Recent Responses
Can and should we see philosophy as art? LCM
Miranda Fricker
February 19, 2007
(changed February 19, 2007)
Permalink
No, I doubt we should generally regard philosophy as art, though 'art' is such a wonderfully broad and diverse category that doubtless there can be overlaps. Certainly bits of philosophical text, and/or philosophical ideas can be part of an artwork (I remember seeing long passages of Wi... Read more
Hi, Isn't rationality highly overestimated in our western culture? The more I think about it, the more I'm getting convinced that the real 'processing' power resides at a less conscious level, in our neural network which can 'reason' with incomplete and inconsistent data in 'real time'. This power is sometimes called intuition or common sense. I believe that intuitive knowledge is the foundation for cognitive knowledge. It delivers the axioms for our rationality. And these axioms are much more than just: "Cogito ergo sum" ... Are there any philosophers who adhere this idea? Thank you very much, Eric
Louise Antony
February 16, 2007
(changed February 16, 2007)
Permalink
I have a few things to say in response to your question.
First of all, about whether too high a value is placed onrationality in “Western” culture: I feel that rationality is too little valuedin the United Statesat the moment, and that irrationality is celebrated. An extremely popular t... Read more
Why is it that prostitution (paying someone for a consensual sexual act) is illegal in most states while the production of pornographic movies (paying someone to perform a consentual sexual act on film/photography) legal?
Alan Soble
March 15, 2007
(changed March 15, 2007)
Permalink
Is it true that all states in which prostutition is illegal also legally permit the making of hard-core pornography in which performers are paid to engage in sex with each other? Surely there are some states that prohibit prostitution but do not ban (or at least do not prosecute) the making of por... Read more
First, I want to commend all the panelists for their efforts. I think this is a tremendous site that serves as an example of academia reaching out to the public. In my criminal law class, we are studying the purposes of punishment. We recently discussed Kant's deontological theory for why we should punish (as opposed to say a utilitarian theory, like deterrence). The argument is that Kant's theory is unconcerned with consequences. But, isn't his original moral code that binds the individual based on consequences? And if so, doesn't this undermine his theory of punishment? Thank you for your time.
Oliver Leaman
February 15, 2007
(changed February 15, 2007)
Permalink
No, it isn't. For him what makes an action right or wrong has nothing to do with the consequences. His original moral code is a rational principle that governs the morality of action, and that has nothing to do with consequences. We might argue about whether he is right or not, but I don'... Read more
Is the translation of philosophical texts from one language to another a cause of problems? Can one really know unless one is bilingual except by being told by others who are? I found Heiddeger and Sartre very difficult in translation - is it me or them or the translation that is the problem? (Jokes welcome!) Also, what about philosophers who wrote in now dead languages like Plato, etc? Nuances and tone must be lost, even to classical scholars. At best do you get a rendering, or does this apply more to classical literature than philosophy? New translations of Homer are popping up all the time. Is the same true of Aristotle, for example, and can we ever say there are definitive texts by him in English?
Oliver Leaman
February 15, 2007
(changed February 15, 2007)
Permalink
It is often claimed that to understand anyone you need to read him or her in the original language, but I doubt whether that is true. To have a detailed understanding of the particular views of a thinker it is necessary to know the language, but to grasp the argument in general this is no... Read more
There's an article in <i>The New Yorker</i> this week (Feb. 12) about two philosophers-turned-scientists who, in the course of their studies, developed a strong distaste for the philosophical way of things (one of them bashes Thomas Nagel's bat thought-experiment as an incompetent way to approach the mind-body problem). Is it true, as the article asserts, that philosophy is continually ceding its territory to the sciences (philosophy of the mind may be rendered obsolete by neuroscience), so that less and less is left to philosophers over time? Could science make philosophy obsolete?
Oliver Leaman
February 15, 2007
(changed February 15, 2007)
Permalink
I don't think so, although this is often claimed. The links between philosophy and science are complex and easy to get wrong. Philosophers are not looking for answers to problems in the same way that scientists are, although the difference is quite subtle. With the mind-body problem, wha... Read more
Does the phrase "Who are you...," when used as an argument against someone's suggestion, hold any logical merit? Must one necessarily hold a position of authority (i.e., paid teacher, paid philosopher, etc.) to afford logical advice on any given subject? If not, how can this phrase be rebutted to a certain satisfaction of the one who spoke it (assuming the speaker of the phrase is a logical listener)? -Kemp
Oliver Leaman
February 15, 2007
(changed February 15, 2007)
Permalink
No, you don't. On the other hand, it is as well to know what someone's qualifications are for expressing a view, especially if we are relying on that view for something important. Bona fides might not be enough, and we would have the same problem of wanting to know how to establish that a... Read more
Is it possible to love and resent someone (perhaps, your father) at the same time? If the resentment for someone comes from witnessing them mistreat someone else (perhaps, your mother), can the love for someone you're related to (your father) balance it out just based on the faact that you are biologically related and share some history?
Gabriel Segal
February 15, 2007
(changed February 15, 2007)
Permalink
That is an interesting question. 'Love' is a tricky word. It appears to mean various different things that are akin in complex ways. Think of paradigm cases of romantic love, love of a parent for their child, platonic love between friends. It seems to me there is more than one reasonable... Read more
I would like to know why, after rigorous scientific training in objective observation and reflection, some scientists are very resistant to laying down their preconceptions. One area which springs to mind is the breath-taking complexity of life on earth. This points so clearly to a creator of some kind (hence the ID debate), yet many scientists dismiss this possibility a priori, regarding it as a childish myth. Why this unwillingness to be truly 'scientific' and examine the facts from several possible points of view, rather than one rather dogmatic one?
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 9, 2007
(changed February 9, 2007)
Permalink
The answer to your first question about preconceptions is that scientists are human beings and so scientific practice is affected in many ways by human subjectivity. These effects include, but are not limited to, a human tendency towards dogmatisim. Scientific methods and training ca... Read more
Dear Philosophers, Can suicide be seen as pointless if in fact there is no afterlife/conciousness after death? If one ends one's life due to excrutiating pain, would it not be better to "live" with the pain than to not live at all? It seems paradoxical that if one commits suicide to escape something that one's death would not end anything because one cannot "reap the benefits" of no longer living. So would it not be greater to live poorly than to have not lived at all?
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 9, 2007
(changed February 9, 2007)
Permalink
Your question assumes that every life is worth living, and that theonly point to ending one's earthly life would be to "trade up" to apresumably better afterlife. But if one's life is so bad that it is notworth living, there is no paradox in preferring oblivion. Your exampleof a life... Read more