Recent Responses
How does our approach to knowledge about the past differ from our approach to knowledge about the future, keeping in mind that there is an element of uncertainty in both?
Jonathan Westphal
January 15, 2009
(changed January 15, 2009)
Permalink
Our knowledge of the past derives from perception, memory and inference, in the sense that these are answers to the question, 'How or by what means do you know?' (There are other ways, for example report or testimony). But our knowledge of the future has in it no elements of memory or... Read more
Socrates mentioned that some "philosophers" gave the subject of philosophy a bad name by not being "true philosophers" (who reach for all the wisdom). Today most people seem to regard philosophy as an esoteric or complicated subject and thus refrain from involving themselves with philosophy. What does AskPhilosophers have to say about this? Todd, Sweden
Douglas Burnham
January 14, 2009
(changed January 14, 2009)
Permalink
Todd, I'm not quite sure I see the relation that you intend between your first and second sentence. If you are arguing that there are lots of people around who call themselves 'philosophers' but who are not 'true philosophers' in Socrates sense, and this has led to the situation in which... Read more
Does moral relativism claim that moral statements are descriptive or prescriptive? Anything I read on the topic never seems to make it clear! Surely if it claimed they were descriptive then moral relativism would be nothing more than saying that there is no right and wrong in the sense that we commonly think of it, it actually doesn't matter what we do. But alternatively, how could anyone genuinely believe that moral statements are prescriptive, in such a way that fundamental moral values are dependent on subjective circumstances, e.g. that if I (or my culture) believe murder is right then it is genuinely a good thing for me to do to murder someone? Basically I can't understand the point of the former interpretation and I don't understand how anyone could possibly believe the latter - so what is moral relativism?
Douglas Burnham
January 14, 2009
(changed January 14, 2009)
Permalink
It seems to me that you are defining moral relativism as something like 'what is morally correct for me may not be for you', but defining prescriptive as 'statements that demand something from us, universally'. Both seem plausible, but are incompatible, as you point out. But, if we define... Read more
When using an example to try and support some point you are trying to make, is it better to use a common example that your audience is familiar with, or an exotic thought experiment?
Saul Traiger
January 14, 2009
(changed January 14, 2009)
Permalink
The choice of an example in support of a philosophical position, or the choice of a counterexample to criticize a philosophical position, depends on the topic under investigation. If we were wondering whether two individuals could be physically identical but mentally different, for example,... Read more
Can we blame someone for making irrational choices during emotionally intense situations? Suppose that John was deeply in love with Joyce while Joyce is really using John for his money. It's obvious to all of John's friends, he is being used but he won't listen to reason. Is John to blame or is it his biological makeup to blame (or his environment) ? One can say that there are plenty of people who are able to snap out of these types of situation so why can't John, but I don't think it's that simple.
Douglas Burnham
January 13, 2009
(changed January 13, 2009)
Permalink
Try this out: We cannot blame John morally for the particular behaviours he exhibits while under the spell of the lovely Joyce; after all, he is not in control of himself. Nor can we blame John morally for being the kind of person who -- because of his 'biological makeup' -- is prey for J... Read more
How useful is it studying literature? The reason I ask is because (at least my high school) English courses seem to miss the target. Let me explain. We read the text. We find the "what's" of the work, what the author is trying to say. And then, instead of going on to evaluate the validity of the author's opinions on the topic we go backwards! We start describing how the author conveys their themes. My answer is: who cares. I'm sure that is not what the authors want us to look at. It's like evaluating how the frame of a painting accentuates such and such, rather than looking at the painting itself. Is it a fault with the nature of the subject of literary study, do I not understand the subject properly, or is it just not for me? Thanks for your time.
Douglas Burnham
January 13, 2009
(changed January 13, 2009)
Permalink
You understand the subject correctly, I believe. The study of literature has not always been done in this way, and is not done the same way everywhere. Saying that, the study of the way literature achieves meaning and certain effects, and the relation of these to the social or intellectua... Read more
Although they cannot pretend to have "solved" the problem of induction, scientists have no qualms whatsoever about making inductive inferences in their work. Likewise, I take it that judges and lawyers agree that murder is a terrible crime, even if they are at a loss to explain why one's death is a harm to one. Why is it that we feel totally comfortable in going about the various activities of human life, even when there are (seemingly) gaping holes in the philosophical theories which are supposed to underwrite or justify those activities?
Jonathan Westphal
January 16, 2009
(changed January 16, 2009)
Permalink
It is not obvious to me that we - we philosophers, that is - do feel totally comfortable about the activities of human life. We worry about induction, whether death is an evil because it deprives us of some good, and so on. But there is no absolute requirement to worry, and most people... Read more
Suppose that I know all the laws of physics and the position of all the atoms in the universe. I flip a coin. Obviously I will know with 100% certainty what the outcome will be. Suppose I am a mere mortal, I will only be able to say that there is a 50% chance of heads and a 50% chance of tails. So probability is a measure of our ignorance? That cannot be right! Probability is something intrinsic to reality. But how can an uncertainty be intrinsic without reference to a knower?
Thomas Pogge
January 12, 2009
(changed January 12, 2009)
Permalink
Sometimes probability is a measure of our ignorance. If you give me a quarter with the instruction to hide it in one of my fisted hands while your eyes are closed (and I do as you say), then you'll not know which hand holds the coin. (I will know, I can feel it.) So you can only assign proba... Read more
Is intention enough for one to get an artistic status? Supose, as a composer, I have a piece called "Sonata for non-prepared pianist". I walk into a theater and pick someone from the audience and give to this person, that lacks musical theory knowledge, some verbal instructions like "play anything with anger. Now imagine you're watching the ocean. Now imagine you are in a hurry..." and I sit him in front of the piano. He will just randomly hit keys and produce noise (or music?) accordingly to the "moods" I gave him. So, he is playing piano, he has intention of playing piano, he is producing sound, he is following instructions. Can we consider him, now, the concert pianist? Is he now an artist? Tiago V., Portugal
Thomas Pogge
January 12, 2009
(changed January 12, 2009)
Permalink
I think we have some pretty good discussion of this question already from earlier Questions 729, 1497, 1806, 2111. It's a fascinating question certain musicians and artists have raised through their work (just as you imagine), and all the more interesting for there being no compelling way of... Read more
Is anyone doing any serious work in Metaphysics these days? Anything accessible to someone with some philosophy background but not a professional? Thanks!
William Rapaport
January 10, 2009
(changed January 10, 2009)
Permalink
There is also a lot of metaphysically-relevant work being done by philosophers (and others) on ontologies. Ontology, as philosophers classically have understood that term, is the study of what there is, or of being. Ontologies, as that term is used by researchers in artificial intellig... Read more