Recent Responses
If a man woke up next to a woman and could not remember having sexual intercourse with her we might surmise that he was so so drunk that he was not in a frame of mind to consent to sexual activity. Indeed, in a recent court ruling from a case I was researching, a judge determined that from the mere fact that the particular woman in the case did not remember having sex established a prima facie case that she was not conscious. While I think that court rulings such as that illustrate pervasive problematic beliefs that prevent men from getting fair treatment during rape trials I think that another question which ultimately ideologically underpins his disparate treatment in the hands of the legal system is simply not being asked. It's highly doubtful that the man in the situation I described could ever make a successful case that he was raped even in the rarest of circumstances or even if there was case to be made that she had a "guilty consciousness" because she lied to the police about whether or not she had sex with the man when DNA evidence proved otherwise, which actually formed the bulk of the case against the man in the court case I was researching. We would likely sympathize with her terror at being accused of a sexual assault, and her desire to clear her name even by a foolish means, especially if she felt that the very act of sex incriminated her without knowing that the case against her was of having sex when he was asleep as opposed to a heavily intoxicated state that the prosecutor she felt the prosecutor would argue impaired his ability to be conscious of the nature of sexual activity. Yet we never ask why a man is responsible for knowing when his sexual actions will lead to a regretful state of mind in a woman. It is doubtful that (with some exceptions) the man in the situation I described would think of himself as taken advantage of unless he had some very clear reasons to think he was asleep when sexual activity occurred in which case he wouldn't have been "taken advantage of", he would have raped without any question of whether he was too drunk to make an intelligent choice. He wouldn't because men are not taught to see there sexual choices as a source of regret. (Not in a way that is analogous to women, to be more precise to people who would contest that assertion) They are also taught that they are in control of their impulses. Aren't we teaching women that sex is something that women should regret and by doing so aren't we unconsciously reifying gender roles in a way that falsely creates a vulnerability in women that would not exist without those questionable discourses? I doubt we live in a culture that permits a non anonymous forum of philosophers to answer that question with freedom to express dissenting opinions from a dangerously entrenched orthodoxy but I want to put this question out there because so few people are asking these kinds of vexed questions.
Daniel Koltonski
February 21, 2014
(changed February 21, 2014)
Permalink
It seems to me that you are running together two very different claims about the effects of alcohol on persons' abilities to make decisions: (1) that alcohol can lead you to make choices that you would not have otherwise made (and so to consent to things you otherwise wouldn't have con... Read more
How did the early Philosophers view of the world differ from that of Homer? Specifically, how was the philosophers’ method of trying to understand the world around them different?
Nickolas Pappas
February 20, 2014
(changed February 20, 2014)
Permalink
That looks like a straightforward question. And a reasonable person might expect some clear statement of the criterion that separates Homeric poetry (or any other poetry for that matter) from philosophical theory. So it’s interesting to realize, at the start, that even in antiquity it... Read more
Are ad hominem attacks or character assassinations legitimate forms of Aristotelian virtue arguments to criticize political opinions so long as all claims are entirely factual?
Bette Manter
February 20, 2014
(changed February 20, 2014)
Permalink
I confess I do not understand what you mean by "virtue arguments" but I would respond by asking: do good persons approach arguments via character assissination? Does a good rhetor use ad hominem attacks? Facts are well and good, but "do as a good person would do" trumps nastiness and fal... Read more
Regarding Ph.d. applications, how important is the writing sample? I am in a top-15 Master's program right now, 3.83 GPA, but the best part of my application is my writing sample. I got a perfect grade on it from a tough grader, and I've fixed up anything that could possibly be "wrong" with it. It's definitely my best work to date. I need that because there are a couple of weaknesses in my application that I need to "make up" for, and I'm hoping the writing sample will do the trick. Thanks.
Bette Manter
February 20, 2014
(changed February 20, 2014)
Permalink
Given that I do not teach doctoral students I can reply with complete confidence that I have no clue what "magic hat-trick" makes admission committees tick! You've done your best to present your case; innumerable factors are at play, many of which have little to do with you. So what to do?... Read more
In a book by John Honner dealing with Niels Bohr's philosophy of physics, he finishes a sentence with "once the framework of complementarity is substituted for that of continuity and univocity." I can't find a definition of 'univocity' in the dictionary, and all google search results seem to apply to religion. Can someone help me with a definition that might apply in this context?
Allen Stairs
February 20, 2014
(changed February 20, 2014)
Permalink
The best word to look up is univocal, which is roughly the opposite of equivocal. It means, more or less, unambiguous, or having one meaning. Without the whole sentence, it's a bit hard to be sure what the author meant, but the idea of complementarity, in part, is that we can't bring pairs... Read more
It's possible to define what art is?
Oliver Leaman
February 20, 2014
(changed February 20, 2014)
Permalink
The wider question is what is the point of defining anything. Definitions really do not help us know anything precise about anything, they just establish some rough and ready parameters around the meaning of the term. Provided we grasp that, then definitions do no harm, but their applicat... Read more
The privation of good is a theological doctrine that evil, unlike good, is insubstantial, so that thinking of it as an entity is misleading. Instead, evil is rather the absence or lack ("privation") of good. The relationship between light and darkness is often used to frame a metaphorical understanding of good and evil. This metaphor can be used to answer the problem of evil: If evil, like darkness, does not truly exist, but is only a name we give to our perception of the privation of good, then our widespread observation of evil does not preclude the possibility of a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent God. How can I attempt to refute or at least call into question the above depiction of evil if a theist attempts to use it to dodge the problem of evil?
Oliver Leaman
February 20, 2014
(changed February 20, 2014)
Permalink
It is just a rather poor argument, to move from privation to the lack of reality of the phenomenon which is the object of the privation. It is like saying to someone who is starving that he is not really suffering,it is just a privation of food.
Log in to post comment... Read more
Is torturing an insect less immoral than torturing a non-human primate?
Stephen Maitzen
February 20, 2014
(changed February 20, 2014)
Permalink
I take it that being tortured implies the experience of pain or other suffering (physical or psychological) or, at the very minimum, the frustration of the victim's desires. Now, insect brains are surprisingly complex: according to Wikipedia, there are 100,000 neurons in the brain of a... Read more
Is torturing an insect less immoral than torturing a non-human primate?
Stephen Maitzen
February 20, 2014
(changed February 20, 2014)
Permalink
I take it that being tortured implies the experience of pain or other suffering (physical or psychological) or, at the very minimum, the frustration of the victim's desires. Now, insect brains are surprisingly complex: according to Wikipedia, there are 100,000 neurons in the brain of a... Read more
I'm thinking about cutting back my meat consumption for the sake of the environment, but I don't want to go completely meat free. I'm thinking about continuing to eat pork but not beef, since I respect cattle more than pigs as the former have been a vital part of human agriculture for centuries yet the latter would eat human babies trapped in its pen. Am I right in setting up this hierarchy of life unworthy of life?
Eddy Nahmias
February 20, 2014
(changed February 20, 2014)
Permalink
I'd suggest doing some research on both the environmental impact of cattle and pork farming and production and the reasons to respect, as you put it, each species. My own research is incomplete, but from what I've seen, pig factory farming is particularly nasty for the environment (e.g.,... Read more