Recent Responses
Why is Buddhist philosophy consistently ignored by contemporary Western philosophers, especially when there is so much truth and logic to the epistemological and metaphysical systems of the traditions, such as the Madhyamaka school?
Mitch Green
November 29, 2012
(changed November 29, 2012)
Permalink
Thank you for your message. I don't fully agree that Buddhist philosophy is consistently ignored by contemporary Western philosophers. While Buddhist philosophy is not a topic in the main stream of philosophical discussion in Western, English speaking countries, it does garner some attent... Read more
What part does emotion play in the acquisition of knowledge? Does the role of emotion vary across the different areas of knowledge (Natural Science, Human Science, History, The arts, Ethics and Maths) ? Thanks a lot for responses
Nicholas D. Smith
November 29, 2012
(changed November 29, 2012)
Permalink
I think your question presupposes that "emotion" is a fairly simple phenomenon, whereas I suspect that it is extremely complex. But let's sidestep that concern and just try a simple case out.
Scientist A believes that he will very much impress his lover if he unlocks the secret to so... Read more
I am writing a book dealing with Alzheimer’s disease for young people. The protagonist, a boy in the 8th grade, is grappling with his grandmother’s progressing AD. I would be interested on your thoughts about identity/mind and Alzheimer’s disease. Is a person with progressive AD the same person that they were without the disease? Any resource suggestions would be appreciated. The boy is in a philosophy class at his Catholic school and much of his questioning will come through class discussions
Amy Kind
November 29, 2012
(changed November 29, 2012)
Permalink
This is a really interesting question. John Locke, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, famously defined a person as "a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places; which it does... Read more
Is terrorism worse than conventional warfare? My initial response is "yes," but on reflection I'm not sure. A soldier's life is surely worth no less than a civilian's, so why should it be preferable that the former die instead of the latter?
Oliver Leaman
November 29, 2012
(changed November 29, 2012)
Permalink
I think there is a difference morally between soldiers and civilians. Of course there can be terrorist attacks on soldiers also, and often are, but soldiers are to a degree prepared to deal with violence and are appropriately equipped in material terms also. Civilians are in principle onl... Read more
The assertion that consciousness is a property of certain individuals and not others--rather than of the entire universe--implies a very special moment in the ontogeny of those individuals. This is the moment of individual consciousness origination, before which the individual (e.g., a gestating human) is not conscious, and after which it is. Would anyone disagree that this moment is implied by most theories of mind given merit in academia? By consciousness I mean nothing vague but quite simply "the subjective character of experience," a no-nonsense definition as worded by Thomas Nagel. In light of that implication, a physical theory of consciousness must either: (a) address the nature of that moment, describing a physical arrangement that gives rise spontaneously to consciousness; or (b) deny such a moment's existence and ascribe consciousness to the entire universe (some sort of pan-psychism). While (b) is typically considered the mystical and unacceptable stance, as a naturalist I find (a) to seem quite magical and have no prospect for ever finding basis in theoretical physics. Nonetheless, that special moment is implied by most philosophies of mind that I have encountered. Is there a third explanation (c) that I have not considered? Is (b) not so magical as it seems to me, and if so where is its published defense? P.S. (not necessary to post) I have very little access to philosophical resources, am only an amateur, and have searched for my answers for over a decade, so thank you for considering this problem. Please don't dodge the question with a Dan Dennettist assertion that the problem doesn't exists. There clearly is something it is like to be me, and most philosophers would assert that there is not something it is like to be a rock. Anyone who believes those two assertions DOES imply said special moment, and so the problem of explaining that moment exists. With all due respect, explain yourself, philosophy! Thank you very much, Regards, Andy
Eddy Nahmias
November 29, 2012
(changed November 29, 2012)
Permalink
This is a very important and difficult question: how do we get from no consciousness to (our) consciousness? You've put the question in terms of ontogeny (or development), but the same sort of question arises in terms of phylogeny (or evolution)--which animals are conscious and which are... Read more
Is there a term for the logical fallacy that other people have it worse, so you should be happy? Example: I fall down a staircase, breaking my leg. The next day I go into work, and someone (inevitably) says "Phfeh! That's not bad! Let me tell you about the time *I* fell down the stairs!" I suppose this also covers the 'third world problems' saying. "You didn't get your last paycheck? Phfeh! First world problems. In Isreal they are shooting at each other!"
Edward Witherspoon
November 27, 2012
(changed November 27, 2012)
Permalink
Too often people offer sympathy in ways that make themselves feel better at the expense of the target of their ostensible kindness. To tell someone who is suffering "That's not so bad -- I've had it much worse" reassures the speaker about his or her own fortitude in the face of misf... Read more
Can a valid syllogism be fallacious? For example God can speak Mandarin. Charity is God. ∴ Charity can speak Mandarin. David can speak Tagalog. David's bones are David. ∴ David's bones can speak Tagalog. I'm pretty sure these are valid but unsound syllogisms, and I think they both commit the fallacy of division, but if the premises were true, would the conclusion also be true? I thought of an analogous syllogism that's sound, and I just can't figure this puzzler out. Basalt is rock. Rock is natural. ∴ Basalt is natural.
Edward Witherspoon
November 27, 2012
(changed November 27, 2012)
Permalink
As logicians and contemporary philosophers use the word 'valid', a valid argument (or piece of reasoning) is one such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. The primary task of symbolic logic is to determine which arguments are valid; logicians p... Read more
According to Utilitarianism as I understand it, an action should be judged by its outcome. I can't understand how this argument has any credence. How is it possible before the action is undertake to be able to know its outcome? We can not tell the future. Even to do with things that are very straightforward the influences and flow on effects from the near distant future to the far future would be astronomical in number. Which raises the further question how do you judge where to draw the line in terms of future ramifications, is it once removed effect, twice, thrice?? It seems completely illogical to me to call it a philosophy.
Thomas Pogge
November 26, 2012
(changed November 26, 2012)
Permalink
It is true that you often cannot know the outcome of alternative courses of conduct beforehand. But you can typically assign reasonably accurate probabilities, at least a little time forward. We do this all the time when we make decisions -- between two holiday destinations, perhaps, or ab... Read more
I am not sure that this question should be posted to you, philosophers. But I think philosophy has been talking about everything in life. Anyway, my question is : Do we have to has a fix principles and values that never be changed? I mean, we almost consider changing is a positive thing, and everything we believe in must be criticized and examined and consequently, changed ... if so, is it reasonable for people to Struggle for their principles If they believe that this principle may be changed anytime? Does the fact of “change” eliminates the value of”principle”? Thank you
Charles Taliaferro
November 23, 2012
(changed November 23, 2012)
Permalink
Thank you for this inquiry! You raise a complex matter. Some philosophers have gone through changes, sometimes quite radical: we sometimes refer to the pre-critical Kant and then to Kant after the Critique of Pure Reason, Wittgenstein changed his mind in such a significant way that... Read more
According to Heidegger philosophy has never really asked what we mean by "Being". According to him we ask what the essence of this or that form of being is but we never concern ourselves with being proper. Perhaps what Heidegger means or alludes to in this question is the idea that the very fact of being is in some way the very essence of being. This reminds me of Fichte's idea of the fact of consciousness rather than a principle of consciousness as the starting point of philosophy. And yet this fact of being just like the fact of consciousness is mysterious and elusive, while paradoxically present, and hence suppressed by a reductive urge within philosophy. Yet, I'm kind of skeptical about Heidegger claim of a suppression within philosophy of the question of being. It seems as if the question of being was first made problematic far further in the German tradition than Heidegger, as early as Kant, if its not something that has always been with philosophy. Kant argued very much like Heidegger, I think, that it was impossible to know being through thought but that there were non-cognitive means of apprehending being. So is Heidegger really bringing an innovative question that has been suppressed by philosophy?
Douglas Burnham
November 23, 2012
(changed November 23, 2012)
Permalink
Well, you raise a whole series of fascinating issues in your question. I'll just focus on the claim Heidegger makes, and not direct myself to either Fichte or Kant.
What does Heidegger mean in claiming that the question of the meaning of Being has rarely if every been asked? I wouldn'... Read more