Recent Responses
I've heard that 2 to the power of 2, to the power of 2, etc... 6 times is a number so huge that we could never figure it out. Would that qualify as being infinite? And how would we be able to intelligibly come to that conclusion, or is it a "rough estimate" that we could never figure it out? Thank you for your time. ~Kris S.
Richard Heck
February 25, 2006
(changed February 25, 2006)
Permalink
This question concerns, in effect, number-theoretic functions that grow very fast. We can say a lot about them.
The operation in play here is called "superexponentiation", and is also known as "tetration". We can define it as follows:
superexp(0) = 1
superexp(n+1) = 2^(superexp(n))
So supe... Read more
Do you think a government that is becoming (or is) ineffective should be strongly reorganized ("overthrown" is a misleading word)?
Bernard Gert
February 18, 2006
(changed February 18, 2006)
Permalink
Although Hobbes, more than any other political philosopher, takes obedience to the government to be the overriding duty of citizens, he claims that citizens do not have a duty to obey a government that is ineffective, that is, does not provide protection to its citizens. If that is what yo... Read more
Should the retrospective ideas, advice, and wisdom of a dying person be heeded and followed in our own lives? That is, if a dying person wishes they would have lived in a different way, or says that certain things were the most valuable, should we follow this advice, and even change our lives to suit?
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 19, 2006
(changed February 19, 2006)
Permalink
To add to my colleague’s excellent comment, one might think that, for manyof us at least, dying is such a stressful time--with respect to health,emotionality, family dynamics, etc.--that a dying person is in a relativelypoor position to form and communicate considered wisdom about l... Read more
I've been reading some encyclopedia articles on utilitarianism. As far as I can see, utilitarians have moved from (the defence of) the pursuit of happiness to the pursuit of preference satisfaction. A preference is satisfied, I suppose, when someone gets what she or he wants. Now, I think it's reasonable that we ought to try to make people happy, at least in most cases, but I don't think it as reasonable that we ought to try to give people what they want. And anyway, I think that these are two very different ethical theories. Should we call both "utilitarianism"?
Jyl Gentzler
February 23, 2006
(changed February 23, 2006)
Permalink
All Utilitarians share the view that we ought to assess the morality of actions in terms of how they affect the well-being of those whom they affect. They often differ in their conception of well-being. Some regard well-being as a matter of pleasure and the absence of pain; others have... Read more
If I believe that God does not exist, but at the same time think that the idea of God is meaningful, am I an atheist? If not, then what position - philosophically - do I take?
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 18, 2006
(changed February 18, 2006)
Permalink
To add to Alex's answer, you might find the idea of "God" not just intelligible, but "meaningful" in the sense of useful or otherwise desirable: for example, you might consider theism socially useful or personally desirable, or might conclude that the world is better off with many p... Read more
If I believe that God does not exist, but at the same time think that the idea of God is meaningful, am I an atheist? If not, then what position - philosophically - do I take?
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 18, 2006
(changed February 18, 2006)
Permalink
To add to Alex's answer, you might find the idea of "God" not just intelligible, but "meaningful" in the sense of useful or otherwise desirable: for example, you might consider theism socially useful or personally desirable, or might conclude that the world is better off with many p... Read more
Is there a way to perceive the real world? Thanks.
Alexander George
February 18, 2006
(changed February 18, 2006)
Permalink
The obvious answer to your question is Yes. You perceive the real world by opening your eyes, listening, touching, etc. The real world is composed of trees and traffic lights and eagles, and you perceive them using your organs of sense.
If you think this is a cop-out, that somehow... Read more
Is it fair to say that when Western philosophers who are religious (such as a few who answer our questions here) profess 'faith' as a justification, they are effectively going against all the tenets of the logic and philosophical analysis they are quite happy to apply elsewhere to epistemology, ontology, &c? Is it an effective shrug of the shoulders and a 'There ya go! let's move on!' cop out? This seems particularly important to me in the light of Christians masquerading as Intelligent Designer advocates. I find it hard to believe any scientist or philosopher who was not religious to start with would find the mechanism of the eye or whatever 'irreducibly complex'and use it to deny Darwin's theory. They are simply trying to bolster beliefs already held, as no philosopher would dispute. And the 'faiths' some philosophers cling to are surely the dominant ones in their societies and/or the ones they were brought up to believe in. Are we now in the realms of anthropology and psychology in the above beliefs? No one believes in the Greek pantheon or Viking gods any more so how can the new ones hold more credence for those trained in critical thinking?
Oliver Leaman
February 16, 2006
(changed February 16, 2006)
Permalink
Let me address your first point which reappears towards the end also. I think there are thinkers nowadays who have faith and hold that this justifies their religious beliefs, but not in the sense of establishing them logically. They would often claim that faith is a perfectly acceptable w... Read more
I have just been introduced to the works of Heidegger, and have been shocked by the way some commentators condemn his writings. Is such condemnation justified?
Douglas Burnham
February 16, 2006
(changed February 16, 2006)
Permalink
This is a larger question than it appears. It goes to the heart of what philosophy is or should be. That is, what methods should be employed, what standards or virtues of expression, language, analysis or argumentation, what subject matters are philosophical, and so forth.
Heidegger is... Read more
Can an ideal be achieved? If my understanding of what ideals are is correct (i.e., a mental conception regarded as a standard of perfection), then it seems that they are, by their very nature, unattainable (at least in a corporeal sense). Yet, nations are built, wars are fought, and people are killed over ideals. If they are only "perfect ideas", doesn't that seem a bit absurd and irrational? Is my understanding of what an "ideal" is incorrect?
Douglas Burnham
February 16, 2006
(changed February 16, 2006)
Permalink
In ordinary English, 'Ideal' has at least two meanings. One is an exemplar of perfection, as you say. E.g. an ideal professor, or an ideal partner. There seems no reason why this necessarily could not be attainable; that is to say, why such an object could not in fact exist.
The other... Read more