Recent Responses
Regarding the age old conundrum of the tree falling in the forest. According to Barclay, there is no sound if there is no mind to hear it. I am thinking that there may be no human around hence no human auditory organs to absorb the waves and send the message of "sound" to the brain.....but that is a bit anthropocentric. The forest is full of creatures that have auditory organs, so some brains will hear the sound....some minds will perceive the sound of a crashing tree, no? (listening to Nigel Warburton's A Little History of Philisophy)
I agree. I don't know what
Stephen Maitzen
June 9, 2016
(changed June 9, 2016)
Permalink
I agree. I don't know what Berkeley says about whether any nonhuman animals possess minds, but on his view, I take it, nonhuman animals would need to possess minds in order to perceive anything. Indeed, according to Berkeley, not only does the tree make no sound unl... Read more
One major problem I have with a lot of arguments is that at least one premise relies on intuition to be justified. The problem is that intuition is terribly unreliable and therefore cannot be used to justify a premise. Arguments that rely on intuition seem common in normative ethics from my what I have seem (The utility monster is one such example). I decided to make a thought experiment to tell if the argument relies on intuition that goes like this: You are alien which is born with the intuition that utilitarianism and is self-evident You discover a planet and decide to go visit it to find people living on it. you ask a person about utilitarianism and the person think it is false and use the utility monster argument to back up that assertion. Would you think this argument is sound or even makes only sense or a actual problem with the position you think is self-evident? Utilitarianism can be changed to whatever the position be attacked is and the utility monster into the argument against said position. My question is this thought experiment a good one for filtering out Intuition based arguments or does it exclude arguments that are sound and valid? Is any exceptions that are based on intuition and yet are sound and valid?
It's hard to see how any
Stephen Maitzen
June 9, 2016
(changed June 9, 2016)
Permalink
It's hard to see how any thought experiment could be good for filtering out all intuition-based arguments, for the simple reason that one's reaction to any thought experiment is itself a matter of one's intuitions. In your own thought experiment, I'm supposed to imagi... Read more
The problem with government is, in my opinion, not because of the type (democracy, polity, monarchy, etc.), but because of the social classes. If everyone was in the same class (upper, middle, lower) or if everyone was apart of no class whatsoever, would this eliminate a few problems associated with government?
I'm having a bit of trouble
Allen Stairs
June 5, 2016
(changed June 5, 2016)
Permalink
I'm having a bit of trouble coming up with a realistic picture of what this classless society would look like. People have different skills, talents, affinities, backgrounds... and in the normal course of things it's no surprise that classes form. It's true that gover... Read more
Person A receives a large amount of money. Being selfless, he doesn't want to keep the money and sends it to person B. Unfortunately, B is also selfless, and sends the money back to A. A then sends the money to C. Fortunately, C is selfish and keeps the money. Can there be selflessness without there being selfishness?
I think so.
Stephen Maitzen
June 2, 2016
(changed June 2, 2016)
Permalink
I think so. Consider the example you gave. A's selflessness (her generosity, anyway) is manifested by her sending the money to B, whether or not B ends up accepting the money. Now, if A somehow knows that B will return the money immediately and is counting on B to return it, then A's s... Read more
It seems that by using philosophy, anyone can argue for or against anything (even if one plus one equals two in the decimal numbering system, or that if I am really sitting in a chair right now (what is a "chair?"). After all, I have found a few philosophical and academic articles arguing in favor of trivialism, which is possibly the most bizarre and absurd philosophical view ever. Is there such a thing as something being morally wrong to everyone in the literal sense? Are there actually philosophical literature or articles that support or present arguments "for" rape, incest, adult-child sex, the torturing of infants for amusement, serial murder, terrorism, cannibalism, bestiality, necrophilia, or similar things? I would not be surprised if there is at least "one" philosopher who supports one of those acts, or if there is at least one philosophical and scholarly article that argues in favor of any of those acts.
Not sure what to say about
Michael Cholbi
June 2, 2016
(changed June 2, 2016)
Permalink
Not sure what to say about trivialism -- but one thing you've put your finger on is that because philosophers tend to question the assumptions of ordinary thought, they will often defend claims that are surprising, controversial, or counterintuitive. The examples you ment... Read more
During a conversation with my friend about cosmological argument for God, friend told me that cosmological argument is not even true because causal principle is outdated and not needed in modern physics. After the conversation, I searched for that by internet and found out Russell first argued like that and many contemporary philosopher of physics agreed that causality is at least not needed in our fundamental physics. I think if this kinds of argument succeed, then causal principle is undermined and as a result cosmological argument cannot be hold. So my question is, how do proponents of causal principle and cosmological argument answer to that?
I could be wrong, but I
Charles Taliaferro
June 2, 2016
(changed June 2, 2016)
Permalink
I could be wrong, but I believe that few philosophers today would claim that causation (per se) can be eliminated in an adequate description and explanation of the world. Indeed, it would be hard to understand our communicating right now (my intentionally responding to... Read more
If I'm asked "Do you have an opinion about opinions?" I cannot say "No" because then I would be expressing an opinion about opinions. Therefore isn't it impossible not to have an opinion about opinions?
Clever! This kind of query
Charles Taliaferro
June 2, 2016
(changed June 2, 2016)
Permalink
Clever! This kind of query touches on a topic that some philosophers of mind engage having to do with the topic of what they call "higher order thoughts." Basically, it is one thing to have thoughts and then (supposedly) another matter to have thoughts about though... Read more
what is the ontological status of puppets and dummys? i'm think of of ventriloquist dummies and puppets like emu-what kind of existence do they have? what happens to them when they are put away in a box?
Great question. When
Charles Taliaferro
June 1, 2016
(changed June 1, 2016)
Permalink
Great question. When functioning in a performance, I would think most of us would (rightly) see puppets and dummies as characters that are controlled by ventriloquists and puppeteers and thus not independent, autonomous agents. Their words and actions would be so entirel... Read more
"Everything in moderation" is a common view. But then moderation should be in moderation. If so, isn't moderation not fully moderate, and thus is partly immoderate?
Wonderful question. In
Charles Taliaferro
June 1, 2016
(changed June 1, 2016)
Permalink
Wonderful question. In Ancient Greco-Roman philosophy there was debate and disagreement about such a matter: some philosophers thought moderation in terms of appetites should be strict and without exception, whereas others thought the occasional immoderate indulgence wa... Read more
Is there anything wrong with the inheritance of wealth?
My own view is that there is
Charles Taliaferro
May 27, 2016
(changed May 27, 2016)
Permalink
My own view is that there is nothing wrong, per se (in itself) with the inheritance of wealth. Assuming that a person has gained wealth through just means (or no injustice) it seems that it should be within that person's (moral / legal) rights to make another perso... Read more