Recent Responses
Is there such thing as a "selfish need"? Often in different contexts sexual desires are referred to as "selfish needs". The word "selfish" implies a desire that is excessive and self-indulgent or opposed to the interest of others but the word "need" implies a desire which is natural and important and therefor not excessive.
Thomas Pogge
January 16, 2013
(changed January 16, 2013)
Permalink
Good point. But the word "need" is also used in the sense of "strong craving". And strong cravings can be selfish both in regard to what is craved and in regard to how the craving originated. For example, someone starts going to expensive designer shops and comes to need the attention and fl... Read more
I have a question that relates to the french language. The word savoir (to know something) is generally accepted as a verb that expresses a certain knowledge of something. Savoir is used more often than the word connaître (to know someone). Why is it that the word for knowledge (connaissance) is more related to connaître than savoir?
Gabriel Segal
January 16, 2013
(changed January 16, 2013)
Permalink
They mean different things: http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/savoirconnaitre.htm
Log in to post comments
A famous brazilian stand-up comedian has made a joke in which he said that ugly women should be thankfull if they were raped, after all, the rapists would be doing them a favor - since they are ugly, rape is an opportunity for them to have sex. Many people have considered this joke to be rape apology, while many others have considered it to be an exercise in freedom of speech. My question is not about whether the joke is funny or not (well... It isn't), but wether this comedian should be in some way punished for telling it in public. What do you philosophers think? Are there limits to humour?
Gabriel Segal
January 16, 2013
(changed January 16, 2013)
Permalink
I don't think he or she should be punished. In most countries there is no law against saying idiotic things and that seems right me.
Log in to post comments
As an atheist, I am often asked the question, "What is the meaning of life for an atheist?" I am myself sometime confused whether as an atheist do have a purpose in life or I am just living and waiting for an end to my life? Mirza A.
Gabriel Segal
January 16, 2013
(changed January 16, 2013)
Permalink
I think the meaning of life is to give life meaning.
I find helpful the idea of being in the now .. the past is all gone, forever, period, it no longer matters. The future is not yet. Be here now!
Here are some quotes I find helpful:
“Human life is founded on kindness and concord, and is b... Read more
It seems to me that the power of the first amendment to protect freedom of speech is vastly overstated. If a wealthy corporation doesn't like a magazine which is agitating against them they can just buy the magazine. Wouldn't freedom of the press be better served by some degree of government involvement?
Charles Taliaferro
January 13, 2013
(changed January 13, 2013)
Permalink
Very interesting observation and question! The first amendment is (I believe) customarily treated as what some philosophers call a "negative right." That is, the amendment refers to the duty of government and private citizens to REFRAIN from outlawing or unjustly silencing "voices" t... Read more
I've recently read that some mathematician's believe that there are "no necessary truths" in mathematics. Is this true? And if it is, what implications would it have on deductive logic, it being the case that deductive logical forms depend on mathematical arguments to some degree. Would in this case, mathematical truths be "contingently-necessary"?
Stephen Maitzen
January 12, 2013
(changed January 12, 2013)
Permalink
Your question is tantalizing. I wish it had included a citation to mathematicians who say what you report them as saying. On the face of it, their claim looks implausible. Are there no necessary truths at all? If there are necessary truths, how could the mathematical truth that 1 = 1... Read more
Suppose that a group of students petitions their college to divest from certain unethical corporations. In support of their petition, the students argue that since it is their tuition payments that fund the college, they should have a say in the way that money is spent. The college administration responds as follows. Although tuition payments account for much of the college's funding, a large portion of that funding comes from other sources, such as grants and alumni donations. In fact, the investments in dispute are funded entirely by way of these other sources. Therefore, it is not the students' money that is being used in ways they deem objectionable, and their complaint is unfounded. I think you can see what I'm driving at. If several groups fund the activities of an organization, such that no one group provides <i>all</i> of its funding, it seems like there's no clear answer as to which group is funding any activity. We could say that tuition pays for faculty salaries, while alumni donations pay for investments; or we could say that tuition and alumni donations each account for a percentage of all college expenditures across the board. Any division in spending that we might postulate seems basically arbitrary. And this is problematic if we think that supporting an organization provides grounds for making demands of that organization. (I've used the example of a college, but I think that my question could also be posed generally. For example, tax payers often make similar complaints of their government.)
Charles Taliaferro
January 11, 2013
(changed January 11, 2013)
Permalink
Interesting! Your focus on a college may well be more complex than your last example involving the entitlements of taxpayers concerning their government. Concerning the latter, it seems that, at least in a democracy, the taxpayer can join forces with others and control the government... Read more
The arguments for vegetarianisms seem to be very convincing to me. Are there any good arguments philosophers have made that eating animals is not immoral?
Charles Taliaferro
January 11, 2013
(changed January 11, 2013)
Permalink
Good question. There have been at least two lines of reasoning that have some following among philosophers. The first consists of seeking to object to the positive reasons that are advanced for vegetarianism and against raising animals for food. So, Peter Singer initially built his... Read more
What exactly does the wrong of "offending" someone (as in making a racist joke, say) consist in?
Allen Stairs
January 11, 2013
(changed January 11, 2013)
Permalink
It's an interesting question; a fully adequate answer would take at least an essay, and one that I'm not qualified to write. That said, a few preliminary distinctions may be helpful. First, whether someone feels offended and whether the feeling is appropriate are different questions. I recal... Read more
How, if at all, is the following paradox resolved? You hand someone a card. On one side is printed "The statement on the other side of this card is true." On the other side is printed, "The statement on the other side of this card is false." Thanks for consideration!
Stephen Maitzen
January 11, 2013
(changed January 11, 2013)
Permalink
You've asked about one version of an ancient paradox called the "Liar paradox" or the "Epimenides paradox." One good place to start looking, then, is the SEP entry on the Liar paradox, available here. Philosophers are all over the map on how to solve paradoxes of this kind, and their pr... Read more