Recent Responses
I read an article by a pshychologist agony aunt which said that we should be carefeul with forgiveness, that when we forgive we are at some level accepting that we deserved the wrong done to us. The lady went on to say that it is not recommended that children or people who suffered abuse (physical, sexual, psychological and or emotional )as children be encouraged to forgive the offender - especially when forgiveness involves reconcilliation with the offender (does forgiveness always involve reconcilliation with the offender?). I think that this makes sense - however, it seems that this is not the general view. I feel that there is pressure on people to forgive and we often hear the phrase "you must forgive". People who cannot forgive feel bad because they feel that they have failed or are mean spirited. Are people who claim to always forgive merely forgiving petty slights or are they refusing to deal with the offence by ignoring it /putting it out of their minds? What are our views on the psychologist's article, etc.?
Nicholas D. Smith
April 22, 2010
(changed April 22, 2010)
Permalink
Having not read the article, it is difficult to provide a very direct response. But perhaps it will help to make a distinction.
Forgiveness can be the process by which people who were in conflict become reconciled. There can be value in such reconciliations, but it will also depend on wha... Read more
Good morning everybody. My question is about philosophical skills, that may develop during philosopical inquiry. I ask myself if there is a kind of genuine philosophical skill, a genuine philosophical expertise. If there is one, what are the differences between this special philosophical skill and the the expertise of a theologian, a politician or a logician?
Nicholas D. Smith
April 22, 2010
(changed April 22, 2010)
Permalink
I expect that there will be some overlap in these skills, but strictly speaking, I think the special skill of a theologian will be the ability to organize reasons in such a way as to support certain religious views, the special skill of a politician will be to govern others in a way that en... Read more
What is the difference between being mentally ill and being a bad person?
Nicholas D. Smith
April 22, 2010
(changed April 22, 2010)
Permalink
A bad person is one who is inclined to act in bad ways. A mentally ill person, accordingly, can also be a bad person. We might think of a mentally ill person as someone who simply can't help doing what they do--where those who are not mentally ill can actually make real decisions. But ju... Read more
Ok,this may sound like a stupid question but I'm just worried about my marks. So,next year I'll be in High School and it will be my first year studying philosophy. All my friends say: " Oh,philosophy it's SO hard!" or "If you don't work a lot you will get negative marks.." and etc,.. I'm just starting to be worried about it. I think it's normal that someone that goes to high school worry about new subjects,difficulty levels,.. But I'm just too worried! I consider myself an inteligent person but I'm afraid of failling Philosophy and it ruins my marks! I think I may be a bit "dumb" or immature to understand all that "complicated thoughts" .Although I have no idea what I'm going to learn lots of people say I need to have a great reasoning and know how to express what I'm thinking. And I think that's the big problem because I think I've got a good reasoning and I'm good at writing (I'm good at English,Portuguese,..) but I'm just bad when I wan't to make another person understand what I'm thinking :S Do you think this is a big problem?? Is philosophy SO hard than that? Can you give me some advise or tips to be good at it? (You don't have to say to study a lot and being concentrated in classes because this I already know), I'm also a bit shy so T think that's the reason I'm so bad when expressing what I want to say! Thank you for your help,and I'm sorry if there are some mistakes in my english.
Nicholas D. Smith
April 22, 2010
(changed April 22, 2010)
Permalink
Many people do find philosophy quite difficult, but most people find that doing philosophy at least at some level is profoundly natural and fundamentally human. Aristotle said "philosophy begins in wonder." I think that's right. So my advice to you would be to allow your "wonder" not to... Read more
Is there anything right about this characterization of a philosophical problem: a person torn because she doesn't know what to do about her marriage would not be a philosophical problem in the sense that no philosopher or no moral theory could tell the person what to do, in the sense of giving her the one correct moral answer; but asking whether the personal has any reality, whether we can really speak of a person making a responsible moral decision at all, that would be something philosophers would try to prove against skeptical challenges. Is something like that what philosophy is about?
Nicholas D. Smith
April 22, 2010
(changed April 22, 2010)
Permalink
The latter sort of question certainly is philosophical, but there is also such a thing as applied philosophy, and in particular, normative theory, which do attempt to provide grounds for specific kinds of decision-making. I do think that normative theories could at least provide reasonable... Read more
When it becomes painfully obvious that an adult child is embarrassed by her working class roots should she be confronted by the parent? Or is this a right any child has to recognise or reject their background regardless of how feeling are going to get hurt?
Nicholas D. Smith
April 22, 2010
(changed April 22, 2010)
Permalink
As someone inclined to virtue theory, I am not really very sensitivee to sorting out claims of "rights." Is it a "natural right" to reject one's background? Weird question!
Instead, let's ask whether it is a good thing to reject one's background, just because it is working class. If bein... Read more
What are we doing when we censor expletives? Even when a person's speech has been censored (on the TV airing of an R-rated film, say), it's often perfectly clear exactly what he is saying or intends to convey. In this sense the content and meaning of the speaker's explicit speech is completely intact--so what exactly is being censored?
Nicholas D. Smith
April 22, 2010
(changed April 22, 2010)
Permalink
As you say, even those of us not trained in reading lips can often make out what is being said. So all that is censored is the actual sound of the word(s) being spoken. Don't ask me why people find this comforting or morally improving. In my view, most allegedly bad language is simply in... Read more
Society A believes that morally right to sacrifice children to their god. Society B believes that this belief is morally wrong. On what basis can I say that Society B is morally superior to society A?
Allen Stairs
April 25, 2010
(changed April 25, 2010)
Permalink
Let me start by saying that on any plausible scenario, I agree with Prof. Smith. There are plenty of good grounds -- he offers three excellent ones -- for thinking that sacrificing your children to the gods is really just wrong, period. The fact that some people think otherwise doesn't by itself... Read more
Suppose I agree with theists that "God exists" is a necessary proposition, and so is either a tautology or contradiction. That seems to indicate that the probability of "God exists" is either 1 or 0. Suppose also that I don't know which it is, but I find the evidential argument from evil convincing, and so rate the probability of "God exists" at, say, 0.2. But if the probability of "God exists" is either 1 or 0, then it can't be 0.2 - that would be like saying that "God exists" is a contingent proposition, which I've accepted it isn't. How then can I apply probabilistic reasoning to "God exists" at all? If I can, then how should I explain the apparent conflict?
Charles Taliaferro
June 19, 2010
(changed June 19, 2010)
Permalink
Interesting points. I take it that the most reasonable reply for a defender of the ontological argument to make is to claim that Prefoessor Smith's world is not in fact possible. If one can make a case for abstracta (properties or propositions necessarily existing) then there cannot be a w... Read more
I was recently having a discussion with someone about the argument from ignorance fallacy, or "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." We think that the following is a fallacy: 1. Alien spaceships orbiting the earth are observable through a telescope. 2. No one has observed alien spaceships orbiting the earth. 3. Therefore, there are no alien spaceships orbiting the earth. However, what if you changed the premises slightly to this: 1. Alien spaceships orbiting the earth would PROBABLY be observable through a telescope. 2. No one has observed alien spaceships orbiting the earth. 3. Therefore, there are PROBABLY no alien spaceships orbiting the earth. Even though I agree with the conclusion, I think this argument is also a fallacy since it follows the same form as the first one. But then I seemed to remember some kind of rule that the premises of an argument must be absolutes. You can't introduce probabilities, otherwise the laws of logic do not even apply and all bets are off. Or does it not matter what the actual statement is, as long as it evaluates to true or false? On the other hand, if the form of the argument is messed up, then does it really matter whether or not the content of the propositions are true or false? So I guess my question is, do premises have to be absolutes, or not?
Allen Stairs
April 22, 2010
(changed April 22, 2010)
Permalink
Arguments can have probabilistic premises. Some such arguments are inductive -- merely be intended to show that their conclusions are likely. Others can be deductive. For example: here's a deductively valid argument with probabilistic premises:
1. It's likely that X 2. If it's likely that X, the... Read more