you are free to do some specific act or adopt some particular practice, and so on. You righly note the influence of family and other factors in shaping our thinking and action as adults. And even now, as adults, we may be under the influence of all sorts of forces and conditions. Nonetheless when you do reflect freely about (to...
Knowledge

I have had this issue circulating in mind probably since I was in kindergarten. The basic question is this: how – being conscious of my own being, seeing through my own eyes, thinking my own thoughts, interpreting all the other senses, etc. – can I know or accept that every other person in existence does the same thing, if I myself have no way of experiencing other people's beings except from a third-person perspective? From my vantage point, I am the only person who has his own thoughts and autonomy. It has often occurred to me as an afterthought that, since I consider myself pretty intelligent in my own right, that perhaps everything else in my environment could be some massive illusion that my own mind is causing me to accept as reality. Could the fact that there are philosophers responding to this very question prove that my mind is playing a trick on me by creating a response for me to interpret? I suppose my basic question is, is this entire situation possible, and/or is there a concrete way to...

This is sometimes called the problem of other minds. You should check out the 17th century French philosopher Descartes and his Meditations and Discourse on Method! I personally am with you and Descartes in thinking that various radical skeptical hypotheses are possible (we could be in the Matrix), however philosophers from Hobbes to Wittgenstein to Ryle to Putnam have all worked hard to undermine such radical skepticism. You can find various strategies at countering skepticism in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy --in particular, check out the entry on the private language argument. I think all of them have weaknesses. For example, one commonplace anti-skeptical move is to argue that you cannot intelligibly ask your question unless it turns out that the skeptical hypothesis is false. For you to even be able to think or speak about your having a point of view or perspecitve or to be subject to illusion presupposes that we are subjects in a very public world of other persons and non...
Knowledge
Suicide

I have a practical question that arises from my Solipsistic views. The more negatively I view my life as a whole, the more disturbed I am by the prospect of my own suicide. When I feel my life has meaning, the option of eventual suicide, though not in the near future, becomes attractive. Conversely, when I feel helpless and depressed, I would rather let nature kill me. However, this tendency reverses when I entertain the thought that people exist outside of my mind. Even coming from a Solipsist who holds that nothing outside of the mind can be known, my attitude towards suicide depends upon the reality outside the mind. Since I have to make the decision of whether to live or die, I have to also take a stance on what exists apart from the mind. How do I choose which potentiality to base this decision upon? Can there be any reason to prefer one potential scenario to another? The scenario where others exist apart from my mind comes more naturally, but is this reason enough to continue entertaining it, hence...

I am not sure there has ever been any actual solipsist. Keep in mind that a solipsist thinks that only he /she exists. There is no one else. This is as radical a view as possible, though perhaps NYU professor Peter Unger went slightly further in a paper of his called something like "Why I don't exist"! If you are a solipsist, you are committed to holding that none of us exist --you are not in communication with any person outside of yourself. The difficulty of actually holding such a position comes out in an encounter that Bertrand Russell once reported. Russell tells us that he met a woman who thought solipsism was a great philosophy and she was surprised more people aren't solipsists. The reason this might be funny is because if the woman was truly a solipsist, she would not recognize that there are any other people at all. You may be conflating solipsism and radical skepticism. A skeptic may claim not to know about "the external world" or "other minds," but that is different from...
Philosophy

Why has philosophy been marginalized by society?

If "philosophy" refers to a person's worldview or values, I am not sure philosophy can ever be marginalized. It is hard to imagine a civic culture without this being built on (and defined by) some kind of philosophy. Moreover, insofar as a culture includes reflections on worldviews and values, the practice of philosophy as a form of critical inquiry is again hard to marginalize. The philosophy in play may be pretty bad (involving incoherence, contradictions, based on bad history or science...) but bad philosophy is still philosophy. If, instead, by "philosophy" you mean the institutional practice of philosophy as carried out in most universities and colleges, then the presupposition of your question (the assertion that philosophy is marginal in society) has some purchase. There have been a few universities that have dismantled philosophy departments. The University of Glasgow in Scotland is currently merging the philosophy faculty with faculty from other fields, for example (this event is on...
Ethics
Profession

My question is about the ethics of working in applied vs. pure research. I'm a student in a technical field. I am now trying to choose between a few subfields, some of which contribute more to practical technology than others. Say I'm a physics student with a choice between black-hole research, or designing a better solar cell. What, if any, are my ethical responsibilities in making this decision? Is it ethically wrong to devote my time to what amounts to a very expensive hobby, and at taxpayer or university expense? Is it better to use my education and skills to work for solutions to urgent problems? In short, what is the ethical difference between a career in pure and applied scientific research? Thank you for any response.

Great question! You are in a great position if you have the skills to do either pure or applied science. I am not sure about classifying black-hole research as "a very expensive hobby," but I think the answer to your question(s) depend on the urgency of the problems facing your community, family or nation. If you are in a political community that is facing urgent needs involving energy use, and there are few if any people as skilled as you in designing a badly needed solar cell, then I think you would have a prima facie obligation to pursue the relevant applied science. But assuming there are other well qualified scientists that can or are addressing urgent problems in technology, medicine, security and the like, then it seems that there is no such obligation. Besides some of what you might think of as "pure scientific research" may lead to some fruitful, important results in applied science.
Philosophy

What do you professionals think of when the common person thinks about philosophy? I often look around book stores, and see tarot cards in the 'metaphysical studies' section, a section that separates itself from the 'philosophy' section but it's right next to it. In the 'philosophy' section, I see many books on existentialism, Nietzsche has an unofficial row to himself, lots of Ayn Rand in some stores, it has many of the classics, a few postmodern works, and there's many books on pop culture and philosophy. Perhaps this is just my experience in my section of the United States of America, but in the book stores I go to, this is what I see. Does the public have the right perception on what philosophy is or should be? What is the general reaction of people when you say you're a pro philosopher? What do most people think philosophy is? What are your general thoughts on what us layman think of when we think philosophy?

Interesting set of questions! I am not sure of my fellow panelists but I do find it quite depressing when the philosophy section of a bookstore is severely limited and I am in heaven when I find bookstores that are brimming over with philosophy, classical and contemporary. In my mind, the best bookstore in the English speaking world is Blackwells in Oxford (UK). Fabulous. As for the philosophy and popular culture books, I think these are outstanding, and they demonstrate the ways in which professional philosophers have been able to do philosophy in reference to television, film, sports, and so on. What do professional philosophers think of non-professionals or the "common person"? I am not sure, but I suspect that most of us who are professional philosophers think of ourselves as quite lucky or fortunate. You mean, we can earn a living doing philosophy? I think most of us delight in what we do some may not be happy with their specific university or college but I don't think I personally know...

Pages