Recent Responses
What is a definition of good and also what would a definition of evil or bad be?
Matthew Silverstein
February 1, 2008
(changed February 1, 2008)
Permalink
At the turn of the last century, G.E. Moore famously argued that the word "good" can'tbe defined. Goodness, according to Moore, is simple and (hence) undefinable.The same might be true of the word "value" and its cognates.
Of course, there are some definitions that promise to be relat... Read more
What is the difference between philosophy and religion? I am attending a weekly "Philosophy Class" but the group does not study any of the Philosophers or their works nor do we "philosophize", i.e. pick holes in philosophical statements, etc. We are read lines from the Upanishads and from the "teachings" of an Indian teacher and we are expected to accept these "teachings" as fact. The "teachings" include stories such as that of a woman had reached a high level on the path to realisation (after many re-incarnations of living spiritual lives) and had reached a state where fear was eliminated and she lived a life of bliss. Surely it would not be practical or possible to live a life where fear is eliminated. Is the emotion of fear not essential for survival? Also is life not a series of experiences of pain and pleasure? In any case if we question the teacher we are given his explanation of the story which we are expected to accept. Is this a Religion Class as opposed to a Philosophy class? We meditate (to reach a state of consciousness) and we we are expected to hold the one creed that Unhappiness is caused solely by Desire. Surely there are a whole load of factors or at least we should be entitled to hold the opinion that cause unhappiness such as life's ups and downs and the hand we are dealt?
Peter Smith
February 14, 2008
(changed February 14, 2008)
Permalink
I can't agree that it sounds a cool class. Indeed, if this is going on in a school or college, it is an intellectual disgrace. "Teachings" of any kind are only worth the arguments that support them: and refusal to engage in critical argument by their proponents deprives the teachings of any... Read more
Can you help me evaluate Judah HaLevi’s “Kuzari” argument for the authenticity of the Jewish Tradition? If you’ve not heard of it, I am happy to offer an imperfect synopsis, but you’re better off consulting some more reliable sources (see below). The Kuzari, in a nutshell: If public miracles (e.g., manna of Exodus 16) had occurred, they would have left behind a huge amount of accessible evidence. Therefore, had the miracles not occurred, an entire generation of Jews (millions of people) would never have been duped into believing that they did. Therefore, since virtually the entire Jewish people (along with the Christians and Moslems, presumably) *do* believe those miracles occurred, the only explanation is that they must have occurred.
Alexander George
January 24, 2008
(changed January 24, 2008)
Permalink
History and our own personal experiences tell us that people -- even very large numbers of people -- can be mistaken or even bamboozled. So it cannot be right to say that "the only explanation" for those people's beliefs is that the alleged miraculous events occurred.
But might it be... Read more
Can you help me evaluate Judah HaLevi’s “Kuzari” argument for the authenticity of the Jewish Tradition? If you’ve not heard of it, I am happy to offer an imperfect synopsis, but you’re better off consulting some more reliable sources (see below). The Kuzari, in a nutshell: If public miracles (e.g., manna of Exodus 16) had occurred, they would have left behind a huge amount of accessible evidence. Therefore, had the miracles not occurred, an entire generation of Jews (millions of people) would never have been duped into believing that they did. Therefore, since virtually the entire Jewish people (along with the Christians and Moslems, presumably) *do* believe those miracles occurred, the only explanation is that they must have occurred.
Alexander George
January 24, 2008
(changed January 24, 2008)
Permalink
History and our own personal experiences tell us that people -- even very large numbers of people -- can be mistaken or even bamboozled. So it cannot be right to say that "the only explanation" for those people's beliefs is that the alleged miraculous events occurred.
But might it be... Read more
Recently, I have reached the conclusion that I no longer 'believe in science'. Many people have found this hard to understand, and I myself am struggling with the concept. Is it even possible to disregard something which so many hold in such high esteem? I feel that the basis for my beliefs, or lack thereof, lies with the question of infallibility. Upon broaching the topic with friends from my philosophy class, I was told that not believing in science was simply not an option. I had to believe in it, because it was all around me. My counter argument was that science was elitist, something for the select few, in that there are very few people who actually 'know the truth'. One friend in particular pointed out that I had to believe in gravity, as it was acting on me all the time, and that the clothes I was wearing and the dye I use in my hair were all products of science. I remain unconvinced though, as neither my friend, nor anyone I know, can actually prove these beliefs they regard so highly. Has no one considered the possibility that science is simply an invention to 'fob off' the masses about the world in which we live? I don't wish to sound like a conspiracy theorist; I am simply looking to understand why or if we should all believe in science and what the implications are if we are all wrong?
Allen Stairs
January 24, 2008
(changed January 24, 2008)
Permalink
My brief reply would be that I don't "believe in science" either. But I do believe that for many questions, science provides our best way of getting at the likely answers. And I also believe that in any number of cases, the most reasonable belief by far is that science has gotten it right. A... Read more
What kind of questions did philosophers ask in Ancient Greece?
Mitch Green
January 19, 2008
(changed January 19, 2008)
Permalink
Thank you for your question. I can't hope to answer it at all comprehensively. Instead I'll try to give a smattering of highlights, and some pointers as to where you might look to learn more. Among the questions that philosophers tried to answer at this time were: '
What is it to be virtuo... Read more
For ancient philosophers, like the Stoics, Metaphysics, logic, and ethics were all united, working together to form a single self-coherent world view that could provide its adherents with the good life. Is the fact that fields such as ethics and metaphysics are often taught distinctly in modern universities (at least in the analytic tradition) a good or bad aspect of the way we do philosophy today? Should our goal be a single complete world view or should we be satisfied with a successful explanation of a single phenomenon (like language) even if it screws up our understanding of another field?
Kalynne Pudner
January 17, 2008
(changed January 17, 2008)
Permalink
What a great question! I think the answer will be largely determined by the level at which the course is taught. In an introductory class (which normally will not be metaphysics anyway, right?), I personally feel very strongly about showing the relation, and indeed, basic coherence, betw... Read more
My question is about poetry's relationship with the languages from which it is constructed. Many words from the vocabularies of natural languages are onomatopoeic (where words sound like sounds they describe: 'bang!'; 'crack'; etc.) and some argue that other words 'sound' like the objects they describe. In one of his novels' insightful footnotes, Terry Pratchett proposed that "There should be a word for words that sound like things would sound like if they made a noise, he thought. The word "glisten" does indeed gleam oilily, and if there ever was a word that sounded exactly the way sparks look as they creep across burned paper, or the way the lights of cities would creep across the world if the whole of human civilization was crammed into one night, then you couldn't do better than "coruscate"." (Equal Rites by Terry Pratchett, pg 207) Whether or not these observations can be considered correct is the first part of my question. Although "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", it seems possible that some words and names are more like the objects they describe than other, less suitable ones (though it is difficult to think about this from a perspective unbiased by one's own language). If one does come to the conclusion that some words are better suited to the objects they describe than others in the manner implied by the Pratchett quotation, then the following interpretation of the poet's situation becomes viable. Poetry was once described as "the best words in the best order" (Coleridge), but if we accept the fact that some words are better suited than others to the objects they describe, and therefore that some words would be better if replaced, then those "best words" are in fact only the best by virtue of being established. The poet's body of raw material, language, which he or she draws from in the creative process, could be better suited to the task at hand, a statement which begs the question of whether it could and ought to be made better, and in what ways. I find the possibilities implied by this fascinating. Will poets one day write in languages not merely better suited to the task at hand than others (e.g. using 'the language of love', French, when being romantic), but finely crafted and tuned to best express the author's sentiments? I have heard of experimental poetry by Christian Bök written in artificial languages, although he may have had different aims in mind. Should we attempt to be disposed towards the acceptance of new words in an attempt to improve or expand our own languages, and be tolerant of seemingly alien poetry and literature? The issues to do with a restricted languages effects on a culture have been explored in work such as George Orwell's 1984, and in 'A Clockwork Orange' Anthony Burgess used heavy slang to communicate a sense of the culture that gave rise to it, but how much investigation but has there been into the viability of the expansion and improvement of language, in the ways that I think might be possible?
Louise Antony
January 17, 2008
(changed January 17, 2008)
Permalink
The project of "improving" "the" language is one that has captured the imaginations of many people over time, but it seems to me to be a foolish one to undertake. Let me explain, by explaining my use of scare quotes.
First: "the" language. There's no such thing. If you look at speake... Read more
My first question on this site: What questions should we put to philosphers? One of Kalynne's suggestions: You might ask what makes an answer to a given question a good one. Thanks, Kalynne! My question now: Are there some common parameters by which the "correctness" of an answer can be judged? I mean apart from logical coherence and factual accuracy, what else? I have a feeling that there is some textbook/weblink which has the answer for this. If yes, pls direct me to it.
Kalynne Pudner
January 31, 2008
(changed January 31, 2008)
Permalink
Oliver is right, of course. (I feel obliged to offer an answer since I set up the question.) Sometimes it may seem as though philosophers are deliberately and mischievously obfuscatory, but this is more likely the result of living amidst the trees so long that memory of the forest has fa... Read more
If we imagine an intelligent alien race, could we also imagine philosophical questions they have come up with that have eluded us and vice versa? Or are all philosophical debates necessarily universal? My understanding of our application of philosophical analysis is that it is all-encompassing and would even have to apply to any god or advanced alien civilization (I mean the method not the conclusions). Or can something else be conceived? NB I write this as an arch-skeptic and atheist.
Allen Stairs
January 10, 2008
(changed January 10, 2008)
Permalink
Hi,
I'm not entirely sure what the "arch-skeptic and atheist" bit is about, since I'm not sure how it bears on your question. But here are a couple of thoughts.
First, just what counts as philosophy and what sorts of questions belong to philosophy is a matter of dispute. Tjough meta-philos... Read more