Recent Responses
Is the rise in the western world of 'mental illness' such as 'depression' a reflection of language usage or some more substantive reason(s)?
Noga Arikha
September 8, 2007
(changed September 8, 2007)
Permalink
As Sally Haslanger writes, proper answers to your question do need to feed on some empirical, in this case historical data. But I suggest that these data can only yield answers through some philosophical unpacking.
The category of mental illness is itself a cultural product, insofar as it... Read more
Can a work of art have value regardless of who creates it? Can, and should, we look past the character of the artist - however immoral we consider them to be - and simply experience and esteem the work itself?
Allen Stairs
September 7, 2007
(changed September 7, 2007)
Permalink
Consider these lines; perhaps you know them:In a Station of the Metro
The apparition of these faces in the crowd;Petals on a wet, black bough
I first came across this poem 35 years ago. Though tastes may vary, it still works for me. But as you may well know, it's by Ezra Pound, who was a... Read more
Is there any instance where a philosophy of "Do anything unless your maliciously causing harm" could be seen as wrong?
David Brink
September 6, 2007
(changed September 6, 2007)
Permalink
A moral code that allowed you to do anything that did not involve causing harm maliciously would be by many people's lights too permissive. (a) First of all, we probably wouldn't want to confine our attention to harmful actions performed from malice. There are many cases where an agent se... Read more
Is time a philosophical concept or a scientific concept?
Allen Stairs
September 6, 2007
(changed September 6, 2007)
Permalink
How about neither? Or both? (Or both neither and both?)
Put another way... Time is just one of our many concepts. By far most people who use the concept of time aren't philosophers and aren't scientists either. And so the concept of time as such isn't a peculiarly philosophical concept, no... Read more
I am a starting my second year as an eleventh and twelfth grade global history teacher in the South Bronx this fall. In the spring I suggested that our school offer a philosophy course to some of our strong seniors and was told it would not fit into our curriculum. Much to my delight I was informed yesterday that I will be teaching the course. The only problem is that I am overwhelmed with the task of creating a curriculum. My class is set to meet for about an hour a day for a year. In addition to deep and thoughtful philosophical conversations I would also like them to read several original works of philosophy although not in their entirety. I need to be able to take my students to reading and uncovering meaning from the texts, to read and figure out Sartre for themselves. Finding resources to teach with has been very problematic. So often I find philosophy books explain philosophers well but fail to suggest reading Plato. While my students' literacy levels are not at the same level as most other students their age I need them to read the philosophy for themselves, struggle with it and create meaning. Unfortunately, I have not studied philosophy extensively enough (I majored in French and Political Science) to know the pithiest 15 pages of Locke that get at the core of his social contract theory. Do you possibly know of a book that has done this kind of editing? I am thinking of structuring the course into large units that deal with some universal philosophical problem. Within each I hope to start students off with a general conversation around the topic, do some preliminary writing about what we know/think about it then delve in to two philosophers and possibly two modern critiques of their work finishing with a look at contemporary social, political, or economic issues through our new lens. Any suggestions you might have would be greatly appreciated.
Allen Stairs
September 4, 2007
(changed September 4, 2007)
Permalink
Best of luck to you in this worthy undertaking! I hope my colleagues will provide suggestions of their own; there are many possibilities. But I'd like to offer a general thought or two, as well as a couple of specific suggestions.
Although I have great respect for the scholarly attempt to... Read more
1. Cause must always precede effect. 2. You cannot be conscious of a thought before you think it. 3. Therefore, you cannot consciously cause thoughts. The logic seems infallible. However, it is intensely counterintuitive. It seems like common sense to say, "I consciously create my thoughts."
Allen Stairs
September 2, 2007
(changed September 2, 2007)
Permalink
It may be that I'm missing the point (I haven't had my daily ration of chocolate yet), but what's wrong with this way of looking at it?
Conscious or not, a thought can't be its own cause -- at least, not given our usual assumptions. That's what I take your premise 1 to entail. And it see... Read more
What is the difference between a sentence-type and a proposition? In the literature, sometimes they are used synonymously, sometimes they are differentiated. I can not, for the life of me, figure out what the fundamental difference is, if any. That is, are both bearers of truth? Are both considered abstract objects (nominalists excluded, of course). If they are different, then how are they related to each other, and how are they related to sentence-tokens? Please shed some light on this issue. Thanks. JJ
Mitch Green
August 30, 2007
(changed August 30, 2007)
Permalink
You might think of a sentence type as an abstraction from lots of individual occurrences of a given sentence. There's fairly clear sense in which in the following:
Fred eats spinach
Fred eats spinach
I've written two sentences, and a fairly clear sense in which I've written just one s... Read more
Suppose that Homo erectus would still exist today. Would they deserve the same respect as Homo sapiens? Should we treat them as we treat chimps?
Marc Lange
August 30, 2007
(changed August 30, 2007)
Permalink
Well, I'm not sure that we *should* treat chimps as we *actually do* treat chimps!
But in whatever way we should treat chimps, we should presumably treat members of Homo erectus (were there any alive today) in much the same way. Chimps and members of Homo erectus presumably possess to just about... Read more
Let's say I like, but don't need, a piece of software. If, after shopping around, I find the lowest price is way, way beyond what I'm willing to pay for it and so I decide not to buy it. Then, I find an opportunity to download it from the internet for free. If I download it and use the software I realise I'll be breaking the law. But, from a moral perspective, how should I be judged? I haven't really deprived the software developer as I wouldn't consider buying at the current price. Nor has the developer lost any material possessions. Nor have I given money to any criminals. Plus, if I commit to buy the software should it ever become what I consider to be "affordable" they won't lose any future income either. Again, how would you judge this behavior from a moral perspective?
Saul Traiger
August 30, 2007
(changed August 30, 2007)
Permalink
Let’s begin by asking where the copy of the software on the Internet came from. Presumably someone purchased a licensed copy. Typically, commercial software licenses limit further reproduction and distribution. So the original purchaser agreed to the conditions of the license, and consummated... Read more
If you told a joke in the forest, and no one was there to hear it, would it be funny?
Peter Lipton
August 30, 2007
(changed August 30, 2007)
Permalink
Nice question. I guess it depends on how good the joke is. No, seriously, your question is a good riff on what seems to be the non-philosophers’ paradigm of a philosophical question, namely, ‘If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise?’. I have to... Read more