Recent Responses
Is there a philosophy of luck or does luck not exist? Is luck deterministic in that some people always are more lucky than others? Can luck be considered inborn?
Charles Taliaferro
January 1, 2015
(changed January 1, 2015)
Permalink
Great questions. Philosophers have been concerned about the role of luck or, as it is sometimes referred to as fortune. Among Ancient philosophers such as Aristotle attention was given to the extent to which a person's character and flourishing depended on luck or, putting it different... Read more
Look at what I've just read on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "There are no laws of nature that hold just for the planet Earth (or the Andromeda Galaxy, for that matter), nor are there any that hold just for the Eighteenth Century or just for the Mesozoic Era." I agree that this looks absolutely true, but why is it so? I suppose science cannot prove that there is no fundamental law of physics that holds only in a small part of the universe or only during some short period. Sure, such a law would be unexplainable, at least scientifically unexplainable, but aren't ALL fundamental laws of physics unexplainable? That's why they are fundamental. If the above quotation is only stipulating some meaning of "laws of natures", isn't it arbitrary? Thank you.
Marc Lange
January 1, 2015
(changed January 1, 2015)
Permalink
I just wanted to add to Allen's remarks (with which I largely agree).First, the claim that there are no laws of nature that hold just for (e.g.) the planet Earth may require the qualification "no fundamental laws of nature". After all, if it is a law of nature that like electric charges repel, t... Read more
Which branches of philosophy are more likely to be made redundant due to advances in science, and which ones are more likely to endure despite major advances in science? Joe W.
Miriam Solomon
January 1, 2015
(changed January 1, 2015)
Permalink
If we could answer your question, we would be able to predict the future direction of science. But science is full of surprises. Moreover, what gets called "science" (or math or logic) and what gets called "philosophy" is to some degree arbitrary. I don't think disciplinary boundaries are... Read more
I have MA degree in Philosophy from a Russian University. It is not a high ranked one in the world, however. How can I get a job in Philosophy in the U.S. in the future? I live in Russia and have no money to pay for Ph.D. program and residence. Whether there is a discrimination against the followers of Buddha (Falun Dafa, a self-cultivation system) in the American Philosophical World?
Miriam Solomon
January 1, 2015
(changed January 1, 2015)
Permalink
If your academic record is strong and you have high GRE scores, you may receive funding from a U.S. PhD program. That is your best bet. There is no specific prejudice against Falun Dafa, but in general U.S. Philosophy departments focus on Western Philosophy.
Log in to... Read more
Can studying philosophy make one's life worse? I've been reading philosophy in my spare time for the last four years and it has not improved any facet of my life other than make me more critical of everything and most philosophers living or dead except for a handful. It has not led me to "wisdom" in the slightest and it has made me more argumentative with others in a sort of shallow legalistic sense.
Stephen Maitzen
January 1, 2015
(changed January 1, 2015)
Permalink
Can studying philosophy make one's life worse?
Certainly it can, just as working out to get fit can make one's life worse: one who works out to get fit can thereby tear a hamstring and become laid-up and miserable, or thereby suffer a heart attack, etc. Indeed, working out to get fit can ma... Read more
I just can't get my head around what Kant means by "transcendental" in the term "transcendental idealism". Can you help? Also, Kant CAN"T be serious suggesting that we create space and time! If I create it, how did YOU get in my space-time and I in yours? After all, we're talking to, and recognizing each other. (Not sure I'm even understanding this really). Also, idealism seems, as Popper says somewhere, very anthropomorhic. We think we are so special, so crucial to reality. My, we are quite full of ourselves.---Baffled.
Oliver Leaman
January 1, 2015
(changed January 1, 2015)
Permalink
Transcendental idealism does not mean that we create our own ideas, but that we can only apply them to our experience. That is, we can only know they apply to our experience, since what counts as objective knowledge is defined in terms of them. We cannot say whether those ideas extend anywher... Read more
The standard way of thinking about 'mental disorders' goes like this: Take some phenomena and think of a name that stands for all phenomena together. So far nothing wrong. But then it happens, the given name is being crowned as cause of the phenomena... as in the expression; "depression causes low self esteem, a sense of emptiness,..." while depression is just a given name for all those phenomena. To me that seems as an insult to the laws of logic. Can someone state a logical proof that this way of thinking is against logical laws?
Marc Lange
January 1, 2015
(changed January 1, 2015)
Permalink
If a mental disorder referred simply to a collection of symptoms, then it could not be a cause of those symptoms. You are exactly right about this. A cause must be distinct from its effect. That is why we cannot say that my slamming the door was a cause of my shutting the door (where "slamming t... Read more
Look at what I've just read on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "There are no laws of nature that hold just for the planet Earth (or the Andromeda Galaxy, for that matter), nor are there any that hold just for the Eighteenth Century or just for the Mesozoic Era." I agree that this looks absolutely true, but why is it so? I suppose science cannot prove that there is no fundamental law of physics that holds only in a small part of the universe or only during some short period. Sure, such a law would be unexplainable, at least scientifically unexplainable, but aren't ALL fundamental laws of physics unexplainable? That's why they are fundamental. If the above quotation is only stipulating some meaning of "laws of natures", isn't it arbitrary? Thank you.
Marc Lange
January 1, 2015
(changed January 1, 2015)
Permalink
I just wanted to add to Allen's remarks (with which I largely agree).First, the claim that there are no laws of nature that hold just for (e.g.) the planet Earth may require the qualification "no fundamental laws of nature". After all, if it is a law of nature that like electric charges repel, t... Read more
Should love between a man and woman be diminished in any way by differing political viewpoints? My boyfriend and I both think politics is a minor part of life that neither of us gets directly involved in but when we do speak about it he isn't afraid to philosophize about his radical political views. As it follows, he is opposed to marriage including straight marriage and especially gay marriage because he does not accept the legitimacy of any state or institution. I don't mind spending the rest of our lives together unmarried because this in no way negatively impacts my life even though my political views are rather different. I disagree with his stance on gay marriage because I have gay friends but this does not diminish my love since we are both straight, so do political views matter when it comes to love?
Charles Taliaferro
December 26, 2014
(changed December 26, 2014)
Permalink
Very, very interesting. You are asking about something that is perhaps a matter that is more personal and intimate than political or a matter of public philosophy (or philosophy about public life), but I offer these thoughts with some hesitation about responding to what is probably... Read more
When does successful prediction provide strong evidence?
Allen Stairs
December 26, 2014
(changed December 26, 2014)
Permalink
Here's a sort of rule-of-thumb answer that I find useful. Roughly, we should ask ourselves how surprising the evidence would be if the hypothesis were not true. Suppose the question is whether Harvey robbed the bank. Our evidence for Harvey being the thief is that a witness saw him outside... Read more