Recent Responses
Where on earth did Philosophers get the idea that "just in case" means "if and only if"[1] instead of "in the event of"? I ask just in case there's a legitimate reason for the apparently willful muddying of language! [1] for example http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2290
Nicholas D. Smith
August 28, 2008
(changed August 28, 2008)
Permalink
Professor Bloggs is an easy grader, and students flock to his courses in droves, because he will give an A to a student just in case the student turns in all the assignments.
The easiest answer to your question (other than showing in my example that the logical understanding of "just in... Read more
I work in a fairly large organization where each year staff are given the opportunity to nominate a colleague for a "staff achievement award". A member of staff in my office is a good candidate for nomination but no-one wants to nominate her (or anyone else) because another member of staff, who doesn't deserve nomination, desperately wants to be nominated - so to avoid an unpleasant situation the staff are not nominating anyone. I don't agree with awards such as this - not just because they cause pain to those who will not be nominated and are unfair anyway because people who do not deserve nomination will be nominated - but because I do not think that anyone deserves an award for a job well done or for being a considerate co-worker or for being exceptional in anyway. Entering competitions in order to win an award is a different matter. What is your opinion?
Nicholas D. Smith
August 28, 2008
(changed August 28, 2008)
Permalink
This sort of case is the best example of a reason why organizations should be very leery of any system of recognition or reward that has the consequence of making its members feel they are subject to invidious comparisons.
Even so, I do think that special effort and special merit also d... Read more
I would like to forgive someone who is doing wrong to me. But is it asking for too much if I wanted to make sure that the person knows that I am forgiving them? In other words, they may not even know that they have offended me. I feel that if I just forgive and forget such incidents, since the other person does not know that a) something they did offended me b) I choose to forgive them, then I think it is meaningless to forgive. In reality, there is no forgiving taking place in such cases, if it is not "pre-announced". Am I thinking it right? Or is it taking a higher path to just forgive - never bother about whether the "forgivee" understands it or not? On the other hand, will it become a real forgiving if it is pre-announced and credit is taken while doing so?
Nicholas D. Smith
August 28, 2008
(changed August 28, 2008)
Permalink
I really found this a very interesting question, and in some ways, I am as much interested in asking other questions than in providing answers. So let me begin that way: You say you want to forgive someone who "is doing wrong" to you. I emphasize these words because they puzzle me--usua... Read more
Are military drafts unethical or immoral?
Nicholas D. Smith
August 28, 2008
(changed August 28, 2008)
Permalink
Let me begin by saying that I expect my answer to this one will be controversial, as I think there are deep feelings about this issue, and also a very broad range of considerations. So my own response does not rise above simply stating an opinion for others to consider.
For what it is wo... Read more
Can reflection destroy knowledge? Is it plausible to say that people's sense of social and moral direction can depend on not asking too many questions? Should one always justify conceptual and moral foundations of this world? Do you risk ending up in a situation where the reasons guiding your actions lose their power to guide? By demanding reasons for reasons, can reflection destroy practical knowledge?
Allen Stairs
August 28, 2008
(changed August 28, 2008)
Permalink
To know something, I need to believe it. If by over-thinking or thinking unproductively I talk myself into a state of doubt, then I won't know what I formerly knew simply because I no longer believe it. Of course, if the doubts are a sort of passing intellectual vertigo, wemight well say that... Read more
Can reflection destroy knowledge? Is it plausible to say that people's sense of social and moral direction can depend on not asking too many questions? Should one always justify conceptual and moral foundations of this world? Do you risk ending up in a situation where the reasons guiding your actions lose their power to guide? By demanding reasons for reasons, can reflection destroy practical knowledge?
Allen Stairs
August 28, 2008
(changed August 28, 2008)
Permalink
To know something, I need to believe it. If by over-thinking or thinking unproductively I talk myself into a state of doubt, then I won't know what I formerly knew simply because I no longer believe it. Of course, if the doubts are a sort of passing intellectual vertigo, wemight well say that... Read more
Will science be able to explain everything? My philosophy teacher said: for in order to explain something, whatever it is, we need to invoke something else. But what explains the second thing? What explains the law of gravity itself? Why do all bodies exert a gravitational force on each other? Since nothing can explain itself it follows that at least some of these laws (in the future) will themselves remain unexplained to infinity..., in other words, unexplained explainers? Is that just the way the cookie crumbles?
Marc Lange
August 28, 2008
(changed August 28, 2008)
Permalink
Yes.
Here is a longer, more nuanced answer:
Any explanation of one fact must be by another fact, as your teacher said. So a regress is launched: A is explained by B, which is explained by C, which is explained by D, which... . How is this regress to end? There are only a few options.
One appare... Read more
Where on earth did Philosophers get the idea that "just in case" means "if and only if"[1] instead of "in the event of"? I ask just in case there's a legitimate reason for the apparently willful muddying of language! [1] for example http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2290
Nicholas D. Smith
August 28, 2008
(changed August 28, 2008)
Permalink
Professor Bloggs is an easy grader, and students flock to his courses in droves, because he will give an A to a student just in case the student turns in all the assignments.
The easiest answer to your question (other than showing in my example that the logical understanding of "just in... Read more
We can think of a monetary system without banknotes or coins, where people would only have their money in banks, using it with credit cards and the like. Of course, there would be nothing in banks except for information on the amount of money each person would have. Now, I think that in this system there would exist nothing of which we could say "That is one euro" or "one dollar" (or whatever). But still it would be true that some people would have, say, one million dollars. My question is: if there is nothing which is one dollar, how can somebody have one dollar or a million dollars?
Allen Stairs
August 28, 2008
(changed August 28, 2008)
Permalink
If having a dollar means having some thing or other, then no one could have a dollar if there weren't any. But bits of language of the sort "have a ___" often don't call for filling the blank with the name of a thing. If someone has a cold, or an idea or a worry or a lot of work to do, there i... Read more
If I had a device that could manipulate people's wants (like make them want to give me free money for no reason) would that take away their free will?
Peter Smith
August 27, 2008
(changed August 27, 2008)
Permalink
A footnote to Eddy Nahmias's very helpful answer. What should we learn from all the complexities of the debates which he touches on?
We could say: The ins and outs of the debates just go to show that our concept of "free will" is a very complicated and sophisticated one, although one of which... Read more