Recent Responses
Does there exist a type of thing which could be called a mathematical fact? That is, are there true entities which would exist even if there were no minds to do the maths to discover and describe them? In other words, it is the understanding of all numerate human beings that the square root of 81 is 9. Would the square root of 81 still be 9 if there were no minds, human, numerate or otherwise?
Richard Heck
January 10, 2008
(changed January 10, 2008)
Permalink
There are lots of physicists who study the history of the universe: how the universe began, for example. When they do their calculations concerning, say, the evolution of the universe in the few seconds following the big bang, they do seem to assume that the square root of 81 was 9 even then... Read more
My question is about analytic philosophy. Is it true that analytic philosophy aims to approach philosophy ahistorically, and that when asking questions like "what's the meaning of life" it considers itself to be dealing merely with language puzzles and not with a legitimate question that actually matters in real life? If so, it would seem a strange place for philosophy to have evolved to. Then again, I'm sure strange mutations have happened in philosophy in the past, and have gained a large following. Is it possible that the people who practice analytic philosophy today, especially those who don't question it rigorously as a method and simply see it as the only lucid approach - is it possible that these people will ever come to see it differently, as containing some sort of fundamental mistake within itself?
Richard Heck
January 10, 2008
(changed January 10, 2008)
Permalink
There are really several questions here, and there isn't really any simple answer, since "analytic philosophy" isn't sufficiently unified for there to be any single approach. If there is such a thing as "analytic philosophy", then it is more a tradition than a school.
Some analytic philosop... Read more
This is more a technical than a philosophical question, I think. When referencing Greek philosophers, what is the significance of providing the original Greek word(s)? (e.g., “Your eagerness [PROTHUMIA] is worth much if it should have some right aim.”) Is there something about Greek (as opposed to other foreign languages) or about philosophy that makes this useful? As a reader, what am I supposed to be doing with these?
Richard Heck
January 6, 2008
(changed January 6, 2008)
Permalink
The original words are there because translation is an exceptionally tricky business, and it's often important, from a scholarly point of view, to know what the original words were, so that one can judge the correctness of a translation, or note that two words that are cognates in English are... Read more
When I look at the marvels in technology that mankind has produced in this past century I can't help but wonder: Why are we so proud of our accomplishments and in ourselves? What has mankind created that hasn't already been created in us and in nature, in an even more refined and excellent form? Is not what mankind has created on this earth a mock counterfeit of the human body? We have a governmental head that for millenniums has failed to bring peace, order and stability to the rest of the body. We have a left and right hand that cannot work together toward the same purpose such as universal peace. We have eyes that cannot focus on the the true underlying causes of all our problems. We have a mouth that cannot speak a cohesive sentence to express one unified thought. We have nerve endings that cannot sense the pain of hunger and disease that plague entire nations. We have ears that cannot listen past our religious differences to hear the unified, pleading cry for salvation. We have legs that can take us to the moon but not to the negotiating table. The list goes on and on...
Joseph Levine
January 5, 2008
(changed January 5, 2008)
Permalink
The question is rhetorically hyperbolic in a way that makes it hard to discern just what kind of answer you are looking for. For instance, of course we can "speak a cohesive sentence to express one unified thought"; all of us do it thousands of times per day. I grant however that human hist... Read more
How far down into philosophy does the mysterian attitude penetrate? I realize it's nothing new, since Christian and other religious philosophers have thrown in the towel when it comes to describing Deity. The problem of consciousness is now producing the same helplessness. When is a problem decreed beyond human competence and when is it just beyond your and my current competence? Is continued frustration the deciding factor?
Joseph Levine
January 5, 2008
(changed January 5, 2008)
Permalink
What you seem to mean by "the mysterian attitude" is captured by your later phrases, "throwing in the towel" and "helplessness". In this sense, I don't know that there are any philosophers who count as mysterians, though I suppose Colin McGinn, who holds the view that our mind just cannot en... Read more
What's the best way for someone who's really into philosophy to make their mark on the philosopical community if he or she is having trouble going to a university? I've tried sending my work to professors throughout the US, not necessarily for publication purposes, just to get it looked at, but for now, no dice.
Kalynne Pudner
January 4, 2008
(changed January 4, 2008)
Permalink
It's a perhaps unfortunate fact of academic life that credentials (degree, university affiliation) are very important to being taken seriously. Although it's not a hard-and-fast necessary condition (i.e., it's not impossible to be taken seriously without them, as would be if it were hard-a... Read more
Questions about going to school for philosophy have already been asked, but I couldn't help but ask another; I am strongly considering a search for a graduate-level philosophy school, and the panel is partially made of individuals working within grad. philosophy programs, and certainly those who graduated from such programs. I would like to know, from the panel member(s) that may respond: What exactly brought you to the point that you could say you were a constructive contributor to the philosophy field? What level of work did you have to demonstrate to enter the graduate program which you entered, and what quality of work was your output there? I'm asking you to evaluate these things to better understand what exactly needs to be sown to reap the feeling that you earned your degrees and the university position at which you teach. I think it would help to build a scale to use to quantify my own goal of professorship, or otherwise significant contributions to the field, one day.
Kalynne Pudner
January 4, 2008
(changed January 4, 2008)
Permalink
I'll be interested in seeing what other answers you get to this question. Phil grad programs vary widely in reputation, as well as in both entrance and graduation requirements. There's also variation in the quality of work that gets published, as well as the amount and venue of publicatio... Read more
I had a friend ask me this question some time ago and we tried to talk through it but ended up still stumped. The story went: if there is a husband and wife in a happy marriage but the husband goes away on a business trip, maybe has a little too much to drink or just has a lapse in judgement, and has a one-night stand with another woman and knows it was a morally wrong act does he have the obligation to tell her even though it will devastate her and potentially end her marriage? Or should the husband keep quiet and live quietly with the shame he has brought on his marriage? If an immoral act has already been committed does it do any good to be truthful about it and bring further harm to others, as would happen if the wife were told? It just seems that if it is immoral to do harm to others than telling the wife might just be as immoral as the act of adultery.
Kalynne Pudner
January 4, 2008
(changed January 4, 2008)
Permalink
Whether an act is moral or immoral will vary depending on the moral system that's assumed. For example, some people think morality is matter of doing one's duty, while others think it is a matter of the best overall consequences, or of building a virtuous character, and so on. I'm not sugg... Read more
Hi, here comes another question about feminism and philosophy and feminist philosophers. I am 30 years old and was a student of philosophy in Germany for 6 years before graduating to Master of Arts. Recently I read a book about 19th century's feminists and stumbled over a small notice concerning John St. Mill's "Subjection of Women". Although I would describe myself as a quite diligent student of philosophy (even in high-school) and also very interested in feminist topics, I never knew about this well known philosopher being a feminist as well. Now I ask myself three questions and hope you can help: 1) How can it be explained that even at university level the discussion of a classic philosopher like Mill never touches the bad F-word (i.e., feminism)? And who is to blame? 2) If even students of philosophy do not touch these topics if not accidentally altough it should be their genuine field of activity, how will other people, to whom the matter is quite distant, ever find out? 3) How many other important thinkers have written to this topic and I never found out? Thanks for your opinions.
Thomas Pogge
January 3, 2008
(changed January 3, 2008)
Permalink
Your experience may be more reflective of philosophy in Germany than of philosophy more generally. There are at least three relevant factors. German students specialize early while students in the US, say, take a broad range of courses in diverse fields during their undergraduate studies. In p... Read more
My friend and I were having a discussion about racism. He made a claim to me that he would never date a black woman, but that he wasn't racist. Now, to me, that seems like a racist comment. But he says that I am misunderstanding him. These are his arguments: "I do not find black women attractive, and so I would not date one. You might call me racist then, but if I said I didn't like women with brown hair, or women with gray eyes, does that necessarily mean that I am discriminating against women with those attributes? It would just mean that I wouldn't consider a woman with gray eyes or brown hair a prospect for a sexual relationship. Furthermore, I could say that you don't wish to have sex with men, and by your logic, that would make you sexist against men." His arguments are persuasive, but I find something very wrong with them. It seems to me that if someone is otherwise compatible with you, it shouldn't matter what race they are (or, in fact, if they had freckles or blond hair, et cetera). It seems to me not only limiting, but racist. Unfortunately, I can't word my arguments as effectively as he can.
Allen Stairs
December 30, 2007
(changed December 30, 2007)
Permalink
Your friend represents you as offering a bad argument: people who saythey're unattracted to people with characteristic X are prejudiced;your friend says he's unattracted to black women; hence, your friendsays, you conclude that he's prejudiced. But that doesn't strike me asa plausible diag... Read more