Recent Responses
If quantum indeterminacy is true, it proves that we do not live in a deterministic world. But I seem to have trouble with the notion that indeterminancy give you responsibility for your actions and decisions. For example, I am walking into a store and I open the door. There is someone behind me. I can hold the door open for them or I can keep on walking. If quantum indeterminancy is true, than I have the possibility to do both. But am I truly the author of the decision or was the decision ultimately made by something which I had no control over? And is it intelligible to say that the former is even possible?
Richard Heck
November 13, 2005
(changed November 13, 2005)
Permalink
For this reason, many philosophers now suppose that the problem of free will really has nothing to do with determinacy.
My own favorite book on the subject is Daniel Dennett's Elbow Room, but I'm sure other people have other favorites.
Log in to post comments... Read more
If God is omnipotent then surely he can do anything!? My intuition tells me he can defy logic because surely he created it. I know philosophers will then ask me if it is possible for God to create a world where it both doesn't rain and rains at the same time. I am then forced to say that of course this doesn't seem possible. But...this leaves me with two questions: (a) Why do philosophers always have to talk about 'possible worlds'!? (b) Surely a world of contradictions only seems implausible to us because we are reasoning from the knowledge and experience we have in this world. We can't conceive of such ideas as not raining and raining at the same time because we are bound by the logic of this world.
Richard Heck
November 13, 2005
(changed November 13, 2005)
Permalink
On (a), I might add that possible worlds are an extremely useful tool. As Lynne mentioned, there are many different ways to understand what they are supposed to be. For many purposes, however, one can simply regard possible worlds as a certain kind of mathematical construct. The reason the... Read more
Would you agree with this statement? Being gay is a choice.
Richard Heck
November 13, 2005
(changed November 13, 2005)
Permalink
There is very good evidence now that "sexual orientation" has alarge genetic component. Whether it is genetically determined (orbetter, to what extent) is not clear, but most "gay" people reporthaving known of their "orientation" at a fairly young age. So even ifthere are also strong envir... Read more
I would like to know if someone is interested in philosophy but do not from where should start, how do you guide? Suppose it is not possible to be involved in academic courses and just as a personal life someone is going to study in this field.
Alexander George
November 13, 2005
(changed November 13, 2005)
Permalink
See Question 363 for a few references to some works that provide an introduction to philosophy. If you have a local library, you might also consult its reference librarian.
Log in to post comments
A man has murdered someone and has been executed legally in the US. If I could go back in time and kill the killer before he committed his crime, thus saving the life of his intended victim, would this make me a murderer, or his executioner, as I would be killing him before he had committed his crime? This question is from Anthony Roddy-Burns in Rochdale, England.
Alexander George
November 13, 2005
(changed November 13, 2005)
Permalink
One's tempted to say that if the man has indeed murdered someone in the past, then if you were to travel back in time you could not kill him before the murder. The past is past and, contrary to Hollywood lore, it cannot be changed. For more on this, see Question 242.... Read more
Is the scientific method anything more than a good algorithm?
Alexander George
November 13, 2005
(changed November 13, 2005)
Permalink
People often speak of "the scientific method", but it means nothing.There is no such method -- and one proof of that is the greatfascination and challenge scientific inquiry holds for so many people,something it would not have if its practice merely consisted in turningthe crank of The... Read more
Why did you take philosophy? Was it a long standing goal in life or did you just wake up one morning and decide to be the next Plato or Socrates?
Alexander George
November 13, 2005
(changed November 13, 2005)
Permalink
For many, I expect, a love of philosophy was neither a revelation nor something nurtured since infancy. Like many of the better things in life, philosophy is something one develops a taste for, over time, often accelerated through exposure to powerful influences at critical junctures.... Read more
If you put a flower, next to a painting of a flower, would the painting be more beautiful because it has been intentionally drawn? A still life is seen as having more aesthetic value than a flower in a vase, although our eyes see no difference between the two.
Aaron Meskin
November 13, 2005
(changed November 13, 2005)
Permalink
It isn't quite right that we see no difference between a flower or a bunch of flowers and a standard still life. For example, we see paintings as largely flat, and we take notice of their painted surfaces. This distinguishes our experience of them from our experience of flowers. Mor... Read more
Why did you take philosophy? Was it a long standing goal in life or did you just wake up one morning and decide to be the next Plato or Socrates?
Alexander George
November 13, 2005
(changed November 13, 2005)
Permalink
For many, I expect, a love of philosophy was neither a revelation nor something nurtured since infancy. Like many of the better things in life, philosophy is something one develops a taste for, over time, often accelerated through exposure to powerful influences at critical junctures.... Read more
If God is omnipotent then surely he can do anything!? My intuition tells me he can defy logic because surely he created it. I know philosophers will then ask me if it is possible for God to create a world where it both doesn't rain and rains at the same time. I am then forced to say that of course this doesn't seem possible. But...this leaves me with two questions: (a) Why do philosophers always have to talk about 'possible worlds'!? (b) Surely a world of contradictions only seems implausible to us because we are reasoning from the knowledge and experience we have in this world. We can't conceive of such ideas as not raining and raining at the same time because we are bound by the logic of this world.
Richard Heck
November 13, 2005
(changed November 13, 2005)
Permalink
On (a), I might add that possible worlds are an extremely useful tool. As Lynne mentioned, there are many different ways to understand what they are supposed to be. For many purposes, however, one can simply regard possible worlds as a certain kind of mathematical construct. The reason the... Read more