Recent Responses
FIRST OF ALL THIS QUESTION DEALS WITH SOCRATES--HIS LIFE SPAN WAS 463-399 B.C.E.--WHAT DOES THE E.STAND FOR? COULD YOU DIRECT ME TO A SITE THAT COULD SHOW ALL OF THE TEXT THAT THE FOLLOWING WAS FOUND FROM? "YOUNG PEOPLE 'LOVE LUXURY, HATE AUTHORITY.. ARE BORED AND ILL MANNERED AND LACK RESPECT FOR ADULTS' THANKS SO MUCH
Nicholas D. Smith
August 28, 2007
(changed August 28, 2007)
Permalink
Have a look at:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=398104
The attribution to Socrates is spurious.
Log in to post comments
Should the state be seen as responsible for crimes committed by prisoners against prisoners in jails? It seems to me that knowingly incarcerating a person in a place where inmates are at risk to be beaten, raped or killed is like throwing him in the lion's den.
Nicholas D. Smith
August 28, 2007
(changed August 28, 2007)
Permalink
I agree with everything Thomas Pogge has said in his reply, but also think that one assumption of your question needs to be questioned. Consider the following example: It is my night to cook dinner, but I have forgotten to buy an ingredient. I ask my wife to run down to the store to pur... Read more
There are many arguments for the existence of god (e.g., the ontological argument) which, though interesting, probably don't actually account for the religious belief of even their primary exponents. I suspect that a person may be aware of many reasons for belief in a proposition "P" but that only some of these are actually causally linked to his belief that "P"; others he may offer as a way of persuading non-believers, or convincing them of his reasonableness, but these don't actually explain his own conviction. How do we differentiate between arguments or evidence which create belief, and those which merely support it? Is there some link that we perceive between certain reasons and belief but not others?
Nicholas D. Smith
August 28, 2007
(changed August 28, 2007)
Permalink
It might help to notice that there are distinct senses to "reasons for believing that P." The first sense (usually called "propositional justification" by epistemologists) has to do with there being some fact of the matter that would make it reasonable for me--that would justify me--in b... Read more
How logically rigorous is the claim that neurochemical changes in the brain 'cause' mood or emotional disorders? Does a running nose cause a cold? In any case, before prescribing powerful chemicals to emotionally distressed patients shouldn't doctors use some sort of machine to test the chemical levels of their brains?
Allen Stairs
August 27, 2007
(changed August 27, 2007)
Permalink
You're right: we shouldn't throw the word "causes" around too casually. Let's fix on depression as our example, and let's keep in mind that simply being sad isn't the same as being clinically depressed. On the one hand, neurochemicals probably aren't just symptoms of depression; they probably... Read more
There are many arguments for the existence of god (e.g., the ontological argument) which, though interesting, probably don't actually account for the religious belief of even their primary exponents. I suspect that a person may be aware of many reasons for belief in a proposition "P" but that only some of these are actually causally linked to his belief that "P"; others he may offer as a way of persuading non-believers, or convincing them of his reasonableness, but these don't actually explain his own conviction. How do we differentiate between arguments or evidence which create belief, and those which merely support it? Is there some link that we perceive between certain reasons and belief but not others?
Nicholas D. Smith
August 28, 2007
(changed August 28, 2007)
Permalink
It might help to notice that there are distinct senses to "reasons for believing that P." The first sense (usually called "propositional justification" by epistemologists) has to do with there being some fact of the matter that would make it reasonable for me--that would justify me--in b... Read more
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
How does one know if they ARE a philosopher?
Sally Haslanger
August 26, 2007
(changed August 26, 2007)
Permalink
The question presupposes that some people are philosophers--in some special and perhaps deep sense--and others aren't. (Of course some people are professional philosophers and others aren't. But I don't think that's what you're asking about.) I don't believe that there is a group of peop... Read more
Trois questions... Are there any influential essays on aesthetics which deal with modern rather than fine art? I have just read Kant's "Critique of aesthetic judgment" and Hume's "Of the standard of taste", which made me want to read more recent treatments of the debate. In your opinion, is aesthetics necessarily linked to visual art, or could the term equally be applied to music and literature? Finally, how far is aesthetic appreciation informed by intuition, and how much by logic (in the case of visual art - the golden mean, composition, etc)? Is there any consensus on this? Thank you.
Thomas Pogge
August 25, 2007
(changed August 25, 2007)
Permalink
1. Yes, there is much interesting philosophical work on modern art. I would start with Arthur Danto, who has written many interesting essays (often for the Nation) and a few fascinating books on the topic.
2. The term aesthetics is certainly applied to music -- see Theodor Adorno and currently... Read more
Could one argue that parental discipline constitutes mental/emotional abuse in certain cases? At what point does punishment (ignoring physical punishment for this question) become abuse?
Gloria Origgi
August 24, 2007
(changed August 24, 2007)
Permalink
That parental discipline may constitute a form of abuse depends entirely on what you accept under the label of "discipline". Consider for example a family in which following some religious practices - like preying before supper, or not eating certain kinds of food - is considered as part of a... Read more
I want to compare the human mind to a computer program, for the sake of this question. In a computer program, if a circumstance occurs that the machine can not process due to a fault in the code, or a lack of processing power, or any number of reasons, the program will error out. It can have many symptoms: frozen program interface, the dreaded blue screen of death, or a simple restart. But either way the program ceases to function. (Of course their are nifty programmers out their that protect against simple errors by allowing a tolerated amount of them go unnoticed if they don't impede the overall abilities of the program.) What I want to know is how or mind deals with these errors. What stops us from running infinite loops that stalls out our minds and rends us slobbering piles of useless flesh. When we are confronted with something that our brain can not understand or grasp or comprehend, how do we cope? Or is there a limit to where we cease to function?
Allen Stairs
August 23, 2007
(changed August 23, 2007)
Permalink
An intriguing puzzle. The first point is that insofar as it's a question about how our minds actually work, it's an empirical matter, and the answer depends on the facts. But there's a design-level issue here (which I'm hoping my better-informed colleagues might chime in on.) Suppose we have a... Read more