Cornucupia of Philosophical Questions
Here you will find a collection of over a thousand questions which have been submitted to Ask a Philosopher. The latest questions are posted on the Ask a question page. Answers appear regularly at https://askaphilosopher.org.
If you would like to become a member of the Ask a Philosopher panel of authors at Wordpress, please email your CV to firstname.lastname@example.org.
All questions submitted to Ask a Philosopher are moderated. If you provide your email address when submitting your question, you will be informed when your question has been given an answer.
Can a person with solipsism syndrome actually recover and
lead a normal life?
How is Descartes' module of dualism duplicated in the matrix
in Morpheus' view?
Platos discussion of the Form of the Good in the Republic
arguably entails a religious view of the world. To what extent,
if any, does Platos philosophical perspective in the Allegory
of the Cave and/or the Metaphor of the Sun entail a religious
or theological perspective? Is Platos vision of the Good compatible
with your own religious (or nonreligious) point of view? Why
or why not?
Where is the legal info for Ask a Philosopher?
If not, what is it?
I am planning to write a book about my theories that I have
posted here and elsewhere and have never mentioned.
identify the hypothesis and and conclusion of each statement.
Then write each statement in ifthen form. Colin watched televison
when he doesn not have homework
Do you believe that, in addressing the Problem of the One and
the Many, the PreSocratics also addressed Heideggers problem,
or did they merely sidestep it?
is it true that philosophy is indeed the love of wisdom
In Plato's Apology how does Socrates exhibit his wisdom and
his lack of knowledge? He doesn't simply list what he knows,
so how is the reader able to tell?
Do you agree or disagree with freud's contention that personality
is "fixed" by a relatively early age?
ugly persons dilemma asked:
If you are the ugliest 25 year old virgin male in the world
and you would not settle for an ugly girl,
and you would rather die being the kissless virgin you are
instead of settling for an ugly girl,
Is it right (logically and ethically) for you to approach
a beautiful girl romantically ?
who,according to plato, are fit to govern the ideal republic
what does aristotle mean by Anagnorisis?
Is Nigeria passing through a state of nature as posited by
THOMAS HOBBES?. Examine your view with relevant examples
Hey! Im reading a treatise of the human nature by David hume
and was wondering what his toughts about the Soul and body
I have a question in my textbook that I was wondering if you
could help. The question is:
How would Heraclitus have responded to the following statement?
"Heraclitus' theory is wrong because the objects we see around
us continue to endure throughout time;alhtough a person, an
animal or plant may change its superficial qualities, it still
remains essentially the same person, animal or plant throughout
these changes. In fact, we recognize change only by contrasting
it to the underlying permanence of things. So permanence,
not change, is the essential to reality"
what does descarte's mean by saying that "human mind is better
known than the body"?how does gilbert ryle challange descarte's
mind body dualism?
1.Who are we
2.Where did we came from?
3.Where are we going?
4.How should we live?
I'm currently trying to write a paper on my topic of choice
with in philosophy. I came across the topic of Friendship
that Aristotle wrote on. I was wondering what branch of philosophy
this topic falls on? I'm trying to write something different.
I'm hoping this is a topic I can find a lot on. I would also
like to know, if it is an branch of philosophy, if you have
any reads that would help me with different sides for example
Utilitarians view. Id like at least three or four different
views. I tried searching and its been tough. Please Help.
Kant's theory is categorized as one that focuses on and evaluates
"intent" rather than consequences because consequences of
our actions cannot always be controlled by us. Consequently,
if someone dies as a result of one of our actions and it wasn't
our intent to kill the deed is still morally wrong because.
Circumstances and contingencies do not provide excuses when
following Kant's categorical imperative
Does intelligence imply obligation? That is, does greater
insight into problems, capacity to foresee longterm consequences,
or effectiveness in clarifying values, imply a social or moral
duty? Are we obligated to use our capacities to any particular
I'm curious both as to the answer, and as to which philosophers
have addressed these sorts of issues.
This is a response to a question answered by Shaun Williamson
that I asked about "intelligence/consciousness and evolution."
In this answer, it was stated that "Being conscious means
having sensory awareness of the world and to have sensory
awareness of the world you need sense organs and a nervous
system." My question regarding this is does this mean that
if you are blind you are only 4/5, or 80, conscious? Given
that we have 5 senses and your assertion that sensory awareness
of the world is needed in order to be conscious. It follows
from this that there are levels of consciousness. Therefore,
someone with 5 working senses would be have a higher level
of consciousness than someone with lt;5. If this is so, then
wouldn't that also end the discussion about AI and other natural
organisms having consciousness?
"That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes
discarded tomorrow." What knowledge questions regarding sensory
perception, language, emotion and reason can be extracted?
How does this relate to the natural and human sciences?
what is a powerful objection to the phrase "Nothing Can Be
In Plato's Allegory of the Cave, the shadows represented
the fact that truth is elusive and cannot be found.
our doubts and lack of confidence in our own worth.
imperfect and confused representations of a higher reality.
which branch of metaphysics cosmology or ontology seem to
you the shorter route to understanding of what is real? why
do you choose it? use real life example to justify your claim.
I have a question about the implications of John Rawls' two
'principles of justice' namely:
1. Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme
of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar
scheme of liberties for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions.
First, they must be attached to offices and positions open
to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity, and
second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged members of society.
My question concerns the second part of principle 2. Suppose
there is a social or economic inequality which, if allowed,
would reduce the wellbeing of the worstoff 1 of society by
(say) 1, but would increase the wellbeing of everyone else
by (say) 10. Suppose this inequality has not much to do with
the principle 1. Would it be disallowed under Rawls' theory?
I have a question about the implications of John Rawls' two
'principles of justice' namely:
1. Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme
of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar
scheme of liberties for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions.
First, they must be attached to offices and positions open
to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity, and
second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged members of society.
My question concerns the second part of principle 2. Suppose
there is a social or economic inequality which, if allowed,
would reduce the wellbeing of the worst off 1 percent of society
by (say) 1 percent, but would increase the wellbeing of everyone
else by (say) 10 percent. Suppose this inequality has not
much to do with the principle 1. Would it be disallowed under
(Apologies for submitting this question twice; some symbols
weren't displayed properly in the first submission.)
Is philosophy essential in theology? if yes or no or why?
What position or thought of the philosophers struck you?
What is the best way to resolve a moral dilemma?
I am facing the greatest moral dilemma of my life; both sides
of the dilemma have great material and emotional implications.
At one side there is chasing my lifelong dream of living independently
in a free country and having the chance of being financially
successful by emigrating and starting my own business there
but at the cost of leaving my parents alone at their old age
which gives me a massive crisis of conscience.
my dreams but avoiding the bad conscience and having a boring
but easy and wellpaid job in a oppressive and not so civilised
middle eastern society. My parents are quite welloff so by
leaving them I will not be troubling them financially but
emotionally. My only sibling left the country eight years
ago and they really only have me.
all the best and thank you.
Hi, glad to meet you.
I'm college student in South Korea.
Since I realized that all that I'd thought were actually what
other says, I've been wondering who I am or what I am.
I'd spent my school days under the extreme competition. Futhermore
much more competition is waiting in front me.
I'm afraid of fading away.
Fortunately there was one thing that have comforted me, that
is literature. But my range of literature is so narrow that
favorite writer are just a few like Hesse, Tolstoy, Hugo.
But for me, they are not just mere writer but man with his
thought. Religion also gave me some insight to look inside
me. Even though I hadn't read Marx, his view on history sympathize
I think all the questions goes down to "What is human?"
Also, it can be reformed into "What is meaningful life?"
I know there could be right answer on it; but I can not let
go and give up thinking about it.
This question could be one of many categories in Philosophy
but also connected to other parts. Will you recommend some
books on this question (I think books can be categorized and
listed in order of history) and a general philosophy book
Thank you for your help.
Is there something logically funny about the claim that all
values are relative?
anam ali asked:
1) Does John Stuart Mill think philosopher come to an agreement
about the criterion of right and wrong?
3) Is one of the objections that Mill responds to that the
doctrine of utility is one only worthy of pigs?
4.) Does Mill believe that right and wrong are a matter of
5) Does Mill believe that what makes an action right is the
intentions of the agent?
Is competition bad for science? Should there be more cooperation
amongst scientists? Does the monetization of activities lead
to more successful results?
Were accustomed to thinking of competition as leading to discoveries
and advancements in all walks of life. However, this article
looks at how competition can sometimes lead to scientists
being less than honest about the results of their research
in order to secure funding for future projects.
What is the difference between Plato's and Aristotle's view
of the Forms?
I have veen wondering for quite some time now: if I was co
ceived say a day or just an hour later than I actually was,
what wojld have become of "me"??
I have a question that I have always wondered about. If an
archaeological discovery or a nonbiblical historical account
confirmed that certain portions of the Bible were historically
accurate, would this mean that the findings of archaeology
or extrabiblical historical accounts have more authority than
the Bible? In other words, if A confirms that B is historically
accurate, would this mean that A has more authority than B?
How does the Allegory of the Cave explain Socrates actions
in the Apology and the Crito?
Trace the notion of opposites from the thought of Anaximander
through the thought of the atomists
Give two versions of Pythagoras' metaphysical views.Why is
Pythagoras important for later metaphsicians like Plato.
How does ancient atomist Democritus differ from the theory
of Empodocles and Anaxagoras?what important ideas does atomisism
What are the normative moral principles of autonomy,
beneficence and utility, and how are the developed in each
of the following: a.Utilitarianism (distinguish between act
and rule utilitarianism); b. Kantian Deontology. Give reasons
why you find one of these theories more acceptable than the
other. Your reasons need to contain criticisms of the rejected theory.
In psychology, a psychological identity relates to selfimage
(a person's mental model of him or herself), selfesteem, and
individuation. An important part of identity in psychology
is gender identity, as this dictates to a significant degree
how an individual views him or herself both as a person and
in relation to other people. In cognitive psychology, the
term "identity" refers to the capacity for selfreflection
and the awareness of self (Leary amp; Tangney 2003, p. 3).
Sociology places some explanatory weight on the concept of
rolebehavior. The notion of identity negotiation may arise
from the learning of social roles through personal experience.
Identity negotiation is a process in which a person negotiates
with society at large regarding the meaning of his or her
what is subjective idealism?
ontological argument given by descartes to prove the existence
if you could look at the start of the universe in infinite
detail could you predict every event in the future?
Who went to the oracle
Have you ever determined that something was wrong because,
as described in Kant's ethics, it wasn't universalizable?
(Of course, you didn't have to know Kant's ethics when this
happened. I'm only asking if you happened to reason along
with Kant, even though you didn't know about his view.)
If you have, describe the situation and why it isn't universalizable.
Explain the views of JeanPaul Sartre regarding God, human
nature, and freedom. What does Sartre mean by 'existence precedes
essence'? What might Sartre say to the claim that human beings
do have a definite nature, and that part of this nature is
I work for a philanthropic foundation that's connected to
a financial firm. A month ago the founder of the firm was
arrested for an indiscretion (personal and not work related)
and because of this, 96 of his investors withdrew, essentially
crippling the business and the foundation. I found out from
a financial coworker that all the financial employees being
laid off are being given a very generous severance package.
The foundation consists of only me and my supervisor. My
supervisor called another company to encourage them to hire
me. He feels that because he has done this, he has no intention
of offering any severance package for me. He said he would
only ask for a severance package for me if the other company
doesn't hire me. If I get this job it pays considerably less,
and I will have to move and incur moving expenses and the
cost of preparing my current house to sell or rent. I am
not supposed to know what other employees are getting for
severance. What is the ethical thing to do? Should I just
grin and bear it, and say nothing about the unfairness; or
do I have any right to say anything? Thanks!
many philosopher, and others talk about Redemption or man
justifying himself. why do philosopher or church people think
that this is needed? why?
many philosopher, and others talk about Redemption or man
justifying himself. why do philosopher or church people think
that this is needed? why?
what is the common sense reply to descartes method of doubt
Explain and evaluate Hume's argument that we have no justification
for believing in cause and effect except for a reference to
custom. Be sure and include in your answer an explanation
of what Hume means by his term custom.
How do we know whether a true belief of a person counts as
What exactly is Nozick's account of knowledge?
I'm taking a Bioethics PHL 215 Health care ethics class, and
I took a test and received 0 on the explanation on the test/
he stated he want me to pick the right answer and then explain
why you picked the answer and is more interested in the argument
not just the answer. What does this mean? Not sure, I know
I'm answering the answers right but he wants us to argue why
we picked that answer, like example what is euthanasia mean
answer means god death, then why it is so. Could you please
help me of what he expects on my explanation?
What is Plato's Theory of Forms? How does Plato's Theory
of Forms illustrate the influence of both Parmenides and Heraclitus?
what is continental philosophy as compared to analytic
How is knowledge different from belief? In answering the question,
say something about the relationships between knowledge and
truth, on the one hand, and belief and truth, on the other
hand. Also try to say something about the different criteria
for judging something to be knowledge as opposed to belief.
A question similar to this one has already been asked by someone
else, however it was in my opinion not answered in the original
spirit of the question.
Gdels incompleteness theorems as far as I understood them
showed that no system of human logic can prove its own consistency.
This is also obvious to common sense because every logic accessable
to manking requires a reason for everything it postulates.
Therefore it also needs a reason for its own laws to be true,
which cannot be given based on those laws, since those laws
have to be established, i.e. reasoned to be true and existing,
So it seems to me that when one tries to explain reality by
human logic one must conclude that there is at least one "Something" (in
the broadest sense of the word) which is illogical in the
sense that it is not bound by the laws of human logic and
therefore does not require a cause or a reason for it to be.
Since this "Something" is illogical and humans have only logic
and empirical observation to describe reality (or guess on
reality) no describtion of this "Something" is possible for
us (unless we observe it empirically).
This would show that human logic can never explain reality,
i.e. answer the question "Why is there Something?" and that
either (A)we conclude that there is "Something" trancending
logic, which would not be far away from the concept of god
or (B) that human logic is initially flawed (since it is not
consistent) and we therefore can not know anything. Is this
Please explain the simile of the line/analogy of the divided
are all philosophers wise people
are all questions philosophical
How am I to perform what Husserl calls "Transcendental Phenomenological
Reduction?" I understand it involves suspension of the natural
thesis of "things as existing out there," but how am I to
actually perform this suspension? And what happens as a result
of performing it? My understanding of Husserl is that suspension
of this thesis should open up the field of transcendental
experience. But so far suspension has been for me an intellectual
effort to refrain from belief in the existence of the world;
it is not like I was opened up to a new sphere of experiencing,
especially experiencing the transcendental ego. What am I
missing here? Thanks
What is the "examined ethicalpolitical way of life" for which
Socrates is taken to trial by Meletus and which he defends
in the Apology?
I read in Kant's preface to CPR that, "All our knowledge must
conform to objects." What does this mean exactly? And what
does Kant refer to by objects?
2. Descartes ball of wax example is intended to show that:
Hi! I'm Raymond, a college student. I would like to ask some
stuff about free will since it's really confusing. I hope
you can ponder on this with me.
Can quantum theory in our decisionmaking be represented by
our indecision? I am just not that satisfied by the philosophy
that randomness is why free will exists. They argue that if
the latter were the case, our wholedecision making will be
random and chaotic. Something like that OTL
For another, regarding Benjamin Libet's experiments and Ted
Honderich's criticism on it, can it be true that our conscious
free will is not the fact that we can veto the agreement,
but rather the awareness that there exists the urges that
can lead to the following action? I don't know I am really
Related to the question above, what if free will is a concept
made by our brain? Since free will involves emotions and morals
to factor in our decisions, what if free will is actually
a set of reactions which comprise these morals that factor?
What if morals are just ideas made of a complex bunch of neurons
that can either inhibit or activate another bunch of neurons
which activates our decisions? Doesn't that help determinism
a lot more?
I hope you can shed some light in this really puzzling topic.
I just can't grasp it's understanding. Thank you if ever!
discuss "the problem of other mind". how do you know that
the person sitting next to you in class is not a robot?
discuss "the problem of other mind". how do you know that
the person sitting next to you in class is not a robot.
According to ST Thomas, the difficulty in performing an act
a. a measure of the goodness of the act
b. a measure of the goodness of the one performing it
c. a measure of gods delight in the act
d. one of the above
How does Russell's position on sensedata differ from Protagoras's
please describe the difference between Platos Allegory of
the Cave and Simile of the Line
Who is the greatest twentiethcentury philosopher and why ?
In what ways does Platos Allegory/Myth of the Cave relate
to ethics? Do you think Platos ideas successfully refute ethical
what is postmodernism?
Tiberius Meridius asked:
I have developed a point system for philosophers where I give
them points for insight varying from 100 to 5000. It is subjective
and arbitrary, but it has produced a top ten philosopher list.
Confucious, Democratus, Nietzsche, Tzu and Aristotle have
all scored well. My highest point getter is Jean Jacques Rousseau
by far. I would like Mr.Lawrenz's opinion of this great man.
This request must pass the 'moderator' who throws away 95
of my work. Aristotle said older minds become envious and
'contemptuous of opinons'. A tottering pride can set in as
well. Wrinkles on the face also end up on the mind. The mind
reaches it's prime at 49 according to Aristotle. I am 50 now.
Please let this through.
What is the difference between subjective idealism and objective
what is the Kantian critique of Quinns strong empiricism ?
Is morality the good life?
Hello. In regard to Nietzshe's theory of eternal recurrence,
is it more of a philosophy to stimulate people to live differently,
regardless of whether it is valid, or is the theory an actual
valid explanation of reality? Thanks very much.
juan abed mora asked:
necesito evaluar una teora (la teora de la realidad) por una
sociedad (autoridad)cientfica,la teora en si es de dos linas
probada en 7 paginas aproximadamente.gracias
Hiya, I'm Emma
Well basically at school, we're doing about philosophy, and
I've got to study some people views on the world?
I was wondering if someone could give me their response in
awnser to the question, 'Is this world all there is?'
I just want your opinion, thats all.
If you could help me it would be great
What is the highest good of a man?
what is eudomonia and how can one achieve it.
Akila buddhika asked:
Does innate ideas are ideas that are in born ?
Akila buddhika asked:
If we determined, the we lack the freedom necessary to be
responsible' is that true ? please I need an answer soon ..
When I challenged the usefulness of the idea of a priori knowledge,
a fellowstudent came up with this:
" I think what Kant has in mind in the essay on enlightenment
is probably something like moral or ethical knowledge knowledge
about how to live, about right and wrong. If this is what
"wisdom" means, then you might think that wisdom doesn't come
from the evidence of the senses we don't use sense perception,
either on its own, or supplemented with reasoning, to figure
out what's right and wrong. Kant, for his part, would have
held that view. He would have said that moral knowledge is
"a priori" knowledge knowledge that can be had independent
of experience. In particular, his famous "categorical imperative"
which says you shouldn't perform an action if you couldn't
coherently choose that everyone perform the same kind of action
is something he thinks you can know by reflection, without
any help from sense perception."
But I would suggest that ethical propositions can't really
be described as "knowledge". They are more like directions
or criteria. Furthermore, if they are to be germane to the
purpose of living a human life well, they must surely be derived
from observation of human behaviour at least that's what
a modern positive psychologist like Jonathan Haidt would say.
If they are generated a priori, and not from the appropriate
experiences/studies, then their value is a matter of luck.
Could their be some connection between this and the bachelor
status of so many philosophers?
Did Kant need to "get a life"?
What's more, I'm still confused by the apparent double meaning
of a priori.
When applied to reasoning it seems to mean much the same as
inference or deduction: going from what is known to something
which logically follows the opposite of a posteriori or induction.
But when applied to knowledge it means not derived from experience,not
going from what's "before", almost the opposite of the first
why is it difficult to show that a person has acted from duty?
Would you like to be given the ability to remember clearly
everything that has happened to you or that you have experienced
in your life?
Why? or why not?
What is the value of chess to philosophy?
Do we see things as they are?
Is there any moral principle that applies to all selfconscious
beings at all places and at all times?
Devise an ethical scenario and apply the 1st and 2nd formulations
of the Categorical Imperative. Do they both come to the same
moral conclusion about the right course of action? Explain
in 150 words
Why does Nietzsche say that there is something 'unhealthy'
in priestly aristocracies'?
which is more important, human or stars ?
Please explain what the quote from Socrates means, "The unexamined
life is not worth living."
In what way does Nietzsche think that the priestly form of
life has contributed to mans becoming of an interesting animal?
Is there such thing as a selfless act and if so, can you give
me an example?
What conclusions, if any, can one draw from the inverted spectrum
I saw the question 'is the world all there is?', and I have
a related question. Does it seem utterly plausible to suppose,
that given our current way of understanding, our current mode
of inquiry, our current notions of reality, we can continually
'go beyond' these? I mean, out of a wish to become ever more
intimate with reality. Or, alternatively, put it this way:
Is there any assumption about reality, or at least any idea
of what "knowledge" means, to which we seem limited?
Are there any outside forces that can act on us to limit our
free will? In the absence of these, does free will exist?
Provide one example of moral judgment and analyze it in terms
of utilitarianism. How would a utilitarian evaluate it? Do
you agree or disagree explain why?
What is the difference between Ontology and Metaphysics? The
reason I ask, in case this information is helpful, is because
Enrique Dussel in "Philosophy of Liberation" claims that his
philosophy of liberation is a metaphysics, not an ontology.
It was my understanding that they were the same thing (or
at least very close in meaning), therefore I was wondering
if I could have your thoughts on why he might have made this
Chris Reeves asked:
We would be doing a tutorial on introductory philosophy in
a school in New Jersey next week, and my professor gave these
as good starter questions for the students there. I would
like to explain them in the simplest way possible so as to
not complicate things as they are. (take someone who doesn't
have any background in philosophy.) Please help me. Thanks!
1. Why or when is something GOOD?
2. Why or when is something A WORK OF ART?
3. Why or when is something POSTMODERN?
4. Compare and contrast Authentic and Inauthentic Existence.
5. Is the Union of EGOISTS really possible?
6. Evaluate the CRITERIA of PERSONHOOD.
7. Aren't FEMINISTS marginalizing themselves?
What do you think? Is Plato/Socrates right, in that universals
are real? Or is Hume right, and there really is no such thing
as Red (but there are plenty of things that are colored red)?
WHAT DO I DO WHEN THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH KEEP OFFENDING ME?
Which philosophers inspired Isaiah Berlin and had similar
views on the concept of freedom as him?
Explain "WHY" in the philosophy the questions are more important
than answers? Also... Explain..Philosophy both personal and
In what sense is philosophy a rebellious activity?
What is meant by a 'disjunctivist' account of perception?
What is the case for disjunctivism?
Is the question whether or not a particular true belief counts
as 'knowledge' merely vague or a matter of degree? If you
think it is, what problem does that solve?
How intelligent do you need to be to study philosophy?
Why isn't there a Philosophers Party? (I mean in the political
What do you think of Nietzsche's theory of the eternal recurrence?
What is your favourite paradox and why?
I recently came upon your blog and had two questions that
I thought would be interesting to ask since I think it can
be very difficult to thoroughly answer:
What exactly is Relation R and how does is contribute to the
philosophy of happiness? Also, what is the difference between
free will and freedom and how do both play a role in the philosophy
How would Kant and Aristotle differ on the topic of retributivism
How do relativists and objectivists differ according to their
approach with respect to the problem of evil?
What do you call "real"? What do call "objective"? How
do you check the one and the other? Are collective concepts
like "God" or "justice" or "progress" in any way "real"?
In what way?
a definition of subjective turn in relation to karl marx
Hi my name is Jos and my question is the following:
A rally during an election campaign, a spokesman said: In
our country, there have been many robberies. Do you want to
continue with this insecurity? Or do you prefer to be able
to go out at night in peace ? So vote for the party X.". In
my point of view the fallacy we are facing here is a the argumentum
ad baculum because, in spite of being subtle, the spokesman
is threatening the audience to vote for his party. If they
do not do that they will feel unsafe.
A friend believes that the five human senses -- seeing, hearing,
tasting, smelling, and feeling -- are independent from one another
and from our judgments of people and the world around us.
Explain what is wrong with your friend's belief.
Given our discussions in class and your readings, take a position on
the mind-body problem; namely, do you think that there is a problem?
B) Present an argument for your position. C) Explain and discuss your
argument and position. Here, I am asking you to be little
philosophers and to present a position and argue for it. You
may draw from any material you like. But I want you to develop
your own position! Be careful to avoid doing the following: A)
do not beg the question regarding mind (dont just assume that
mind exists or does not exist), B) don't plagiarize.
For everyone it may concern,
I am Postgraduate student in Philosophy and I am writing an
essay about the essential characteristics of agency. Actually
I'm criticizing Korsgaard's notion that the characteristics
that constitute a person's agency are autonomy and efficacy
as she mentions at her book, Self Constitution. I believe
that only autonomy is a constitutive factor of agency for
two reasons: a)because in specific cases the Hypothetical
Imperative is a consequentialistic principle that maximizes
the goodness of a person's actions and b) because it can also
undermine a person's autonomy as it only dictates his reason
to follow a principle of his own causality.
Any possible responses about my theories are really welcome
because I'm on a small dead end to oppose Korsgaard's possib;e
responses to them.
What was Kant's position regarding free will? was he a libertarian
or a soft determinist?
What is a vacuum?
How can you solve the Third Man Argument? (IN EASY TERMS PLEASE)
What do you think of Augustines view that history is not random,
but follows a pattern? Do you agree with his emphasis on history
as a moral struggle between good and evil?
What would the philosopher Aristotle say about lying to a
friend to prevent an issue, or lying in general?
Example: Two of your friends are in a conflict because one
was overheard talking about the other. You know that friend
A did talk about Friend B, but it was in a private setting.
Friend B comes to you and asks you if friend A talked about
him/her. Do you lie to prevent a potential confrontation or
tell the truth to Friend B?
How many possible worlds are there?
what does lactation conceive as the natural condition of human
Did Marx think that the Polynesians living on islands in the
Pacific were part of history?
Why was Marx convinced that capitalism would fail? Why did
Marxism fail instead?
If a lion could speak, could we understand him?
Herman Hesse in 'The Glass Bead Game' describes a game which
is played only by individuals of the very highest intellectual
attainment. There is no point or purpose to the game other
than the game itself and its aesthetic beauty.
What is the difference between philosophy and the Glass Bead
Game? Is there any difference, ultimately?
If we knew, for certain, that the future held the prospect
of overwhelming misery for the human race, according to utilitarianism
should we all commit suicide?
What does one do when he has lose his self identity, by conforming
to society's ideals ?
Is the idea of 'properly basic beliefs' one upon which most
philosophers are agreed? What restricts the addition of any
belief to the basic set of PBB'S?
Does Aristotle's doctrine of virtue as a mean relative to
us imply that he really is an ethical relativist? Why?/Why
Does Aristotle's doctrine of virtue as a mean between extremes
imply that he believes in moderation in all things? Why?/Why
How did feudalism bring an organized political system to Europe?
How did feudalism contribute to social order?
suppose you are cruising toward a planet somewhere else in
the galaxy. from 100,000 miles out the place is spectacular.
lots of green, blue and white. a lot like earth. maybe
there is life.
a cloaking device allows you to land and move around undetected.
And there is life! the highest form looks much like an elk.
you see one 'elk' help strap a bomb around another elk. that
elk then walks over, stands next to other elk, and blows itself
immediately compassion arises because you now what else to
many elk are at war. millions are in prisons. the elk like
tv! favorite shows concern watching other elk die. and parades
question: why do these 'elk' behave like man?
your opinion of this concept:
existence cannot be conceptualized because it is prior to
thought. if existence cannot be conceptualized, it is not
an object. if not object, then not subject to time.
what appears as reality (object) is the unreal. like a cartoon.
flip the pages, the characters change positions, but nothing
actually happens. no 'thing' is doing anything. action but
conceptualization has no author. thinking but no thinker.
ask this: what's the next thought? what's the next thought?
there is no response. the mind is quiet. quiet because
an idea asks the question. I am not the thinker! the mind
is in the painting. how could 'it' ever identify the painter?
buddha called thought the 6th sense. I do nothing to see,
hear, taste, smell, feel, or think. I am powerless. the
powerless witnessing of manifestation. that's why jesus said:
'forgive them for they know not what they do' there is no
doer of deeds. thought, like any other object, appears spontaneously.
i am either the body/mind writing this or I am prior for it
is being experienced. I cannot be an object and prior to
it. like an apple cannot taste itself. therefore, I must
be prior to any idea. jesus also said: 'i am not god but
of god.' and nissargadatta: 'i take my stand prior to all.
I am the primal ground.
consider all that appears to occur an accident. there must
be a witness to testify to the accident. like standing on
the corner waiting for the car wreck. but there is no one
there, only witnessing.
what am i? what am i? inquire until it is seen that no one
is inquiring. when man sees that man is an idea, peace on
earth. for if no thought, identify the enemy.
a young boy asked socrates: 'if I am not thinker, what should
i do?' the reply: 'just go on thinking that you think.'
rest easy. whatever the station in life, it could be no other
How would you rate Heidegger as a philosopher?
According to physics, objects like a table are mostly empty
space. Does that mean that we are all under an illusion that
the familiar things around us are solid and real?
Someone once gave me a book called 'The Philosopher in the
Kitchen' ('La physiologie du gout') by Jean Anthelme BrillatSavarin
which I enjoyed reading. But I was wondering, Is there a philosophy
of food or cooking? (or eating?). Would it be part of aesthetics?
Anyone have any ideas?!
First of all, I want to apologize for my bad english.
My Question is about free will.
I want to belive in free will, I think the assumption of free
will is very important for ethical concepts like responsibility
and I think it's very important for the concept of human dignity
that humans are able to decide about their fate and that they
are not helpless bound into a strict causal chain.
But on the other hand, hard determinism seems logicaly true.
Physics works with determinism, and I don't want to get into
contradiction with natural science.
I am worried that I have no good, rational arguments for libertarian
free will, If I want to hold on to the concept of libertarian
Summarized, I want to hold on to the concept of free will,
but determinism seems logically better to me.
What should I do? Should I accept determinism, or belive in
some sort of compatibilist sort of free will? (besides, i
find the compatibilistic free will not satisfying)
According to the ancient Greek philosophers what is Love (Eros)
Alright, I have a small problem. I am applying to graduate
schools for my ph.d. My application is OK, decent grades,
great writing sample, but there's this one credential that
I definitely want to include but can't put on the online application.
These days, the applications are all online, and for a lot
of schools what you can't upload to the application, you can't
mail in either, because they simply won't accept it. I wrote
a book on skepticism and philosophical naturalism, and I am
getting it published by an academic publisher, and I desperately
want to include what I think is an important credential with
my application. I don't just want to mention the book on my
resume and in my personal statement, I actually want to send
it. I can send it to a couple of places, but other places
(that I want to get into) don't accept supplemental materials.
I'm definitely not bragging or anything, because my book has
a lot of flaws, but I think that if the admissions committee
sees the actual book that will definitely have a psychological impact,
and I want them to see it. How do I get around the problem
with a few schools that they "won't accept supplemental materials"
and (politely) get the actual physical book to the admissions
P.S. This is for admissions committees in the United States.
during the middle ages in europe, most people never travelled
more than 10 kilometres from their place of birth. what methods
of transportation were available to villagers? how does this
help explain why manors were isolated, selfsufficient organizations?
My name is Phil and I've been very recently wondering about
very disturbing stuff (including death anxiety) and I think
I'm past the worst of it, but I have some lingering questions.
Here's the background for one:
It seems when we examine real objects close enough, they become
illusory (for example, at the quantum level)
Also, the self seems to be an illusion in the strictest sense,
if by illusion we mean something that has no correspondence
in reality (for example a mirage caused by a heated surface,
when viewed from the correct perspective, seems to be a body
of water. But there's never any actual body of water there
corresponding to it in reality, its just a hot surface. In
the strictest sense, then, the illusion is generated by the
brain, and doesn't exist "out there".)
In a very trivial sense, this property of being "only generated
by the brain" also applies to the self, therefore seemingly
making it an illusion. And yet, the self is also real since
it actually exists, for example I think, therefore I am...
(I hope the self survives physical death, but I can't imagine
how since all we know about self is that it is generated by
the physical brain. But I'm comfortable with the possibility
that it does.)
So, in light of all of the above, what do you think is the
difference between reality and illusion?
What is logical space?
What is a spacetime worm?
In simple terms, could you explain the point that Strawson
makes in his article 'On Referring' against Russell's theory
of descriptions? Who's right, Strawson or Russell?
This is about the possible world interpretation of modal logic.
Why do we need modal logic?
And why are possible worlds needed for modal logic?
What ARE possible worlds, anyway?
How does Aristotle's understanding of 'the virtues' differ
from the Christian view? And how does this affect Aristotle's
conception of the nature of happiness?
Is truth a property? If so, what kind? If not, then what does
it mean to say that a statement is true?
Can a counterfactual analysis of causal statements be successfully
What is the meaning of a proper name?
According to P.F. Strawson, facts are 'what true statements state'.
What does he mean by that? How does this undermine the correspondence
It is held to be a criticism of utilitarianism that it 'has
no room' for moral dilemmas? What does that mean and why is
that a problem?
Discuss briefly some advantages and disadvantages of using
pictures that are low quality and pictures that are high quality.
Do you think that sometime in the future computers will cease
Can you please give me 3 philosophical questions and answers
PLEASE...formulate me a theory in understanding man's existence
based on the philisophies of the 3 oriental sages and greek
would it be possible to say that Ricoeur's christian belief
guided him into rebuilding Nietzsches deconstructed subject
in reference to the Other, making it the very constituent
of the self's meaning?
When one incorporates passion to create and striving of spirit,
then it seems that deterministic functioning would not be
psychologically acceptable and it would cripple a human being's
ability to excel in all its abilities. Humans need free will
in order to function optimally and humans certainly walk about
as if free will does exist. Therefore, it seems superiorly
more logical to believe that it exists and so it would be
categorized as a true mystery of reality. What do you think
of that argument?
Has Chalmers given sufficient reason for believing that the
hypothesis of a twin zombie Earth is conceivable? Does it
follow from its being conceivable that it is metaphysically
In the science fiction bodyswap scenario, what would it rational
to believe about the experiences one will have afterwards?
or can one believe whatever one wants to believe? Does it
make any difference?
What's the difference (if any?) between ethical, metaphysical,
epistemological or methodological solipsism? Are any of these
variations a real challenge?
Zeus inspired reference and awe in millions of people. But
he was not God. Or was he? Did those millions 'believe in
God' in the sense we would understand this, even though they
didn't realize that fact? Under what circumstances would it
be true to say that a true belief about Zeus (e.g. that he
lived on Mount Olympus) IS in fact a false belief about God?
Jackie (anon) asked:
what do you know about life.
What does Noam Chomsky mean when he says: Either you repeat
the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else
you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune.
I am doing a school project on ship of theseus I was wondering
if you could tell me how to incorporate aristotle's theory
of substance and form in it.
Awaiting your reply,
Was Kant a naturalist or a non naturalist what is the best
way of explaining Kant in relation to meta ethics?
what is beauty and morality?
I used to have a metal wire puzzle/symbol what was shaped
like a planet, a sphere with a wire ring around it. When you
manipulated the wire, it would turn shape, like a cylinder
and many other shapes and then return into a planet shape.
I used to have this object as it has been passed down the
family however it has been lost. My philosophy teacher once
said it had something to do with infinity, but I'm no longer
in contact with him.
What is this symbol/puzzle called? I would love to be able
to replace it.
Ayn Rand says that every moral theory must answer two questions:
a) what things count as good?
b) how should the good things be distributed?
According to Mill, how does utilitarianism answer each of
One objection to utilitarianism is that it places too much
emphasis on pleasure. After all, if we lived for pleasure
we would just spend all of our time eating and getting massages.
Such a life, according to these objectors is fit only for
swine. John Stuart Mill says that it is not utilitarianism
but these objectors who represent human nature in a degraded
light. Explain Mill's point here.
what is public administration
Is the goal of an argument to abuse the audience?
Are you familiar with James Rachels argument about Passive
and Active Euthanasia?
I need help about finding if the premises are stated or unstated.
in philosophy, why are questions more important than answers?
How can I prove to myself that I exist? Experience requires
one who experiences. Therefore, the one who experiences must
exist, as experience is observable. Where I hit a wall is
the problem of presupposing the "I" in my answer: "I must
exist." How do I know if I am the "I" in question? All I have
so far is that to ask the question "do I exist" somewhat negates
the premise of the question, because it implies subjective
understanding of the concept of "I", which something that
does not exist cannot have. But it still doesn't necessarily
prove that I am the "I" in question. Now, don't get me wrong,
in my heart of hearts, aside from all of this, I know I exist.
It's just maddening because I can't get outside of my own
perceptions to prove it (which I supposed is proof in and
of itself, as no person who exists can).
what is the answer about this question?
* The Prophet: you have to know the philosophy of Gibran Khalil
Gibran about unity and explain the marriage episode from the
book and explain it in details to illustrate his philosophy
and what are the factors that have made The Prophet a word
It it possible that there is no cause-and-effect, but only
causes and effects?
What is the power to the claim?
Can we say only what God is not?
I need to compare and contrast Plato, Confucius, Locke and
Rousseau based on the ONE MOST important GOAL of education
Last night, a friend of mine referred to something as a: "True
fact." My response was: "Isn't it redundant to say something
is a true fact?" And aren't facts true? Are there false
facts? As you might imagine, some people argued that facts
can be lies or false. I remain resolved that a fact is true.
To be factual is to be true. Facts can not be false. Am
What's a specific example that vindicates Berkeley's view
that reality is only in the mind and not outside the mind.
What exactly is a moral dilemma? Is it just a difficult moral
decision? What is it about dilemmas that prevents them from
being resolved by appeal to a moral theory like utilitarianism?
Pierre is unable to decide whether to join the Free French
Army or stay at home and look after his widowed mother. Can
he be helped by appeal to an ethical principle or theory?
How does the theory of fatalism relate to the theory of determinism?
Could there be a world where fatalism was true and determinism
was false? or a world where fatalism was false but determinism
What EXACTLY did Anaxagoras mean when he said that 'all things
have a portion of everything'? Does this even make sense?
The knowledge of the truth, does it necessarily entails the
dispersion of illusion?
Are reason and imagination two separate,antithetical entities?
Are there some
situations or contexts in which they get interrelated?
In the Apology by Plato what does the reference to the horse
Socrates: Then every Athenian improves and elevates them
i.e. the Athenian youth; all with the exception of myself;
and I alone am their corrupter? Is that what you affirm .
. . I am very unfortunate if that is true. But suppose I ask
you a question: Would you say that this also holds true in
the case of horses? Does one man do them harm and all the
world good? Is not the exact opposite of this true? One man
is able to do them good, or at least not many the trainer
of horses, that is to say, does them good, and others who
have to do with them rather injure them? Is not that true,
Meletus, of horses, or any other animals . . . happy indeed
would be the condition of youth if they had one corrupter
only, and all the rest of the world were their improvers.
And you, Meletus, have sufficiently shown that you never had
a thought about the young: your carelessness is seen in your
not caring about matters spoken of in this very indictment.
Can you please explain Denis Diderot's philosophy?
Is one of the reasons there are no time travellers visiting
us (the general public) in the past because time travel is
never seriously researched, given the stigma attached to the
subject, and thus is never invented? Could there be other
reasons, such as future government regulation/monitoring or
limited use as another reason for no time travelling tourists
in the past or present so to speak? Thank you for your time.
Hello! My name is Kimberly and I am currently conducting a
research project on Plato. If you could please answer some
of these interview questions I have prepared, that would be
1. What are some major works that Plato engendered?
2. How did Plato's works shape/contribute to modern society?
3. What are some shocking/vaguely known facts about Plato?
4. What are some philosophies/beliefs that Aristotle, Plato,
and Socrates share in common?
Thank you for your time and patience, it is greatly beneficial!
Believing that the mind was somehow separate from the body
allowed people to believe... what?
so.... I'm a regular high school student who has run across
the problem of not knowing what a monad is I try so hard to
understand what Leibniz what trying to explain but it seems
like monads are just a substance of everything. They're described
as if they are alive yet they don't exist and at the same
time they already know what they're suppose to do yet still
nonexistent..*sigh* i'm trying to understand it all but in
a way I can't please help!
What similarities and/or differences do YOU see between Taylor's
"Meaning of Life" and Plato's Apology ("Defence of Socrates")?
Hey there, I'm A2 philosophy student and I'm currently struggling
with the substance dualism essay. So I thought you could help
me by stating the basic principles of the theory, strengths
and weaknesses and alternative theories. Also I'm not sure
how to structure the essay (this seems to be my main problem).
I'm currently using this structure: P1 strength + weakness
+ rebuttal and so on. Thank you so much for your time.
i want to know about holes fallacy
actually I want to know a hole of donuts are for donuts or
they are separate from them
How can you know you have a body if you can't know anything
evidential about the external world
Why do we feel the need to do something
When a person given unselfishly for the welfare of others,
it is called altruistic. A person also gives to someone because
it makes them feel good, but this is selfish; For if a person
gives for another persons welfare, and the recipient does
not make use, or appreciate the gift, which would positively
affect their own welfare, then the giver will not feel good;
in fact they will surely feel frustrated or worse, angry.
These feelings are created because the desired outcome of
the giver was not fulfilled. Therefore, with an expectation
of the desired outcome, the person is not giving altruistically.
Why then, should people give?
If a man is starving and I give him food, to feed his hunger,
yet the man throws the food in the garbage, should I be frustrated?;
for if I am, then the act of giving was not altruistic. In
other words, I did not give the man food without any concern
for myself; I gave him food on the condition that I would
not be frustrated. Was my giving an act of altruism?
The fundamental objection to materialism is that sense perception
is unreliable, so our empirical knowledge of the world is
faulty. true or false?
If you try to fail and you succeed which have you done?
Why are stair called 'stairs' inside but 'steps' outside?
Could someone die as a result of suffering a great amount
If a tree falls in the forest but nobody is around to hear
it does it make a sound?
I refer to a previous question about artificial intelligence.
My question is : Is artificial intelligence possible to advance
without the help and interference of a human pro(read intelligent)
( refer also to the major controversy in Pasteur's and Darwin's
age ( the abiogenic generation of life).
The question put in a different way: Only intelligence can
create intelligence ? True or false?
Who determines whether a society is civilized or not?
I would like to ask what the main contradiction is in Plotinus'
Enneads, mainly his concept of beauty. I want a solid contradiction
towards one main point in Plotinus' Enneads.
In what ways does Platos Allegory/Myth of the Cave relate
to ethics? Do you think Platos ideas successfully refute ethical
The wind blew a leaf off of the tree.
Part 1: Plato and Aristotle held different philosophical positions.
Using the example quoted above, present both of their metaphysical
and epistemological positions. (Note: this requires four positions
to be explicated.)
Part 2: Defend Plato against the following objection: Platos
metaphysical position inadequately accounts for the leaf blown
off of the tree.
Part 3: Defend Aristotle against the following objection:
Aristotles metaphysical position is inadequate, because that
which is most real is the Form Leaf.
Part 4: Finally, if you agree with Aristotle, reply to the
answer you wrote in Part 2 by exploring and arguing a creative
and new solution to one aspect of the problem. On the other
hand, if you agree with Plato, reply to the answer you wrote
in Part 3 by exploring and arguing a creative and new solution
to one aspect of the problem.
I have no idea on this wind blowing the leaf off of a tree
any advice would help
David Hume and other empiricists make the assertion that if
knowledge claims are limited to things we already know with
logical certainty, we will never be able to know anything
about the nature of mind independent world because:?
A) The actual existence of things in the world is known only
B) Simply by thinking or reasoning we can know specifically
which things exist
C) Things in the world cannot be known to exist unless they
previously existed in some mind
D)The existence of things depends on their having been created
by some prior cause, God
What is the underlying motivation for doing anything, what
matters in human life, besides instinct what reason is there
to do anything. They are all the same question, I thought
life had no point so all that mattered was being happy and
enjoying your existence, but I don't know why being happy
matters. This question is asked to get the ultimate underlying
reason for any action in life.
Reason, not an instinct.
Is J.S. Mill right to claim that the only thing we desire
ultimately is happiness?
What would Berkeley make of descartes reasoning concerning
not trusting your senses and the wax example?
If the human brain runs a program, what would happen if you
upgraded the operating system?
Any ideas how one might do it?
Could the study of philosophy be considered an 'upgrade'?
Hobbes thought that the state of nature is the way it is because
human beings are essentially bad, untrustworthy creatures?
The second principle that Rawls thought would be articulated
from the original position, the difference principle, encourages
us to disseminate opportunities to those who dont deserve
them on the basis that they were rendered unequal due to circumstances
beyond their control?
Rawls original position forces us to consider whether or not
we are unduly privileging one group over another when we articulate
social policy, and in so doing helps to achieve Rawls vision
of justice as fairness?
What's the average time of completion, of your program; all
the way through to the BA degree?
People play games, especially in romantic relationships. Is
game playing defined as lying, leading on, assumimg person as a
defense mechanism, a sign of psychpathology or, even, possibly
unconscious and not even realized by the game player?
What is Plato's theory of knowledge concerning the Good in
his Simile of the Line?
if a person says they would feel like a criminal if they
were to do some sort of action, is it right for me to assume
that they feel like I am a criminal for doing that action
or just that they feel I should also feel like a criminal
for doing that saaction? If the action is not a criminal act
under the law is it an act of slander for them to make such
statements? in your answer , can you refer to any analogy
in order to demonstrate what I'm trying to get at? here's
one of my own : an artist says in a magazine: I would feel
like a con artist and a cheat to the public if I were to paint
using photographs as a reference.is it right for me to assume
anything from that statement?
which of the following is purely logical relations and which
are real?Giving reasons in each case.
2.our future life
What kind of knowledge (a priori or a posteriori) did Descartes
discover in the cogito argument, and how much help is it in
defeating skepticism? What more is required in order to have
knowledge of the real world?
What would Berkeley's argument be against Descartes wax argument?
Would he say the sensory properties are not different in the
solid wax and the melted wax? How would his continuity theory
come into the argument?
Discuss the meaning of the Socratic maxim "Know Thyself" as
a moral imperative. What is the nature and significance of
the debate over the ontological status of the Good in Plato's
what are the negative part of questioning government, society
I had the following philosophy questions concerning patriotism
versus "cosmopolitanism" or internationalism
(1) When is it ethically right for individuals and governments
alike to show more concern for foreigners or people in other
countries than for fellow compatriots, country men / country
women / country people / citizens?
(2) When is it ethically right for individuals and governments
alike to show more concern for our fellow compatriots / country
men / country women / country people / citizens than for foreigners
or people in other countries?
(3) Do utilitarians and cosmopolitans really believe that
governments and countries should refrain from helping their
citizens who experienced any sort of political or legal injustice
obtain redress if it meant that it would help many more foreigners
obtain redress for the graver political or legal injustices
they have experienced?
(4) Could you view yourself as a cosmopolitan, an "internationalist,"
or a "citizen of the world or of Planet Earth" and still embrace
the "positive" aspects of nationalism or how countries / governments
see it as both their legal and ethical obligation and prerogative
to look out for their citizens who were both within and outside
the territory over which they hold jurisdiction?
In what respects do the ethical theories of Plato and Aristotle
stand in sharp contrast and in what respect are they alike?
In what way does each Philosopher offer ethical or sensible
guidelines for determining which beliefs and actions are proper
or practical? How St. Augustine's Christian moral philosophy
shows the influence of Plato? How St. Aquina's Christian moral
philosophy shows the influence of Aristotle?
Hui Fei asked:
Hi, I'm Hui Fei, and I'm just wondering,
Is it possible to create a computer that recognizes similarities
and links those information together?
I still have a few questions to ask regarding AI, if you don't
Here are some further philosophical questions concerning "cosmopolitanism"
or internationalism and patriotism:
(1) Is it all right to be patriotic as long as one's patriotism
didn't get in the way of one's concern for people in other countries
and pressing international issues? (i.e. human rights, terrorism, war and
peace, environmental and animal welfare issues, international poverty
(2) Should people think it would be okay for countries
to "watch the backs" of their citizens within and outside of the territory
over which they had jurisdiction as long as they did it by DIPLOMATIC
means ? ( i.e. by means of embassies and consulates.).
Here are some further philosophical questions concerning "cosmopolitanism"
or internationalism and patriotism:
(1) Did you think diplomatic / consular support to so
called "internationals" or foreign nationals is unfair (particularly
in particularly "repressive" countries) since the "nationals"
or citizens of those countries had no one in their corner
to call on for assistance and they were more apt to languish
in prison for years facing possible torture, or did you think
support from foreign embassies / consulates "evened things
out" for the foreign nationals since they may be at an "unfair
disadvantage" by virtue of their being in a country that was
not their own?
(2) Did you think it was all right for individuals and
governments to show particular special concern for fellow
compatriots/ county men / country women / country people /
citizens who experienced political / legal injustices overseas
along the lines of being arbitrarily detained / falsely imprisoned
as "quasi" or "virtual hostages?"
(3) Should people be okay with being patriotic but have
more of an issue with "extreme nationalism?"
What is your philosophy of computer games?
I presume this is everyone's 00.2 on this or how if "identifiable
fellow compatriots" or "identifiable fellow almost compatriots"
(who would actually be the "internationals" or the foreigners)
and either the identifiable or statistical people in other
countries ( who would be the citizens of the countries with
the "human rights issues" ) were enduring human rights abuses
and civil liberties breaches overseas or in other words, legal
and political injustices, e.g. arbitrary detainment, being
held as "political hostages", that individuals and governments
could show concern for both groups. I presume everyone would
also find that showing special concern for "identifiable fellow
compatriots" and "internationals" on the part of individuals
and governments, governments in particular would be justifiable
in this sense or jurisdictional issues would get in the way
of greater action on behalf of the "nationals" or the citizens
of the countries with the "human rights issues."
Thanks again. Valerie Nemeth
Hello again everyone,
I was looking for everyone's 0.02 worth with respect to the
obligations of individuals in and governments of relatively
"free and democratic" countries had towards people in "politically
oppressive dictatorships." I presume that in addition to protecting
and looking out for the citizens of those "free and democratic"
countries who are abroad in the "politically oppressive dictatorships,"
the governments of the relatively "free and democratic countries"
were ethically compelled to promote and encourage greater
progress in human rights, civil liberties, and democratization.
I presume the governments of the Western democracies are also
ethically obligated to support prodemocracy resistance movements.
As far as the citizens of the relatively "free and democratic"
countries are concerned, I presume they have an ethical obligation
to support groups like Amnesty International.
Thanks again. Valerie Nemeth
Can we defend the notion of the present?
I would like to criticize or reflect over the phenomenon or
concept that a exam is. To be assessed by another human being
must surely have philosophical implications. Even though teachers
have certain criteria to follow still onces perception can
be deceptive. Also I find that a graded exam presupposes something
about the nature of man one which apparently is right; that
one need incentive to strive forward, and in this lies the
risk that one only becomes good at getting good grades which
requeres a certain logic, and not so much on the studied field,
and is left in a somewhat demoralised position afterward,
having learned succes in a instrumentel way. So I guess I
am asking several questions here:
is there a philosopher who is dealing with assessment not
in taste and morals, but in general?
Is there a philosopher who can see how a situation like an
exam can corrupt a youth, making them care less about knowledge
and more about the game of winning having learned a strategic
way of life?
Something about pretending, performing and being motivated
by the wrong things, and maybe not as an individual as much
as a member of a collective
Thank you on beforehand
Sorry about the spelling
Why does life suck so much? Not just my life, but everybody
else's lives as well. No matter what we may do, we'll occasionally
ask why we're doing what we're currently doing. We answer
with a chain reasons that leads to some goal that we made
before, but have forgotten why we made that goal or why it
is we want that goal. Perhaps we do remember, but then aren't
sure what we'd do once we get there. All the while, you realize
you've wasted time setting and breaking goals and accomplishing
some that now seem meaningless. That wasted time, you realize,
withers away your youth and brings you closer to death's door.
Knicky Thompson asked:
Does ethical relativism follow from culutural relativism ?
If so how ?
I was wondering if someone has read Michael Dummett's "Bringing
About the Past" and actually understood his arguments. I am
not a newbie to philosophy, but I thought this article was
quite hard to grasp. I was first presented to this article
5 years ago, when attending a course in epistemology/philosophy
of science at the University of Oslo, Norway (a bachelor course).
Since then I've been attempting to undertand it without success.
And I don't know where to look for a nottootechnical explanation
of his article either a (long enough) summary, or a stepwise
explanation. Every response to the article "Bringing About
the Past" either is way too technical or picks out some specific
feature. And that, I feel, is of no help.
I "understand" the beginning of the article what he means
by our predjudice when it comes to the future and the past,
that it's only because the asymmetry idea is too deeply ingrained
in us, that we have to (or better, for argument's sake, try
to) free ourselves of our predjudice about asymmetry. But
from here and on I get COMPLETELY lost I cannot reproduce
his argument(s). Don't know if my lack of understanding hinges
on my interpretation of the phrase "bring about", which I
take to mean "cause to take place" (implying replacing whatever
event/circumstance was already present in the past) I can
see no other good interpretation of the phrase "bring about."
You, of course, have the special case where no event/circumstance
already was in the past, in which case "bring about" would
imply replacing nothing, i.e. replacing/filling up some empty
time/space stretch with some event/circumstance.
Taking "bring about" to mean just what I did above implies
quite strange results (but actually not more strange than
ridding oneself of the conception of asymmetry between future/past).
One could ask (a natural question for any rational person)
: how can one generalise this ? If this is not a special case
of prayer and this particular tribe that Michael uses, then
it must apply to everything ? We could pick literally any
example and play with it. For instance, I could (in principle)
cause myself not to be born in the past, which would yield
the strange (but not more strange than annulling the conecpt
of asymmetry between past/present) result of me dissappearing
right now in the present (or perhaps like in "Back to the
Future", where the body dissappears in a stepwise fashion
right before the protagonist's (Michael J. Fox's) eyes).
Or I could kill Michel Dummet when he was alive before he
produced this article, which in turn would remove the CAUSE
for me sitting here and wandering what the hell Michael (Dummett)
Since this conclusion seems TOO absurd to me, I am inclined
to think that I made the wrong assumption somewhere along
the line, or that my reasoning just went astray (or it seems
that this is how philosophers argue if a conclusion disagrees
with intuition, then the conclusion goes over board, not the
intuition). But I still maintain the importance of understanding
this article as it must have caused a lot of havoc when it
was published. And if it caused havoc (I know there exists
many responses to this article), it must be because the article
made an impression by bringing up something profound.
Anyways, I have attempted to explain to the best of my ability
what I wonder about and hope that someone could throw some
light on the issue.
Can you think of any way for Locke to defend his claim that
substances exist but that we do not know what they are? How
would Locke respond to Berkeley's conclusion that we can know
Rene Descartes, the father of the western canon of philosophy,
reestablishes his system of beliefs because of his famed statement
corgito ergo sum. Where is the place of the thing that thinks
in Locke's system? Explain the standard form and how it applies
to systems of Descartes and Locke.
Is it true that you only become a real philosopher when you
accept your own suffering? If you don't weep with your heart
how can one even dare to call oneself a philosopher?
Becoming a philosopher is the greatest catharsis ever, isn't
I hoped you wouldn't mind giving me your "take" or 00.2 worth
on these matters concerning impartiality and whether or not
one ought to show special consideration for one's fellow compatriots
or for foreigners read : people in other countries especially
as far as situations involving human rights are concerned.
I find I was still interested in matters such as whether or
not the embassies / consular offices and those of democratic
countries in particular could still justifiably look out for
just their nationals in cases of countries that were either
"politically repressive" or "semi democratic" when the nationals
of those countries may be at the mercy of the governments
of their countries and also have no one to look out for their
rights and interests and whether or not governments and countries
could even justifiably look out for their nationals abroad
in situations where "considerations of humanity and humanitarianism"
ought to trump "considerations of nationality and citizenship."
Here is another one for the "Ask The Philosopher" page: I
couldn't help but wonder if a consequentialist would no doubt
feel that countries should refrain from letting their overseas
embassies / consulates / consular offices and diplomatic missions
defend and advocate for their overseas nationals and citizens
and their lives, rights and interests, if it meant that those
overseas embassies / consulates / consular offices and diplomatic
missions could defend and advocate for a larger number of
foreigners whose lives, rights and interests were at greater
risk and peril.
I am having a hard time understanding Augustine's three refutations
to skepticism. what exactly are they?
I heard a statement that if ought cannot be derived from an
is, it is not wrong to hurt someone? Any idea lol Thanks
I am asking if you believe the following two arguments are
P1: A position which leaves you with only two incorrect options
cannot be correct.
P2:(q) is a position which leaves you with only two incorrect
C: (q) cannot be correct
P1: Both (r) and (n) are incorrect
P2: If you deny or disbelieve in (q), then your only two options
are (r) and (n).
P3: (position a) denies or disbelieves in (q).
T: (position a) is incorrect
who claims that claims the body and mind, which are made
up of different substances, interact both harmoniously and
competitively in a living person. Which philosophers work
This is my take on "when a person who sees him or herself
as a "cosmopolitan" could justifiably not "disregard his or
her patriotic concern for his or her fellow compatriots /
co nationals / country men / country women / country people
/ citizens "for the greater benefit of the world,"" or when
those people unexpectedly took seriously ill, became accidentally
injured, wound up *unjustifiably* "locked up abroad," or otherwise
met with some other* undeserved *misadventure overseas and
they needed their fellow citizens and compatriots to clamor
for their country's consular office or embassy to come to
their assistance, though the world may have had "more pressing"
human rights issues and other concerns that needed to be addressed.
I suspected that in theory at least, most foreign service
officials would feel "duty bound and compelled" to intercede
for their "fellow nationals and citizens in dire straits abroad,"
though their involvement in their country's foreign service
may have given them an outlook that was more "cosmopolitan."
Explain Hobbes justification for a government with absolute
authority. Do you think that his call for an absolute government
is merited? Relate your arguments with present day examples.
Elaborate Lockes idea of toleration. Critically analyse how
the society from which you come from can draw lessons from
Lockes arguments on toleration.
There is a question I promise...
I have noticed, at least in my corner of the universe, that
we like to throw around a lot of ideas about the way of things
as it is, was or should be. Yet it seems people feel compelled
to float in a land of intentional error or omission.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND: As much as I have studied and tried
to eliminate bias in my personal thought patterns dont think
that I dont fear this about every one of my own conclusions
I truly feel that the majority of all problems are caused
either by ourselves or other humans usually through a misinterpretation
of information, deliberate omission or distraction. And the
majority of all problems and questions (regarding humans)
have answers that are simple and obvious if we choose for
them to be. Communication, language specifically, is the vector
for ideas to spread through the vast human neural network.
I believe that what we contribute is important.
I strive, when I communicate to avoid lying (anything untruthful)
as much as I feel possible, to be accurate and (because of
a mental defect that causes my lips to flap too much) thorough.
I have found, however, that the majorityish of the time people
respond to (trying to make) truthful, accurate and thorough
statements anywhere on a continuum from anger and pain to
I enjoy (need really) the pleasure of mingling amongst humanity.
This is not that easy for me given my above stance. My culture,
and it seems to hold in the others I have studied, has such
a convoluted way of solving problems and uptaking/reuptaking
information it seems rude usually to convey the direct truth
as one sees it (unless their truth is a close match to the
one the hearer is listening for). Even indirect truth can
be upsetting if its veil is thin enough to be seen though.
Why then would one even speak it?
Because our upbringing and supposed social values tell us
to be truthful but social convention tells us not to. So
we make silly middle ground statements which create no cognitive
dissonance for ourselves or others because they are mostly
bland and useless.
This brings up (what for me) looks to be a pivotal question
regarding my path:
1.Morally it seems right to me to communicate in a way that
is at least a good effort at addressing that which is going
on or being queried in said truthful and accurate manner.
2.Morally, as I dont believe in souls, it seems right to me
that I should (as wisely and decently as possible) snap up
as much pleasure in life before I cease to exist.
3.Much of the pleasure in my world comes from human interaction.
4.Point 1 leads to significantly less positive human interaction
than I would like.
What Say You?
Your thoughts are most appreciated and will be well considered.
P.S. (another aspect)
It seems that we grade wisdom from others based on how emotionally
confident they seem about what they are saying. This makes
sense on a cursory level, yet I think what it eventually promotes
is many statements, due to social pressures, that are made
with false confidence. When trying to give an accurate answer,
attacking the problem from many angles and leaving food for
their thought, I think that I am often perceived as less emotionally
confident and thus less wise (or perhaps just less emotional
and thus seem less convicted).
Should one act confident falsely to please the person even
at the expense of giving the best advice they can?
How does Jerry Fodor argue for functionalism in The Mind-Body
I found I was interested in this philosophical matter of whether
or not countries could justifiably look after purely and exclusively
just their citizens overseas and the related matter of whether
or not they should devote their diplomatic resources to looking
out for their citizens overseas or encouraging greater democratization
and progress on human rights.
I have this idea about Ethics, and I want to know if it is
original, or if other philosophers have discussed ethics in
this way. Also, any critique would be appreciated.
The underlying assumption is that all actions can be described
in moral terms (good/bad). This is much similar to Aristotle's
view that "all actions aim at some good," except I replace
"good" with "goal" or "purpose." So, if this is the case,
then whether or not an action is good/bad could be determined
by whether or not that action achieves it's "goal," or fulfills
its "purpose," would be another way of putting it (similar
to Consequentialism I suppose). And if this is the case, then
couldn't (at least in theory) a universal morality be established?
For example, we could explain actions in the way that they
relate to a purpose/goal, and then make more generalized moral
judgements about those actions. So, for instance, we could
say that "all actions that are beneficial to one's health
are good." And likewise continue to do the same thing with
other purposes. Now, I understand that other things would
be involved, such as motivations, intentions, etc., and that
things would get complicated with more complex behaviors because
some behaviors have more than one consequence (many of which
are unforeseen), and because many behaviors may serve more
than one purpose/cause, but I still think it's at least possible
My way of looking at this is that morality can be defined
on universal terms (at least some universal moral statements
are possible) and that morality itself is subjective. There
just happens to be some overlap that all of us would have
in common. So in essence, each individual person's morality
could be validated by whether or not the action achieves the
desired consequence. This could also be done on a bigger,
global scale in more generalized terms. For example, it may
be possible to say that "killing an innocent person is wrong"
(universal), but whether or not a person is innocent is subjective.
So one person may feel justified in killing someone, because
he/she doesn't view that person as being innocent, but another
person may believe that that person is innocent and therefore
believe that killing that person is wrong.
Schopenhauer in the world as a will suggests that the fear
of death is completely equal to the will to live. What is
more, he believes that the fear of death or the will to live
is irrational and it is even irrational to justify it because
animals and all orginac matter obtains a will to live, and
animals and trees cannot think rationally therefore its irrational.
I want to refute the notion that it is irrational to justify
the will to live merely because animals have it. Can you please
help me with and argument to refute this claim.
Much appreciated! Thank you
Can existence not be?
Good afternoon. I have some questions about history I hope it's
no inconvinience. I want to understand the nature of human
history, if such a thing is possible. 1st what does/ should
it study, human action or human ideas through time, power
and politics or the works of people in time. Human nature
or the evolution of man(socially). How does interpretation
of history affect people's vision of the future. How can it
support universal indoctrination or ideology or lead to a
socially constructed moral scale. And if revolutions can be
a bridge from one era to another eg french revolution can
one argue that the Arab spring is drawing that part of the
world to the West. I hope my questions are not to many.
I agree with Hume that extreme scepticism about the outside
world isn't practical. ARE there any good arguments against
solipsism when not being practical?
what exactly are descartes' cosmological and ontological arguments?
Though it is standard procedure to value human lives according
to citizenship and nationality, I wondered if you also believe
in most respects that it seemed ethically unjustifiable to
do so and that people should give all people equal ethical
and other consideration regardless of what citizenship and
nationality they happened to have. I wondered in what cases
it was morally and ethically justifiable to value human lives
according to citizenship and nationality.
Which of the following problems affects our understanding
of justice? Whom we include and exclude in our communities.
Whether we focus on the community or the individual.
How we distribute the benefits of society.
All of the above
What is life?
Is it possible for anything to matter? My drama teacher says
if you make a mistake in a scene, don't worry about it because
no one will even remember it in a week. But can't that apply
to everything? If I jump off a bridge, sure my whole family
and friends would be devastated, but eventually they'll die
as well, and no one will even remember I existed in the first
place. If I cure cancer, almost everyone on the planet would
be affected, but it's only a matter of time before the human
race completely dies out, and nobody will be alive to remember
cancer at all, let alone who cured it. And with time, even
the Earth will die and the whole impact the human species
made on Earth will be entirely irrelevant. Even the Galaxy
will die some day! How can I feel like anything I do matters?
Does this justify suicide? Global warming? Am I thinking about
this totally wrong?
(I should probably add that I don't believe in life after
Hi , I'm very curious about the way modern society uses the
word abuse .
I made a claim that children who were obese through overeating
were being abused , this statement caused outrage . If we
starve a child it's abuse , if we stuff a child with junk
it's not seen this way , why is this so ?
"LOGIC IS A SCIENCE OF SCIENCE " explain in brief
In my Modern Philosophy class we have touched on Leibniz and
Descartes, from the readings I have a few questions.
the contradiction found in Descartes' Meditations II and III.
In Meditations II Descartes says that he cannot doubt that
he is a thinking thing. However in Meditations III, it appears
that he does doubt it because he believes that God may be
tricking him. How is it possible for him to believe both of
What for Leibniz, is the status for the Principle for the
Identity of Indiscernibles? Is it a Necessary Truth? a contingent
truth? a truth about any world God might create?
what would be a good way to use Confucianism as an example
of Susanne Langer's analysis of horizons in her book Philosophy
in a new key?
Hello, can you please explain what role Newton and Copernicus'
Theory played in the demise of classical beauty in art?
My second question, I hope this is allowed is: "Is all art
Thanks so much in advance great site :)
Does God believe in himself?
I had a few questions for you over the book I just read "Beyond
Good and Evil" by Nietzsche:
What position does does Nietzsche take on the value of egoism
and what position does he take on the value of pity?
Is Nietzsche's perspectival method effective?
What is the least appealing thing, in your opinion, to the
freespirited thinker Nietzsche talked about?
What is an element that Quine, Ranciere, And Jacob Burckhardt
I am preparing a paper on Kant, and have read and reviewed
some of his moral writings. It is well known that the Categorical
Imperative (CI) is one of the central elements of his moral
theory, even though it may lead to conflicting instances,
given its "rigidity" (like the famous example of the person
who lies to protect the lives of those hiding at his house).
I would like to write my paper on whether there should be
exceptions to the CI. Could you please suggest a paper by
a professional philosopher that focuses on this aspect, so
I can refer to him, and then provide my personal perspective?
Thanks in advance for your help.
david connery asked:
If the universe was created in a big bang .before light ,matter,and
time .if there was no time how can there be a before.if there
is no matter how can any reactions chemical or physical or
other occur .it is impossible to make something with nothing
.is our universe just one of many .in a cycle created out
of the death of another.Do you think the big bang was part
of another cosmic event .ie creation or death of other unknown
According to Kant, what are the three types of judgement and
what did Hume overlook?
I had a few questions for you over the book I just read "Beyond
Good and Evil" by Nietzsche:
What position does does Nietzsche take on the value of egoism
and what position does he take on the value of pity?
Is Nietzsche's perspectival method effective?
What is the least appealing thing, in your opinion, to the
freespirited thinker Nietzsche talked about?
In Section I of the Groundwork, Kant draws a distinction between
actions that are "in conformity with duty" and actions that
are "done from duty". In Book II, chapter 4, of the Nicomachean
Ethics, Aristotle draws a distinction between actions that
are merely virtuous ("having some quality of their own") and
actions done "in accordance with virtue". In what respects
are Aristotle and Kant drawing the same distinction? In what
respects do their distinctions differ?
Overall, what does socrates mean by wisdom in the oracle
im writing a philosophical essay, and I dont know what to
Please tell me, are objectivity, rationality and universality
necessary requirements for all philosophical truths? Are they
Could you please let people who are interested know where
(in which library/museum/monastery)the first known copy of
Plato's writings that are the origin of subsequent "versions"/translations
I don't know why I could not find this information in, for
example, the "introduction" of any old/new editions of Plato's
I have three questions
1) What is Confucius' role in the modern Chinese culture?
2) What is Plato's role in the modern education culture?
3) And if both of them have difference towards each other on
both of those cultures, how do you explain them?
what is relevant data that supports the inferences about
"Do we use 10 per cent of our brain?" Step by step explanation of how
data relates to topic.
What are the various ways in which one could go about trying
to demarcate science from pseudoscience?
how does Locke solve the problem with personal identity?
What is the answer to the old Greek riddle: "How do you know
that you're not dreaming right now?" Someone told me the answer
once, but I've forgotten it! Thanks
I have a question on the truth functionality of counterfactual
In his book, Methods of Logic, W. V. Quine states that,
Whatever the proper analysis of the contrafactual conditional
may be, we may be sure in advance that it cannot be truthfunctional;
for, obviously ordinary usage demands that some contrafactual
conditionals with false antecedents and false consequents
be true and that other contrafactual conditionals with false
antecedents and false consequents be false.
(Quine uses the term contrafactual; current modal logicians
substitute this for counterfactual, which I will use for this
However, Quine does not provide an explicit analysis of this
lack of truth functionality of counterfactual conditionals,
and the examples that I can conjure up seem to similarly apply
to material conditionals so that they no longer seem to be
truth functional either. (Of course, by truth functional,
I simply mean that the truth value of the whole statement
is determined by the truth values of the constituent parts.
In the material conditional, X gt; Y, the truth value of this
conditional is determined by the truth values of X and Y).
For example, suppose that Chris is currently in England. In
this case, the following two counterfactual conditionals both
have a false antecedent and a false consequent.
1. If Chris were in Toronto, then he would be in Algeria.
2. If Chris were in Toronto, then he would be in Canada.
Since Chris is in Mexico, then he cannot be in Toronto, Algeria,
or Canada. If counterfactual conditionals were truth functional,
then (1) and (2) would both be true (since a false antecedent
and a false consequent result in a true conditional). However,
it is obvious that (1) cannot be true, while (2) is true (Toronto
is a city in Canada, so that, if Chris were in Toronto, then
he would indeed be in Canada).
However, suppose that the same situation obtains in which
Chris is in England, but we simply change the tense of these
conditionals from the subjunctive into the present.
3. If Chris is in Toronto, then he is in Algeria.
4. If Chris is in Toronto, then he is in Canada.
But we have the exact same problem: Chris is in England, not
Toronto, Algeria, or Canada, so both (3) and (4) have a false
antecedent and a false consequent, meaning that both (3) and
(4) should be true material conditionals. However, once again,
(3) is clearly false, whereas (4) is clearly true.
I am certainly not one to contest against Quine, so I think
I have clearly gone wrong somewhere, but Im not sure where
my reasoning is flawed (and Im sure Ill be smacking myself
afterwards at how simple of a mistake I made). Any help would
be much appreciated!
are there different types of answers for answering the question
Alternatively stated, can the question "why" be subdivided
into different goal or answer seeking questions?
Is there a possibility of Metaphysics?
Do you know a good anticonsequentialist argument for the proposition
that it is wrong to tell a lie?
What is holism?
How does JS Mill's notion of utility relate to Aristotle's
What is 'the fallacy of irrelevance'?
was kant an empiricist
What is the philosophy that teaches:
"Do what you like without impacting others"?
I heard of this theory recently but I would like to learn
more about it. It seems like a better version of the biblical
"Do unto others"
Do penguins have knees? More importantly, should the average
person wear sunscreen (not literal sunscreen, but metaphorical)
or is this for successful people only? Also, is it possible
to have success and not be successful?
According to Patanjali, is it the Lord is the God who created
Is the Trees and Leaves Paradox an example of an a priori
or an a posteriori statement?
Could you please suggest two philosophers, preferably from
different periods, who have explored the role of the religious
mystic individual on influencing justice order of their time?
Can anyone here explain process philosophy?
Evaluate the contribution of Hilary Putnam to philosophy in
the 20th century.
Do philosophers still believe in the analytic-synthetic distinction?
Did Quine in his attack on the analytic-synthetic distiction
go too far or did he get it about right?
This is a question about ethical consequentialism and in particular
the views of Peter Singer. In your opinion, how many mature
orang utangs are worth the life of one newborn human infant?
What is an impossible world? What use, if any, does the notion
of an impossible world have in modal logic?
What is beautiful (aesthetics)
If a tree falls in the forest when nobody is around, does
it make a sound?
Will you please explain the importance and process of keeping
a personal philosophical journal/notebook?
Hi, I was wondering, do possibilities even exist? I was
thinking about the concept of choices, but I found that (rather
obviously) only one outcome can be presented. Does that mean
we exercise no choice of free will or that chance does not
exist as the outcome is only limited to one? By the above
theory, can I say that every moment of time is existent as
the future is already preset before us?
p.s. I'm 14 and my concepts may be seriously flawed....
Could one be selfish and a good Confucian at the same time?
Kant says actions have their moral worth in duty, one of our
deities is volition , or better known as what?
Andre Jose asked:
While no ideal persona has established for philosophers to
aspire to ... what ideal persona should a student of philosophy
aspire to if he or she wishes to become a "respectable ..."
I had a question about one of Nietzsche's sayings in "Human,
All Too Human". in "The Religious Life" Section 123 He says,
"There is not even religion enough in the world to destroy
its religions." I searched and thought a lot about this quotation
but I couldn't find the true meaning behind it. I wanted to
see if it's possible for you to give me a brief meaning in
a simple way.
Appreciate your help and consideration.
For the early Wittgenstein of the Tractatus, religious statements
a nonsense, because they do not 'picture' facts.
b meaningful in the clearly confined context of faith.
c are simply false, but not nonsense.
d meaningful, but neither true nor false.
In Famine, Affluence and Morality, Singer gives an argument
for the conclusion that "our moral conceptual scheme.. needs
to be altered" Formalise singers argument so that its a deductively
valid argument for this conclusion. Include missing premises,
sub conclusions, and conclusions (if there are any). Your
formalization should be 715 lines, where a line is a premise,
sub conclusion or conclusion.
Formalization needn't be formally valid, in the way propositional
logic is formally valid. However it still must be valid.
Article link here:
Please help me structure this?? I have no idea!
What exactly is metaphysical naturalism and what do you think
are the best arguments for and against it?
does morality or ethics cover up all phases of human life?
Who am I?
What is the truth?
What is reality?
What is imagination?
Why do we evolve?
Am I an ostrich?
How do Socrates and Nietzsche approach the topic of Truth;
how do they address it, how do their approaches relate and
differ (Significant similarities and differences), and how
are the two approaches incorporated into the life of today;
that is, what thoughts and questions does each approach raise?
What previous opinions do they confirm, help express better
or differently, or raise questions about? What issues do they
cause focus on? What difference, in thought, feeling, or action,
might each approach engage humans in making?
Why does Sober think that moral responsibility is compatible
with determinism ?
What is skeptical of if anything of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume's
theory of knowledge
I would like to get clarity on the concept of other in the
philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre
WHAT IS THE MOST CONTRIBUTION OF PLATO
I am trying to study logic, but I find it a little hard. can
you tell me where to start.
IS THERE FREE WILL
How can we prove that socrates lived his philosophy according
to apology by plato
How is philosophy related to justice?
How is philosophy related to justice?
Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality?
what can we make of existentialism and the fact that it was
one of the dominant philosophies of recent times? Are we to
conclude, with Sartre, that we live in a world without objective
values a world with no meaning in which we must take responsibility
for "creating our own essence"? What are the implications,
both positive and negative, of such a philosophy?
Hi. I am having trouble understanding the procedure of Kant's
categorical imperative. My professor gave all of us the following
Imperative=formula=relates universal law to imperfect human
will=determines necessary action=action not motivated by selflove
or desire for a particular result=based on form and principle
from which action follows=allows preservation and cultivation
of good will=obligation=practical unconditional necessity
for all rational being
I understand the imperative but what is the formula? I have
been listening to lectures on the internet and reading blogs
for two days and am still confused! Please help me.
If one choose to accept randomness as reality, how can one
determine order? In other words, if we are to begin to define
randomness do we also create order in the process. May a definitive
ever arise out of randomness.
Referencing to how scientists define laws and theories that
govern our reality, but how their understanding of the universe
is still a perplexing guess.
Kant was one of the first thinkers to realize the consequences
of Hume's relentless attack on the scope of reason" (Soccio
319). What is meant by Hume's attack on reason? What did Kant
do to counter this attack?
3.Compose an analysis of Kant's categorical imperative. Is
it is a useful moral rule? Why or why not? Detail at least
one pro and one con of the theory
human life is a never ending questioning and ansdering .
questions open many possibilities? explain.
to take of one's own body is to take of one's self? Explain.
Can fundamental questions (of any subject) have several answers?
If so, can ideas built upon these answers diverge into many
different ways of interpreting the subject?
Why didnt Noah swat those two mosquitoes?
How do you compare and contrast the concepts of determinism,
compatibilism, and libertarianism? What are the strengths
and weaknesses of these positions?
In what way is Plato's theory of the blending of Forms in
his later dialogue The Sophist an advance on his earlier view
about the nature of the Forms, or the nature of 'dialectic'?
Is Baudrillard a philosopher?
Tommy Ramone, the last surviving member of the seminal punk
band The Ramones died last week. I would love to see a philosophical
appreciation of the contribution of the Ramones to popular
Do meanings exist? If so, where are they (in the head? in
the world? in Platonic heaven?). If not, how do we succeed
in communicating with one another?
Give three examples of how academic philosophy is useful in
the contemporary world.
Is it wrong to love money?
Why? (This is our Philosophical assignment and nothing more
People speak of God dwelling within us. Suppose that was literally
true and God was at the core of all our individual identities.
Would that change the way you viewed the world and religious
Daniel Galarza asked:
2.Well as a problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience
there, is it possible to speak of demarcation between philosophy
Daniel Galarza asked:
Starting from the idea that there is no human activity that
does not contain problems and philosophical background assumptions,
and considering as true that popular science is a human activity
It may be conceivable "Philosophy of Scientific Disclosure"
as a new branch of Epistemology?
Daniel Galarza asked:
Considered valid How Mario Bunge's contributions to the philosophy
of science, especially in the study of the problem of demarcation?
posed by Kretzmann among others. In essence, if God is immutable
then then how can he know today is Friday and tomorrow know
that today is Saturday as this would mean that he's subject
to change to know one thing to day and another thing tomorrow
etc. I am puzzled by few things:
1. Why must God's experience of time equate to ours? As corporeal
temporal beings our experience is in the context of change
and time is something that we use in order to make sense of
our experience. But given that God is neither corporeal or
temporal why should his experience of time be the same?
2.Does this dilemma rest on an assumption that in order to
know something, one must have experience of it? There are
many things that God as a perfect immutable being would not
be able to experience such as regret or shame yet this doesn't
seem to pose a problem I have in mind Kenny's comment here.
Thanks for your help with this
Be able to compare and contrast Louis Pojmans article, The
Case Against Affirmative Action, and Luke Charles Harris,
and Uma Narayans article, Affirmative Action as Equalizing
Opportunity: Challenging the Myth of Preferential Treatment.
Compare and contrast James Rachels article, Punishment and
Desert, and, John Paul Wright, Francis T. Cullen, and, Kevin
M. Beavers article, Does Punishment Work? What is the main
argument in each article? How do they differ? Are there any
similarities? What are their conclusions? How do they get
to their conclusions (read as: what premises are used to make
Know what Marilyn Frye means by sex identification and how
it is present in sex marking, and sex announcement. Be able
to explain her main argument. What do those aforementioned
Based on Phil Washburn's Internalist or Perceiver?, what arguments
does he give that we cannot know the external world?
Based on Phil Washburn's No: Internalist, what are some of
the arguments that he gives why we can know the external world?
FRELYN MHAE asked:
IS HUMAN LIFE IIS A NEVER ENDING QUESTIONING ANG ANSWERING?
Hello,my name lucy and I was wondering what is beauty. One
of my friends is a camera man. And he use photoshop to make
a fat woman look skinny. I study logic and I know that there
is something morally wrong with this. The human race keeps
changing the rules of what is what in the world. So in this
generation is there something as beauty. I know I don't follow
the rules of society.
What is true beauty. I am studying logic, and I know the human
mind, as well as society keeps changing what beauty is. So
in the generation beauty is being skinny, big breast, flat
bottom, and ect. Many young girls are affected by this. But
know this is not right. Why, because if the idea of beauty
keeps changing. That means this idea of beauty is not a fact.
But in my opinion physical beauty is about keeping your body
healthy. And not to mention, what I find ugly, someone else
might find the beauty in it.
I'm struggling with Bernard Williams 'The Idea of Equality'.
Can anybody help?!
What, if anything, is added to our understanding of the concept
of truth by the observation that truth is the 'aim' of a statement
Sometimes when I wake up in the morning I have the answer
to a question about philosophy that was puzzling me. Does
that we are capable of philosophical thinking while asleep?
If I was annihilated and a mentally/ physically perfect copy
of me instantaneously came into existence on the other side
of the world, would that be a case of travel faster than the
speed of light?
What does it mean to say, 'Philosophy takes the roof off'?
Does the argument from illusion show that there are no differences
between the visual experiences involved in veridical perception,
illusion, and hallucination?
Am I here??
HOW DO I GET MY HEART SOUL MIND WORKING TOGETHER
IVE BEEN A VICTIM TO MY MIND ALL THISE YEARS HOW DO I BREAK
FREE FROM THIS PRISON?
Edwar arango asked:
What are the differences between neurophilosophy and philosophy
What is right and what is wrong?
Alan Turing in his 1950 paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence
(Mind 49: 433460) posited that to verify the proposition Machines
can think one must use an The Imitation Game, instead of
trying to (philosophically) define the terms machine or think,
since this would only lead one to, reflect so far as possible
the normal use of the words.. and that therefore this, attitude
is dangerous, given that there is a certain amount of semantic
alteration in any term over time and therefore no definitive
verification or answer to our question Can machines think?.
However, can one make a philosophical case that such statements
as x can y are statements of ability, and that therefore the
Turing test is not a substitute for philosophical investigation,
since this can must be decided in and for itself? Therefore
the question to which I would like some advice is, Can statements
of known ability, i.e. x can do y, be verified using an imitation
test which may confuse like with identical with?
Pinder & Bourgeois (1982, p. 650) recommend that "the goals
of an applied administrative science, like the goals of any
applied science, should include (but not be limited to) the
provision of advice to practitioners that is useful, precise,
and predicated on scientific grounds." To what extent does
this recommendation apply to postmodernist, poststructuralist,
and hermeneutical approaches to the social sciences?
I killed myself today. Did I inspire you yesterday or the
day before,or will I inspire you tomorrow?
Why is today TODAY and not TOMORROW?
What point was Hume trying to make with the missing shade
of blue in the Treatise of Human Nature?
Do we live in a language prison? Is there no escape?
Are there any philosophical problems which are insoluble in
principle? or maybe just not by human beings?
How do you rate Max Stirner?
Should we care what the state of the planet will be after
all animal and human life has gone? why? or why not?
If I try to kill someone and only injure them is that worse
or not as bad as trying to injure them and accidentally ending
up killing them?
Is it acceptable in today's postpostmodern society to lack
a passion; to not be passionate?
What is the difference between a conclusion that is "necessarily
true, but not false" vs. "necessarily false, but not true"?
They seem the same to me or is the answer based on probability?
In the same light, what is the difference between "probably
not necessarily false" and "probably but not necessarily true"?
Thank you, Joe
This question is related to argument identifcation by finding
the conclusion and premises. The conclusion for this argument
is that 'we should move to the most convenient and most practical
time system of all a single Earth Time for all of humanity.'
(as opposed to time zones). From the article about this, I
have identified what I think are the appropriate premises
below. However, I am unsure as to whether disproving or discrediting
time zones counts as a premise/support for the conclusion
that we should move to a single time? i.e. do statements 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 count as premises for the conclusion? Also,
should statements 8 and 9 be merged to something like 'Time
zones will allow us to communicate unambiguously with each
other about when we are doing things.' effectively deleting
statement 8? Lastly, are there any hidden/implicit premises
that I have missed? Thanks.
(1) Time zones cause more trouble than they are worth. (2)
It's time to do away with this barbarous relic of the past.
(3) It is difficult for people to collaborate across time
zone boundaries. (4) It is genuinely annoying to schedule
meetings, calls, and other arrangements across time zones.
(5) The need to constantly specify which time zone you're
talking about is a drag. (6) Commuting across time zones would
be more annoying still. (7) One time to rule them all will
not force California office workers to show up at the wee
hours of the dawn. (8) Within a given time zone, the point
of a common time is not to force everyone to do everything
at the same time. (9) It's to allow us to communicate unambiguously
with each other about when we are doing things. (10) Today,
however, we are very accustomed to the idea that time zone
boundaries should be bent for the sake of convenience and
practicality. (11) That means we should move to the most convenient
and most practical time system of all a single Earth Time
for all of humanity. (12) Its a simple, practical and logical
extension of why we created time zones in the first place.
Bob Sadino asked:
Suppose Dualism is true. Does it mean God must exist? If not
How do I distinguish between key philosophical terms
Do you know of anyone in the history of philosophy who maintained
the position that there were no " senseless questions " such
as " What time is it on the sun "? (Wittgenstein)
Well I am realizing I can't write out how I feel. But there
is the basis for my thoughts:
It is not a question of why we exist, but rather what is the
purpose of our existence?
If you are confused by this question... I guess I am asking
for the end game. what are we working towards, if anything
When we carry out a thought experiment, we can't test the
underlying philosophical hypothesis with any empirical data.
So, besides logical flaws, what are the criteria for evaluating
a philosophical hypothesis? And how can we benefit from thought
experiments in our daily lives?
Is philosophy still relevant? I have been considering to major
in philosophy at uni since it's the discipline which I feel
I am best at , but everyone I talk to seems to think that
philosophy is completely useless and it would be much better
for me to do something STEMrelated.
Does it still make sense to major in philosophy? Does it still
make sense to ask the same questions people were asking thousands
of years ago while scientists are making new discoveries everyday?
I love philosophy, but the way people talk about it makes
me feel like it's just puzzles with no relevance, and I feel
like I would probably be a useless member of society if I
were to become a philosopher... Is this correct?
Discuss the episode at Delphi, examining in detail the significance
of the Oracle for Greeks during Socrates' time as well as
how Socrates himself understands the pronouncements of the
1. What is Socrates final interpretation of the oracles pronouncement
2. How does Socrates understands his mission to the citizens
of Athens. How does his discovery about the meaning of wisdom
inform his mission ?
Who are you or who Am I
Hi I wanted to ask. Can you do philosophy in all languages
you know? Because my native is Latvian, second language is
Russian, it isnt my mother tongue, but I feel thousand times
more confident thinking about Philosophy in Russian. And if
I was philosopher I would call myself Russian one. I believe
that language in which you think, shows what kind philosopher
you are. Russian philosophy is more, intuitive has more flair,
English is more logical like mathematics. So what is your
opinion on this?
Neuroscience knowledge and computing power continues to grow
exponentially to the point where we can now examine a single
neuron and its synaptic response.
If we continue apace and then "map" the trillion brain synapses
and identify each and every signal transmitted and the respondent
activity. Will we then understand the human condition? If
not why not?
My question raises a paradigm in human thinking where belief
is more important than truth. I refer to the 1.6 billion Christians
who are unwittingly following a cult developed by the Catholic
There is empirical data which supports the proposal that Christianity
is a false religion and a cult. Christians believe in the
1. The first commandment "I am the Lord..." (without caveat)
2. In 325 CE the Catholic Church, at Nicaea promulgated their
3. The Church also chose the scripture that would become the
Did the Catholic Church have authority to break the first
commandment and create their own god, Christ?
Do Christians break the first commandment when they join a
Christian church, where God the father is not given prominence?
I believe the empirical data and think the Church created
a cult. The truth is ignored and belief supersedes fact. Putting
God first would require a paradigm change in religious thought.
what is the allegory of the cave? What happens when a prisoner
is forced to see the shadows are actually produced? What happens
is a prisoner is dragged into sunshine? What happens when
a prisoner goes back into the cave to persuade other of the
true nature of reality? What does this part of the allegory
the role of rational, objective considerations with respect
to the meaning of life is that they should?
Are clones unique?
In my Philosophy class we were asked to answer this question...
If you can't prove that anything exists outside your mind,
is it all right to go on believing in the external world anyway?
I am so confused with this whole external world concept!
Why did Socrates think pursuing the truth was more important
than saving his own life?
how do I explain moderation and human excellence as it relates
to the homeric tradition and the ancient greek virtues? How
does the concept of hubris relate to the difference between
humans and the gods.
Can the order of the spheres of existence be manipulated?
As in, can the order in which kierkegaard says they should
be, be changed? We've been talking about this in class and
I'd like to hear another person's opinion on the matter.
What are examples of concepts and words? How do they differ
from each other?
The meaning of live after you are gone?
A ___ term is used to indicate a response to a possible objection
Hi, I'm struggling to understand what Heidegger means by "Dasein"
and it's (our) relationship to nothing. What does Heidegger
mean by "nothing" in this context?
Define and explain ethical relativism according to Thrasymachus
Define and explain moral absolutism from Socrates and plato's
how many religions are there in the whole wide world.
becker morgen asked:
who was the most known philosopher
How many beans make five? Discuss in relation to Frege's 'Foundations
Is war necessary?
This is a puzzle about the way human memory works. If I'm
listening to a tune, how is it that I can hear it as a tune
without replaying it over and over in my head every second?
How does memory keep alive the sequence of notes and the
time gaps in between?
Every moment time passes, trillions of insignificant facts
are lost to all possible knowledge like the number of cars
that went past my window yesterday or leaves on a tree before
they blow off in the wind. Where ARE these facts? Do they
still exist (somewhere?). Or is the world full of gaps and
Today, we think that slavery is wrong and barbaric although
once it was considered perfectly acceptable. Is it possible
that in the future something we think is OK now will be judged
in the same way? any examples you can think of??
Andy Sanchez asked:
I wanna read the best of the best, could you please recommend
your top 10 books of all time? I know this could be much of
a personal question but if it impacted your life it may as
well impact mine and everyone who I can speak with,
look forward to exchange information!
Is e = mc2 a priori knowledge?
Do you agree that the excellent functioning (virtue) of something
or someone aims at the intermediate (mean) between excess
and deficiency or are there virtues that only improve with
excess? Why or why not?
In order to answer the question, "What is the difference between
good and evil in a person", what would I need to know to answer
Is it possible to doubt the use of reasoning itself? If reasoning
can be doubted, how else can we answer philosophical questions?
What is Aristotle's views on duty?
What are sex?
Tembile Yako asked:
Please explain teleology and how can one use it to analyse
a government policy
Who am I?
Do you have free will?
We have to writ an essay from this scenario:
A talented neurosurgeon removes Andreas brain and puts it
into Beths body, and removes Beths brain and puts it into
Andreas body. We end up with two living humans. Which of them
is Andrea? Or is neither of them Andrea? Or are they both
Andrea? Or is there no answer to the question? Or do you need
more information about the case before you can answer? Explain.
I'm very confused as to what to write. I have talked about
dualism and Descartes idea of a thinking thing, but this is
not enough, and I am not sure if I am on the right track?
Chun Lok Anson asked:
Descartes' argument for God's existence in the 5th Meditation
Lay out the structure of Descartes argument for God's existence
in Meditation 5. What is the crucial premise in the argument,
and what evidence does Descartes provide for it? How might
we object to the argument?
what is most real, the thing that you are sitting on, the
molecules it is made up off, or the sensation and images you
have in your mind?
what does it mean to be alive ?
Describe how the pluralists, anaxagoras and Emedocles synthesized
the flux of heraclitus and the permance of parmenides
What are your latest realization(s) about life?
What are histories?
Cristian Cordova asked:
Were the sophists wrong to teach the Greeks how to use speaking
skills to achieve success? Should philosophy be used only
for higher things, or are practical users appropriate as well?
If you didn't have anyone close to you (you know what I mean,
family members, friends, etc.), would you kill yourself?
This question isn't about the sorrow of being alone (which
for some isn't even sorrow). Most humans don't commit suicide
because they don't want people close to them to feel bad after
they go through with "IT". But if you were a lonely person
and wouldn't experience this feeling, would you kill yourself?
What is the definition of evil?
Where do you think it originated from?
Why do you think it continues?
Do laws of nature actually exist or are they just rules that
human beings use to describe the world and the things we observe?
Every moment occurs once and then is gone. Time is just a
succession of moments. If that is true, then nothing that
we do or that happens has any lasting significance.
Comment on that argument.
What is love?
Have philosophers anything useful to add to Plato's discussion
of this question in the 'Symposium'?
If I had not submitted this question today, then I would have
submitted it tomorrow. Can this be true? What kind of fact
could make it true?
What is war good for?
How does the term "question at issue" relate to philosophy?
Is this argument valid or invalid?
If laws could stop crime,there would be no crime.
But there is crime.
Therefore, laws cannot stop crime.
And what is the argument pattern?
What is the difference between an action that is done merely
in accordance with duty and one that is done from duty?
Does anything matter if nothing's real?
what is language? and does it constitute or wxplaines the
connection betwin thinking and action?
what could be the explanation of epistemology using plato's
allegory of the cave
can we achieve reliable knowledge? how would sophists, plato
and descartes think of that?
Will I have a good harvest?
A contradictory pair of sentences are nonequivalent
According to Descartes, before Neo is freed from the Matrix
(i.e. when his body and brain are still imprisoned by the
machines), can he properly claim to know anything at all?
If so, give an example of something he can know and explain
why it counts as knowledge.
What did the Oracle of Delphi tell Socrates and how did he
respond to what he was told?
Is there a straightforward criterion (beyond subjective interpretation)
by which to establish the "reality" of social phenomena? (e.g.
gender norms, patriarchy)
What are three of the "aims" of Francis Bacon?
how do I give a philosophical account of the mind and the
body without falling into a false dichotomy? I am convinced
that the best way to account for personhood is to fuse the
mind and the body but how do I do it philosophically? I am
trying to avoid the rationalists extreme view of on the mind
(soul) and doubting the body, as well as avoiding the materialists
extreme view of the body (matter). Can give a good philosophical
account account without bringing the mind and brain in as
seen in contemporary times?
I intend to give myself a systematic classic liberal education
for the next 5-10 years. I realize one could spend a lifetime
with one philosopher such as Nietzsche, Aristotle, Plato,
and many others. Having said that, I want to read the texts
of about 25 or so of the greatest political and moral philosophers
and determine for myself what they say. I have read many of
them for school or pleasure already along with a lot of criticism
but I want to start fresh. My questions on how to proceed
are manifold. I am equally interested in theology, and understand
Aquinas and Augustine as well as others in the Christian tradition
wrote on politics and morals so should I include them in my
study? Or should I do a separate study on Christian philosophy?
Should I narrow my focus to something specific like "what
is the best form of government?" or "what kind of person should
governor" "or "how should children be educated?" I really
am most interested in political philosophy and how it can
be used for today's problems. The next question is, after
reading Plato and analyzing it myself should I start on criticism
of him to compare with my analysis or proceed to the next
philosopher, who would most likely be Aristotle? Should I
include novels and fiction like The Iliad, Don Quixote, Gulliver's
Travels, etc? And if I do, should I read them during the period
of philosophy in which they were written or just as supplemental
not in any particular order? Another idea I am considering
is to just start with Homer, work through some histories and
then begin Plato and see where that leads? There is just an
overwhelming amount of work in the Western Tradition and I
need guidance on where to begin and how to proceed.
Could a bread have a theme?
How can a pile of bricks be art?
Can heaven make up for suffering in this life?
In heaven by God's side, I remember how I was tortured to
death. But what makes the individual in heaven by God's side
the same as the one who was tortured? So what if they are
not the 'same' but merely 'similar'?
I forgot my umbrella this morning so I travelled back in time
to fetch it. And here it is. Do you have a problem with that??
Existentialism and stoicism are two wellknown philosophies
of life. Are there any others you can think of? What makes
a philosophy 'practical'?
I don't want to have children, and I think that I have a right
to make that decision. I am doing nothing wrong in remaining
childless by my own choice. But I believe in Kant's categorical
imperative. It follows that it would be 'right' if all women
decided not to have children. Where's the flaw in that reasoning?
It is widely accepted that there is a high probability of
intelligent life on other planets. Given that there is so
much we don't know about how life began, that seems a sensible
But suppose we discovered evidence that made it extremely
likely that the human race is alone. Intelligent life has
just one shot to get things right, and if we screw up then
there are no more chances, ever.
Would that make a difference to how we live? (I'm thinking
of global warming, nuclear proliferation, etc.)
Dave's car's fuel gauge, which has always been reliable, says
he will run out of gas soon. But Dave is convinced that there
is no necessary connection between causes and effects, and
no guarantee that the future will resemble the past. So Dave
doesn't buy any gas. Dave runs out of gas in Gilroy and calls
you to come and rescue him. Should you be annoyed at Dave
for being irrational? To what philosopher(s) does Dave owe
these views? How does that philosopher support these views?
What philosopher(s) have opposed these views, and why?
John Martin asked:
5. In The Apology, Socrates claims that he is not a Sophist
A. He is not interested in cosmology
B. He does not charge for teaching
C. He avoids young people
D. He does not believe in relativism
E. All of the above
Jameze Massey asked:
6. Socrates was inspired to pursue philosophical questioning
C. The oracle at Delphi
E. All of the above
What does Socrates do to test the claim of the oracle? What
conclusion does Socrates reach?
What does Socrates do to test the claim of the oracle? What
conclusion does Socrates reach? Hoes does this determine Socrates'
continued course of action in Athens?
John Arthur argues that without a moral standard provided
by God through divine commands, there is no reliable means
to distinguish between right and wrong behavior.
How ethical for parents it is to bring a new life to this
world in spite of the parents' knowledge that there is high
possibility of baby's being paralysed due to some genetic
disorder or the genetic myopathy may pass over to future generations?
Please answer with reference to certain ethical theories.
You come across ants in a desert. As you observe them, it
seems that they have written "go away" in the sand with their
What would you have to attribute to them in the terms of agency?
How would you have to View the connection between what they
had done and the presuppositions underlying Language use?
Why isn't Descartes argument for the existence of god sound
in third Meditations? "Anything we perceive with the same
level of clearity as our own mind can be considered knowledge."
Are your own ideas about reality most in agreement with the
thinking of Locke, Berkeley, Hume, or Kant? Explain your answer.
Briefly discuss a film you have seen that deals with the
notion of reality.
I need help understanding how to diagram an argument
Are corporate experiences evidence for the existence of God?
I am a 17 year old college student doing a paper on Rene Descartes
first meditation. I am totally lost here. I am confused
about what question he is asking. I submitted my first draft
and the professor said it was not right. I thought Descartes
was asking the question"Were all his beliefs which were based
on his senses" true and right. Please help me!
If the primary goal of utilitarianism is to generate the greatest
good for the greatest number, a secondary goal is to minimize
suffering. Using at least one quote from one of the required
readings, discuss the ways in which these two principles are
consistent or inconsistent with each other
I have a question for "ask a philosopher!":)
My question is on how will Aristotle view the ethics of the
energy trading system or Kyoto Protocol as a eudaimonia or
how will he see it as unethical.
I have a question about Craig Skinner's recent reply to
a question about teleportation. I noticed the repeated use
of the idea of an exact molecular copy of my body.
Thinking about how this might work, it occurred to me that
(a) there are so many different velocities going on simultaneously,
wouldnt it cause problems with a half, a third, a quarter,
an eighth etc. motion being recorded? (b) if on the other
hand the time slice is so small as to include them all, the
result would surely be a motionless image? (c) but if this
is true, how can the copy restart the motion without some
information on the direction of every molecule? (d) how could
the copy be alive?
It seems to me that at the instant of taking the scan, a lot
of the information needed to make another living body is just
not there. Or have I missed something?
Suppose Nietzsche's theory of the Eternal Recurrence is true.
Does that mean I will BE the Bill who writes this question
next time around and every succeeding time, or will the other
Bills just be 'like' me? What's the difference, in this case?
Could we be wrong about the direction of time?
What is the number one?
"A philosopher's words are empty if they do not heal the suffering
of mankind. For just as medicine is useless if it does not
remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if
it does not remove suffering from the soul." (Epicurus). Agree,
Who is your favourite Wittgenstein (early or late) and why?
Are there any limits (logical, metaphysical) to how different
the laws of nature might have been?
Is it conceivable that science could discover that Cartesian
dualism is true?
I wanted your take on this matter of ethics and human rights
or whether or not countries should still look out for their
citizens and nationals overseas by means of consular offices,
non immigration consular divisions at embassies and even ambassadors
performing consular functions, but yet give greater attention
to and put greater focus on arbitrary detainment and human
rights abuse victims for whom clamoring an embassy, usually
that of a Western country for assistance is not an option
since those people and groups had the misfortune of having
citizenship and nationality in either a politically repressive
or war torn country.
I have been asked to provide a "borderline case" for how the
words "mustache," "husband," "toy" and "table" are vague words.
I cannot seem to come with a case for some of them. I think
that a borderline case for a toy would be something that both
a child and an adult could play with or use, or something
like a family board game. For husband, I am taking a shot
in the dark by saying that a transgender person is a borderline
case. I cannot think of borderline cases for the other words.
Could I have some help?
Regarding Valid/Invalid deductive Arguments.
P1. Grass is green
P2. Paris is the capital of France.
C. Poodles are dogs.
How is this "deductively" valid (or invalid) since no claim
of inference is being made? Or for that matter, how can it
be considered an "argument" at all if what is meant by argument
is an attempt at persuasion? A series of unrelated but true
statements placed together in "argument form" do not make
a deductive argument even if that is the intent. It isn't
a bad argument either, a bicycle isn't a car even if the speaker
wants it to be. No one in the real world would seek to persuade
by forming such an "argument." Please give an example of
invalid argument with true premises and true conclusion that
is not nonsense.
And whatever example you give, let that argument fail on logic
P1. Atoms are tiny.
P2. The smallest particles of hydrogen gas are tiny.
C. Therefore, the smallest particles of hydrogen are atoms.
That is invalid?based on the counterexample of oxygen gas
in place of hydrogen gas. But the difference between the two
is that we have knowledge of oxygen gas as a molecule, not
that the logical form is wrong. (?)
We use knowledge as the basis to make true statements to form
valid arguments, but the knowledge may be flawed, does that
mean the logic is?
tammy moore asked:
For the philosopher, "because God said so" is an unsatisfactory
answer to the question "why is act X moral (or immoral)?"
Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 18:44:21
Can any element in the platonic notion of the good be preserved
in the Aristotelian moral universe?
Chun Lok Anson asked:
In Lockes Second Treatise of Government, he outlines his overall
political philosophy. Explain Lockes view as to what a just
and legitimate government is.
Would you agree with JeanPaul Sartre that sex is a futile
passion, because it tries to possess the freedom of the other;
but possession of the freedom of the other, would destroy
what we want (to possess), and we cannot want to possess,
that which we already possess?
Do you agree with Professor Roger Scruton that "there are
no 'central questions' of philosophy"? (Modern Philosophy,
what kind of fallacy is when someone says "we are only human"
I've been told this is a tough question, and I suppose that's
why I'm here asking; What is postmodernism (in terms of postmodern
philosophy)? What are it's chief concerns and preoccupations?
Simply put, how would you define postmodern philosophy?
P.S. I realize there is much hostility towards postmodernism
in general, and so if you intend on making a critical assessment
please don't; I'm really only interested in pinning down what
postmodernism actually is at this point.
What constitutes the discovery of form?
What is the purpose of my life?
Where is time?
I was told today that everything has free will and that this
is the reason that evil exists, that it is not an act of God
but an act of free will, if this is true and everything is
its own being then what does God do, what purpose does he
serve in the modern world? I asked my teacher this and she
said that his purpose is to answer prayers however if he does
answer prayers that does that not mean that he takes away
free will from the thing/ being that he answers the prayer
through? please can you explain this concept.
Does Aristotle think that having a virtuous character is voluntary
Hi my name is Iris and I have a question concerning human
It was discussed as a group work but I need a different opinion.
"Should the respect for human rights apply in all situations
in all times?".
What do you think 'equivalent exchange' really means?
I recently read Ortega y Gassets The Revolt of the Masses
and out of all the interesting arguments he comes up with,
one caught my attention: his critique against disciplinary
specialism. This got me thinking, is it ultimately desirable
or not that all members of a society be very specialized in
a disciplinary field?
how do you prove that the word"knowledges " is acceptable?
Educational questions are ultimately philosophical questions.
Discuss, with vivid examples.
Who we really are?
And how to find or purpose in life?
Have you read Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of
the Universe? Whats your thoughts on it?
What do you think the horse episode before Nietzsches mental
breakdown means if we consider it within the context of his
philosophy as a whole? His reaction of pity towards an innocent
suffering is indeed very surprising after reading his work
and it really contradicts the kind of ideal man he wished
How are Emmanuel Levinas' and Jean P. Sartre's phenomenology
of intersubjectivity alike and different?
Space and time are named by Kant as the structures of our
mind which shape sense data into perceptions, from which we
formulate our ideas about the world. If you wouldn't mind,
could you tell me how Kant figures that space and time specifically
are the mental structures by which we perceive the world?
Through what order of propositions does Kant arrives at these
specific structures? Why does he not simply conclude that
the mind shapes perceptions, thus suspending judgment about
why this is so?
I hope I am making myself clear. My understanding so far is
that the human being is not a passive observer of objective
reality; our knowledge of the world, from experience, is necessarily
molded by the mind. We do not perceive the noumenal realm,
because the noumenal realm is that which transcends perception.
But that further step which posits "categories" is what escapes
True or false:
1) For Frankfurt, wanton good is the condition in which a
being does not, for whatever reason, adopt a caring perspective
from which it views the structure of its will.
2) Thomas Nagel's approach is one which asserts the adequacy
of the reductionist account of consciousness.
3) One can conclude from Nagel's account of consciousness
that he is a modern dualist.
4) Thomas Hobbes' contribution to the solution of the mindbody
problem is one in which he embraces the idea that mental states
are understood as indefinable and, thus, impossible to understand.
5) According to Socrates, knowing oneself is predicated upon
some kind of adoption of the very beliefs and ideas one inherits
from their culture or society.
Some humans are human's best friends which means humans often
are life sense giving source to each other. Just imagine you
where the last human in the world...
Some other humans are the worst human's enemies, beeing the
only serious life threatening source, assuming an average
life. No animal, no technology, no anything else is so much
a great threat to one's life, as an another hostile human
So wgich fundamental variables cause this vast differences?
Joe Sullivan asked:
How do I overcomes nervousness ?
Graeme Black asked:
In Deontology how are the 'rules' or 'duties' developed?
Outside of religion how do we come up with a list of rules
which we should adhere to?
Erica Geritano asked:
I have to write a paper for my philosophy class. My argument
is: there are people who seem to enjoy what we normally call
pain. Utilitarians can respond by saying that by 'pain' all
they ever meant was something like 'negative pleasure', that
pleasure really is just desire satisfaction (this is the most
important bit I think), and that this tracks across masochists
well now (we can maximize desire satisfaction by giving the
masochists what they want, which to us looks like pain). How
about something like the following instead: desire satisfaction
is rather messy, and part of the original appeal of utilitarianism
was that it grounds ethics in a type of experience that seems
obviously and inherently good or bad (pleasure and pain).
But elaborate on why it is messy (hint: think about how well
our desires track e.g. healthy lifestyle).
Can I ask more than one questions? If I cant, please answer
only number one
1. What is a woman?
2. What is wrong with racism?
Thank you very much
Ever since I was about 8 or 9 years old I was always scared
of dying. I would come in tears to my mother crying because
I didn't not want to die. She told me not to worry and I didn't
for a while. By the time I hit middle school I would have
an episode so call it where I would just freak out at night
and cry. The time it was my last two years of high school
till now I have episodes almost every week and I just freak
out and cry. I am a Christian and that knowing for me where
I'm going isn't so much my problem. I'm just so scared of
the idea of it. I don't understand it my self. I need your
opinion should I see someone about this? Is this more of a
insecure problem about my self?
What is the reason for existence if life is temporary, has
no true purpose, and can be erased so easily?
by nature equal?
In what ways is the philosophy of Socrates present in Kierkegaard's
view of subjective truth?
Give Bertrand Russells argument for the value of philosophy.
Use the Euthyphro and the Apology to demonstrate what Russell
means when he argues that the value of philosophy lies in
the confusion that philosophical questioning creates.
Kindly let me know what does Mao mean by saying "It is only
when there is class struggle that there can be philosophy."?Can
it be understood as an expression of unity of theory and practice
that Marxists persist on it?
Please shed some light on the term "empiriocriticism" and
that why Lenin called it an idealist philosophy?
I'm developing a rebuttal to Biblical literalists and I'd
like to know whether the following is a recognized/named type
of syllogism or other type of argument (and if so, what it's
Verse X prophesied that lt;whatevergt; would happen
lt;whatevergt; happened in verse Y
Therefore, the prophecy was fulfilled
(If this is not a recognized/named type of syllogism or other
type of argument, could it be made so by adding one or two
Applying his ethical principle of the golden mean, how would
Aristotle have advised Socrates to defend himself at his trial?
How does Humes extreme skepticism influence the thinking
of Immanuel Kant? How does Kant resolve the perceived dilemma
introduced by Humes skepticism?
Hypothetical: You are a voice of authority in some educational
capacity and have a large audience who respects your opinion.
You can either; a) surreptitiously direct your audience into
believing in and subscribing to a cause or philosophical view
which you sincerely believe to be right, with the outcome
being serious political change, or; b) help provide the means
of thinking critically about the issue in question, with the
possibility that your audience will disagree with you and
that the outcome will be politically inexpedient.
Which would you choose?
If all our actions are predetermined, can we say that we are
Is the ideal of a violencefree society realistic/desirable
according to you?
Would it be legitimate to give a private entreprise the right
to enforce the law? (as precrime in Minority Report)
Why are you here and not somewhere else?
Is justice more or less important than family loyalty? are
there grey areas?
Imagine that just before you were about to fall asleep, a
devil whispered in your ear that you will live the life of
every human being who has ever lived or will ever live, experience
their joy and their suffering. Thinking about all the pain
you would endure, would the joy be worth it? Would you not
consider it preferable if you did not wake up at all? In that
case, is it not true, from your valuational perspective, that
it would be better if the human race had never existed?
Wittgenstein: 'The world of the happy man is a different one
from that of the unhappy man' (Tractatus 6.43). Relate this
to what Heidegger says about mood.
Did God weep bitter tears (metaphorically) at something He
was powerless to prevent, when Hitler sent Jews to the gas
chambers, or when Hutus massacred Tutsis in Rwanda, or when
the Twin Towers fell? If so (and only in that case, I am not
considering alternatives) what conception of God should a
true believer hold?
I have a question, but I am unable to put it into words. It
isn't a question about Why, or What, or How. It is more like
sheer astonishment confounding my powers of speech.
Can there be an answer to such a question?
The ___ stage on life's way is where Kierkegaard thinks most
of us spend most of our lives
Kindly explain the concept of duty claarifying the meaning
of the concept of goodwill
In a world in which everyone always did the right thing, would
genuine free will exist?
What is time?
How does the categorical imperative conflict with utility?
What is the significance of this conflict to sen's discussion
For Nietzsche to be alive is to have a will to power. How
does or could a society work against an individuals will to
How does the "via negativa" (negative theology, apophaticism)
differ in its approach from, say, the methodology of eliminative
Strauss in the final paragraph of the third wave says that
"above all, liberal democracy, in contradistinction to communism
and fascism, derives powerful supper from a way of thinking
which cannot be called modern at all: the premodern thought
of our western tradition. Is he correct in his judgement in
What are the similarities and differences between Kant's moral
theory and Aristotle's views on ethics and politics?
How do you think Descartes would respond to the cosmic question?
Spinoza? Hume? Explain your answers and relate each to a broad
type of response identified by Nagel.
a.Would a Turing test that tested aesthetic experience be
possible? Why or why not?
b.Would this kind of Turing test be a more accurate way to
assess human intelligence (or human consciousness) or less
accurate or as accurate as the standard Turing test? Why or
What is humanity according to Kant and why does he claim that
it deserves respect?
Jennifer Garcia asked:
What is Descartes three arguments that prove God exist. Please
explain how he proves his argument.
what is the term for the phenomena when a whole society becomes
fascinated with death?
Critically examine whether social reality and some of its
manifestations are a social construct and its based on the
disease as a manifestation any help on counter arguments.
What was Simone Weil's and Nietzsche's interpretation of the
Iliad and what were the differences between the two interpretations?
Me: hi, my professor aked me a question and I want to know
if this is the correct answer. QUESTION:Tolerance is certainly
a very important and underrepresented virtue. What is its
excess and what is its deficiency? ANSWER:Tolerance is the
ability to not allow shortcomings or inability to cause one
to take a negative offense, prejudice position, or negative
reaction to those shortcoming or inabilities, and offer ways
to combat those socalled shortcomings or inabilities. The
deficiency of tolerance is the incapability of empathy and
patience with shortcoming or incapabilitys. Excess of tolerance
would be becoming submissive to the acceptance of shortcomings
What do we really know about the world?
The Tao (Way) is salient in both Confucianism and Taoism.
However, some scholars, including Hori and myself, have
argued that while Confucianism is "yang oriented" and the
latter tradition, Taoism, is "oriented towards yin." How
credible is this interpretation?
Is Putinism a philosophy?
How different might the laws of nature have been (in some
other logically possible but nomologically impossible world)?
Are there any limits?
Is it a priori true that we know what we like? (Obviously,
you can't always know whether you like/ dislike something
until you've tried it, but I'm not considering that possibility.)
Should pot be legalized?
Please email me the answer since I actually want to know this.
If a video game character was conscious, how would he know
that he is played by someone outside of the video game system?
If the character was as smart as human, he would deny that
somebody is controlling him and the environment both at the
same time, but that wouldn't matter since the creator would
know what's true and what is not.
The question I want to ask how do I and the world know what
to do, if we are free will and everything works on it's own
like in a video game? For example GTA5.
And if the character realized he was in a system, could he
hack the system from the inside of the system?
Or is his consciousness and experience and intelligence and
knowledge limited just to that system he lives in and there
is no way he can get out, just to wonder why is he in the
system at first?
I never was a god believer, but these kind of questions made
me think otherwise. I'm not atheist, nor religious I'm just
The second question arises from asking these is:
Why don't people realize that they are ant like creatures
and everyone pretends to be self sufficient individual, when
it's not that way? By saying ant like I mean living in the
human system, within the god system.
And if this is true, then it means that there is no human
without purpose to humanity, every one is made with a predetermined
If I had free will, I could do whatever, but I can't because
it feels wrong.
I'm working on these answers and I have some, but I want something
out of my head to help me out, so it would be fun and great
if you could help me out. :)
I was asked the questions, 'What goes up and never comes down?"
and "What comes down and never goes up?"I was told it was
a philosophical question.
Would Aristotle think that anyone could be called a citizen
without participating in decisionmaking? Why?
In what sense, exactly, can a dog be said to be intelligent?
I realy need your help....its a life and death situation,
and im so lost in terms of plato and his theory of forms....so
i have to find two critiques against his theory of forms...thats
easy! that tough part is I really dont know how to defend
plato against the critiques...for example thomas hobbes...his
materialist view...or buddha/hume and their no self view would
be ciritues but I can't seem to find a defense...can you help
me find two good critiques and defenses as im not really sure
i understand the context, therfore I dont know how to create/begin
this assignment...plz help me!
Time is composed of moments. Moments have no duration.
Therefore time has no duration. This rather surprising
fact is further supported by the following considerations.
Time is illusory because time seems real but isn't real. Furthermore
down through the ages the best and brightest people have always
thought time was illusory. whats the fallacy? I am confusing
if its composition or not? but even if its composition, i
can't explain why, because of the second part of the argument!
looking forward to receiving from you!
What is the difference/similarity between determinism and
the principle of sufficient reason?
What is more important to you success and wealth OR knowledge
and wisdom , and how do I write a philosophical dialogue ?
based on your own principles, how far will you go to depend
your faith in god, if he put you in a test between faith and
Chloe read an essay that claims the body and mind, which are
made up of different substances, interact both harmoniously
and competitively in a living person. Which philosophers work
is she most likely reading?
Can a deductively invalid argument have a conclusion that
is logically true?
For this fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and
not real wisdom, being the appearance of knowing the unknown;
since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear
apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest
good. Is there not here conceit of knowledge, which is a disgraceful
sort of ignorance?
Premises and conclusion?
I want to present a hypothetical question. (hear me trolls!)
In a world where the need for manual labour is almost completely
unnecessary (besides for things like public court duty or
government jobs. Those still would require a moral standpoint.)
In this world materials can be created in mass without pollution
or other harmful processes. (we have found an unlimited energy
source and applied e=mc square)
Each person is allocated enough credits (cash) per month to
live a very comfortable life by todays standards.
The world has united into one central government (no more
People are allowed to apply for jobs that can still be preformed
with relative efficiency. These jobs are mostly done as leisure
activites with a very small credit bonus for participation.
Technology is slightly stagnant because of every non material
object being free but there are enough precreated algorithoms
for people to toy around with simple to apply programming
(let's say a kid in their late teens can build things that
would be amazing in the current day (random example, a flying
follow you around laptop (remember practically unlimited energy).
This could pose danger aswell as weaponry with this kind of
technology would not be impossible to obtain (but still very
difficult (computer automated "big brother" system keeping
tabs on materials moving around))
This is in many ways a quasi perfect world.
My question for the comments section is what do you think
people would do with their lives. With the majority of the
population being jobless, happy and content.
This is a big question and so I'm open to all answers (on
second thought even the troll ones) on the subject.
At the beginning of chapter 2, Aristotle states his purpose
in writing about virtue. Is he hoping his readers (and students)
acquire theoretical understanding, or is his hope to help
form the activity of soul of his readers and students so they
can live good lives?
How to start studying philosophy? My interest seems to be
more in Metaphysics. It would be nice to have a guideline
or program to follow. Is college a way to go?
which position, Mill's or Dworkin's, is better? Explain.
I am taking an introduction to eastern philosophy course and
I was asked to read Katha Upanishad Book two. I do not understand
however, what is being compared in the first two verses. Also,
why is Naciketas a seeker of wisdom? What doesnt the foolish
who stated that the further you go in one direction the easier
it is to continue in that direction and the harder it it to
How did the universe begin?
Is the philosophers stone real? if so why haven't anyone found
Explain the Lockean proviso in depth using examples. Explain
how money and capital circumvents the Lockean proviso. As
such, do you think family inheritances should be legal or
"If philosophy is indeed a well estblished subject but its
issues are so riddled with controversy that there is hardly
a single question to which there can be said to be an established
In regards to deontology we need to treat others as though
we want to be treated. However, what happens when someone
have a different idea of how they wish to be treated?
what is the point in living ?
Human Life is never ending questioning and answering
How do you put this following argument BELOW in standard form?
One thing we can all agree on is that a statement like 17
is prime is true, and that we know it to be true. But this
simple fact gives rise to an irresolvable puzzle. If its a
normal subject/ predicate sentence, we can't explain how we
know it to be true. For if its that sort of sentence, then
there must be some object, the one we call 17, and it has
to have the property of primeness. But if there is such an
object, it is outside space and time, and so a mystery how
we come to know anything about it. Could it be some other
sort of claim, then, besides a normal subject/predicate sentence?
I suppose, but then we have a different mystery. Its utterly
mysterious what other sorts of sentences there are.
Hi, my name is Adam. I live in Dasmarias Village in Makati
city. I live in a big house. I can't describe it to you, but
just imagine a 50 hectare lot with a garden and a threefloor
house. Thats me. I also drive the latest Ford Mustang, while
having a Porsche as a spare in my garage. No, I am not a thief
nor a bad person. Lets just say that I am able to have all
of these things because I own a business that employs over
10,000 individuals all over the country. Although it didnt
start this way, I was born in a middleclass family; my father
earned a little over the minimum wage while my mother stayed
at home. Our familys overall income was just enough to feed
all of us and send me and my two siblings in a decent enough
school, through which I fought and clawed my way out of to
get to where I am now. *I believe that I am entitled to everything
I have right now because I suffered and bled for this.* And
none of your Marxist arguments can sway me otherwise.
Your job is to prove that Adam is wrong in his belief (the
italicized sentence) using any of the things that we discussed
in the topic of equality through Karl Marx.
You pretend to push a ball, what happens?
A. The ball moves towards you
B. The ball moves away from you
C. The ball does not move
D. The ball zig zags
Please feel free to nswer any of these -
1.What is the aim of philosophy?
2.What is philosophical method?
3.What are the divisions of philosophy?
4.What are some of the benefits of philosophy that Vaughn
5.Know when conjunctions, disjunctions, and conditionals are
6.What are the parts of an argument?
7.How is argument different from persuasion?
8.What is validity?
9.What is soundness?
10.Know the two valid argument forms that we discussed.
11.Know the two invalid argument forms (formal fallacies)
that we discussed.
12.What does it mean for an inductive argument to be strong?
For it to be cogent?
13.What is enumerative induction? Analogical induction/argument
by analogy? Inference to the best explanation?
14.What does Russell claim are the benefits of philosophy?
15.Where does the value of philosophy lie according to Russell?
16.Why does Descartes want to establish a new foundation for
17.How does Descartes first try to cast all of his beliefs
into doubt? Why isnt this enough to cast all of his beliefs
18.What scenario does he consider that he thinks does cast
all of his beliefs into doubt?
19.Why does Grau claim that evil demon/brains in a vat/Matrix
scenarios are stronger forms of skepticism than the dreaming
20.What is Putnams semantic externalism response to skepticism
that Grau discusses?
21.What are the two arguments that we said could be formulated
from Descartes skeptical scenarios?
22.How does Descartes try to argue that skepticism is mistaken?
23.What is the Cartesian circle? How is it thought that his
argument against skepticism faces this problem?
24.How does accepting fallibilism allow one to reply to one
of the arguments for skepticism?
25.What is fallibilism?
26. What is the explanationist response to skepticism? How
does it work?
27.What is the traditional account of knowledge?
28.What are Gettiers counterexamples to the traditional account
of knowledge? How do they work?
29.How does the infallibilism response to the Gettier problem
work? What is the drawback of this response?
30.How does the no false evidence response to the Gettier
problem work? What are the drawbacks of this response?
31.How does the Fake Barn case go?
32.Unhelpful catchall: Know everything covered in the assigned
readings. Know everything covered in class.
what are the fundamental questions thales asked
I am having trouble deciphering Aristophanes' clouds. He seems
to be ridiculing Socrates for his radical beliefs, is this
true? How far apart are these two men?
Bearing in mind the suffering that it has caused throughout
the ages should religion be banned?
I am happy about the size of my nose. Could it still be possible
that my nose is too big?
Is truth just a logical property?
Are time and consciousness two things, or (ultimately?) just
Is Facebook an illusion?
Do you agree with Anscombe's denial of the widely accepted
view that causal relations are instances of exceptionless
universal generalisations? What is a 'cause' in that case?
Discuss the political implications of Plato's parable of the
allegory of the cave.
1. Compare and contrast the idea of Thales and Anaximander?
2. Compare and contrast the idea of Thales and Anaximenes?
3. Compare and contrast the idea of Thales and Heraclitus?
4. Compare and contrast the idea of Thales and Pythagorean
what are you thoughts on the roots of evil by John Kekes.
What would be counterexamples to the following statements
(so even if some are truewhat would it take to prove them
false)? To do this, first figure out what they actually say.
1.Some classes are held in Kitson
2.No classes are held in Kitson
3.Some classes are not held in Kitson
4. All classes are held in Kitson
5.Not all classes are held in Kitson
I was asked this philosophical question,and I got no clue
of the answer, please I need you to help me answer this "how
sure are you that you know that you are a human being? "
I am writing a paper on the difference between Decartes cartesian
theatre and wittensteins beetle in the box. I have write about
how decartes would respond to wittensteins argument. I am
having a hard time figuring out how he would respond. Any
Is it possible that if the Big Bang Theory created us that
they created other live else where?
Am I My Brother's Keeper?
How is it that one mortal can rule with fear and persuasion
over so many other mortals. What makes human beings follow
another human being in committing such atrocious acts against
how does platos republic relate to euripides medea
What are the pros and cons of this way of thinking?
Is the universe endless?
do aliens exist?
Why do we fall in love?
Bon Quee Quee asked:
How do you even so philosophy. I Kant do this !!! (That's what
Humor me. How do you philosophy.
hello my name is eric. I have recently started a group on
facebook of asking philosophical questions. I have actually
managed to get my fellow high schoolers to think! but, as
all things must come to an end, I would like some questions
to ask them. thank you.
Allow me to introduce myself) my name is Gerard and am originally
from South Africa, currently residing in Belfast. I am really
interested in philosophy, I thoroughly love the way the subject
requires one to think very hard about what they are investigating
or analysing. Alas I am an amateur, here goes my question:
Does the human body posses a soul?
I personally think that humans do not posses a soul and here
are my amateur) thoughts. If humans are borne with a soul
then is that soul equally an infant? I would assume so and
if so then as the human being grows and experiences the external
world and thus memories then it follows so to does its soul.
And if this continues to the end of life then the soul would
know who it is, that is it/he or she would still have thier
memories and thus thier ID. However how then do memories
transfer from the biological human being, a state that is
within science that is quantifiable, to the soul which is
purportedly spiritual which is a non quantifiable state, a
state that has no physical substance. The two states then
are impossible to unite thus the transfer of memories which
is fundamentally the manner of ones ID is impossible And
if memories are not able to transfer to the soul then it follows
that the soul would not know wht or who it is? I like to akin
this to a "floating baloon"
Do send me your thoughts.
What are the "big questions" raised by philosophers?
Why do we exist? What is our purpose? What happens after death?
I failed my exam.
If I pray hard enough, is it possible (logically possible)
that God could bring it about that I passed?
Does it make any difference whether I know that I failed (received
the result) or not?
How would you test the hypothesis that two distinct human
beings are actually the same person who has the power of bilocation?
Or, if the hypothesis is not testable, is it still conceivable?
How should we relate to the other?
1) Why does Socrates ultimately reject the definition of
knowledge in the Theaetetus as "justified true belief plus
an account"? How does this dialogue connect with Socrates'
description of his philosophical program in the Apology?
2). What role does "mutual awareness" or "reflexive mutual
recognition" play in Nagel's account of "sexual perversion"?
What elements of this awareness or recognition are absent
in the perverse encounter?
Im trying to understand how to standardize arguments and figure
out the patterns in the arguments but Im having trouble finding
the premises and conclusion the George Berkeley's argument
Common sense may seem to suggest that things exist independently
of our mental perceptions of them, but careful reasoning shows
that such mindindependent things cannot exist. You see, if
something is mindindependent, then (by definition) it must
be able to exist without being conceived of by a mind, but
it is contradictory to conceive of something that isnt conceived
of by mind, for the very act of conceiving of something makes
it a conceived thing. Thus, it is contradictory to conceive
of a mindindependent thing. Now, anything the conception of
which entails a contradiction (like a square circle, for example)
is logically impossible, and logically impossible things cannot
exist. Therefore, mindindependent things cannot exist.
Where are the premises and conclusion, and what is just extra
information that is not needed?
apply any one of the moral theories discussed in Michael Sandels
Justice: Whats the Right Thing to Do? to the novel The Jungle,
by Upton Sinclair. Are the circumstances described in the
novel unjust? If so, what is it that makes them unjust?
Is it a failure to maximize utility, or some violation of
human rights, or a lack of access to basic goods necessary
for human flourishing?Is Jurgis flourishing as a human being?
What does a flourishing human being look like? Is there
any evidence in the text that Jurgis is being systematically
"dehumanized"? If so, is this dehumanization unjust? In the
eyes of a Libertarian View and then in the eyes of the Utilitarian
I would like to ask If I am understanding Kant correctly in
the following manner ? I am not going into Hume and unnecessary
I understand Kant in 3 steps.
Lets take for example that I see an apple in front of me and
how it is that I can perceive it.
1. Our brain have innate ability to enforce upon the world
the concepts of spatial temporal and cause and effect (this
might very well differ for other animals) at this stage the
apple is merely a thing in front of me and I know this because
of my innate abilities (at this stage of reasoning I have
no idea it is an apple)
2. The second step is the 4 main categories (this we also
know innate?) this being (a)quantity I sense 'one' apple
, instead of many.(b) Quality I sense that it is real and
not just in my mind. (c) Relation I sense the object in
relation to the "table" on which it stands ? (d) modality
(have no idea what this really is)
3. The third step is reason Here we give all the particulars
linguistic terms and characteristics all by means of reason
ergo the subjective nature.
In a nutshell the senses perceive raw data that (1) the brain
structures in space and time and then (2) I apply the categories
and (3) then I apply reason to explain what it is ?
This is how I understand Kant.
Can anybody please explain Kant to me in three of four steps
In light of the allegory of the cave access the effectiveness
of the 844 system of education in realizing the national goal
For Socrates, theory joins with practice: If you really know
something (e.g., what justice is) you will act in accordance
with that knowledge. If you do not act that way, (i.e. you
act unjustly) that can only mean you are ignorant and do not
possess knowlege. Is this true?
Your supported opinion as to whether Descartes' argument is
sound in the first and second meditations. Please provide
quotations to support your position.
i)what are the basic contributions of the atomists, eleatics
and pythagoraeans to the development of philosophy
ii) what is fallacy? explain 5 types of informal fallacy.
Iii) list and explain four kinds of proposition
What are the similarities and differences in Confucius morally
perfected person (Book Two) and Platos philosopher king?
Based on your knowledge. can you explain C. Card, Terrorism
in the Home ?
rathin jha asked:
is life real or just a dream
Hello. I was just wondering in terms of chronology which discipline
is recorded first, literature or philosophy?
Can you direct me to a book or article which answers this
question or discusses this?
If the you could include the details as well such as the texts
and references it would be very much appreciated.
Thank you very much. Look forward to the replies.
My friend recently told me what hedonism is and that he believes
it. I instantly thought that pleasure is not the highest good,
but that happiness is. But I'm not sure if that really makes
sense I guess. Could you tell me what you think about it?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of objectivity and
causation of history?
What is the meaning in life? Well a lot of people say that
it's happiness, but I think there must be a better and a bigger
purpose. I've thought a lot about it, and I think you'll find
the meaning of life when your time has come, but that's kind
of unfair, isn't it?
HOW CAN WE SEE THE TRUTH IN 21CENTURY?
Do you believe that Chapter 8: "The Case against Free Will"
in Rachels and the videos on the Stanford Prison and Milgram
experiments offer a convincing case that free will is an illusion?
Why or why not?
Imagine that scientists discovered that causal determinism
is true. What would be the moral implications (if any) of
this finding? Would this discovery affect the way in which
you live your life? Why or why not?
I am confused by the distinction between the concepts of over
and underdetermination in the philosophy of science and epistemology.
I understand that a belief or a theory can be underdetermined
by a data set because the relevant, available data set equally
supports a rival, noncompatible theory. For example, based
on observation alone, a heliocentric and geocentric theory
of our universe would be underdetermined, because both would
seem equally plausible to a man standing on earth. What, however,
would be the application (if any) of the concept of overdetermination?
Is overdetermination merely a flipping of the script, such
that I can say "the theory is underdetermined by the data"
or "the data is overdetermined by the theory," or is there
more to the concept of overdetermination in philosophy of
science and epistemology?
Can we know through the use of reason that mindindependent
material objects exist?
A) No, because "reason can only manipulate, but never create"
ideas about the nature of the world.
B) Yes, because reason constructs scientific theories that
systematize our perceptions, and these theories necessarily
postulate material objects.
C) Yes, because unlike our senses, our reason can penetrate
the "veil of appearances" and reveal permanent truths.
D) No, because we "might be affected with all the ideas we
have now, though no bodies existed without resembling them."
E) Yes, because our reason allows us to infer the existence
of mindindependent objects from our perceptual ideas.
George Berkeley thinks that
A) Even when we have sensations of eating and drinking, we
cannot be sure that our bodies actually consume anything.
However, the fact that we don't die of malnutrition proves
that that we do not "eat and drink mere ideas" but real, material
B) Ordinary people think that they actually "eat and drink
ideas" but a deeper, philosophical understanding will make
clear that this is not a defensible view.
C) if mindindependent material objects did not exist, then
we would have to say that we "eat and drink ideas" which
D) When we eat and drink, we are only aware of sensory ideas
about what we consume, so unless we want to say that we "eat
and drink ideas" we have to make the distinction between how
something appears and what that thing is. The two must be
E) it might sound weird to say that we "eat and drink ideas",
but since ideas compose real things like apples and wine,
we can just as well say that we eat apples and drink wine.
Hello, I was wondering if it is necessary for a moral theory,
say utilitarianism, to care about people. I understand that
moral theories are concerned with the determination of right
and wrong. In that case will it be fair to criticise a utilitarian
for not caring about the welfare of other people, but only
what is right? Does considering which actions will yield the
maximum utility equate to caring about people? Does the intention
of just wanting to do what is right according to the theory
(whatever creates the most happiness, if you are a utilitarian)
mean that one has no concern for other people? Surely there
is a reason for wanting to do what is right? Perhaps certain
degree of altruism?
Thanks so much for your help.
Is it possible that the world will end in nothingness?
What do you understand by the formula, 'existence is prior
Compare and contrast epistemology and metaphysics by Skepticism,amp;9702;Rationalism
What is systematic doubt? And what is its relation to Cartesian
Taking the position of a physicalist, what scientific/ philosophical
advice would you give to someone who wanted to write a screenplay
featuring a scenario of an out-of-body experience?
What is the Hobbes' view's on Absolute monarchy. Why does he support
the Monarchy? please give the answer in details.
i know time is relative and an hour here can be a day on another
planet. but I would like to know throughout the total expanse
of the universe how many nows are there? I dont mean a measured
now. as in such and such miliseconds. I mean the concept of
now. this instant. is now the same everywhere? thank you
what are the three types of good life that Aristotle talks
about? Why is the making of money excluded? what science studies
the highest good?
Brittany Nickel asked:
We are learning about Euclid's proposition 1 which I understand
but I have a heard time finding out a empiricist view of geometry
and how they would challenge the rationalist. Also my prof
discussed rationalism about arithmetical truths compare with
rationalism about geometry. Any clarification would be helpful.
In the Second Meditation, Descartes says that you might be
wrong that there's a fire in front of you, but you can't be
wrong that you seem to see a fire. What does this mean?
why does he think this?
is he using the example of the fire to prep for his following
argument about "the wax or the body"; that that we aren't
perceiving the wax though our senses but though intellect.
What happens after death?
Mr. Green asked:
True or False: According to Aristotle, The philosophical development,
Heraclitus to Plato is persuasive: Nature likes to hide, and
with the power of logos man will reveal the true nature of
reality. But, Plato is mistaken: to reveal reality we do
not need the mystical reach to the divine realm of Platos
eidei. Let us apply the basic distinctions, Form and Matter,
and, the doctrine of entelechy, together with the doctrine
of the Four Causes to discover the substantial reality contained
in the things we encounter in our experience of the phenomenal
Is it possible that George Berkeley was a solipsist, idealist
What is the explanatory gap argument for dualism and how would
a metaphysical materialist reply to this argument?
what is the meaning of life?
How can I teach my students the difference between shadows
and substance referring to Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
why people do affairs?
Can the Frege Geach problem be considered as flawed because:
if you fully equivocated all the ethical statements in the
argument 'if murder is wrong then stealing is wrong. Murder
is wrong therefore stealing is wrong' to the emotivist alternatives,
murder? Boo! and stealing? Boo!, rather than just the second
premise, I see no reason why the argument would no longer
be valid: the modus ponens from of if x then y; x; therefore
y is satisfied. An emotivist would understand not only the
linguistically simple statement murder is wrong by itself
to essentially mean murder? Boo!, but also the embedding of
it in the complex statement if murder is wrong then stealing
is wrong to mean if murder? Boo! Then stealing? Boo!, where
it is the expressions of opinion that are linked, rather than
a true or false ethical statements, the existence of which
the emotivist would reject.
what alternatives does Plato have Socrates say the comunity
("the laws") offer the individual when he doesn't agree with
What is the taoist view on medicaid and social security?
Hi, I am having trouble writing a paper on a philosophy of
mind. I am currently in a intro to philosophy class and the
question bellow is the question I am having trouble with.
Could you possibly give me some insight on your opinion to
the question posed?
Global warming has rendered the continuation of life on Earth
impossible. Luckily, we have been able to melt the polar
ice caps on Mars which has created the atmospheric conditions
necessary to sustain human life. You have no choice but to
make the 36 million mile journey to Mars. However, you can
choose your method of transport.
One method is teletransportation. You will step into a scanner
here on earth which will destroy your brain and body, while
recording the exact states of all your cells. This information
will then be transmitted to a replicator on Mars. Travelling
at the speed of light, the message will take three minutes
to reach its destination. The replicator will create, out
of new matter, a brain and body exactly like yours. The person
on Mars will look like you, think like you, in fact be indistinguishable
from you. He or she will feel as though they have merely fallen
asleep on Earth and then woken up on Mars. This method is
100 percent reliable.
The other choice is to go by spaceship. This is very risky
and there is a 50 percent chance that the ship will not complete
the journey and you will die in transit. But if you do successfully
take the spaceship, then your body and brain won't at any
stage have been destroyed.
You must make the choice which you think will give you the
best chance of surviving. What does your choice say about
your philosophy of mind?
Does Rene Descartes provide a persuasive reply to the challenge
of skepticism? Why or why not? If not, how is it (or is
it?) possible to know anything for certain?
Can language reveal the nature of reality?
What is natural law, where did the idea originate from and
how is it manifested today?
Is space a 'thing in itself'?
Hello, I have recently been reading descartes meditations
and find it fascinating. Descartes said "I think therefore
I am" but is this really true? How do we know it is us that
is doing the thinking since the thoughts we are having could
be coming from somewhere else? Through our consciousness how
do we know if our thoughts, emotions and actions are controlled
not by ourselves but by something external to our minds? I
also read about the universe simulation hypothesis, same question
if we are simulations how do we know if we have any controll
of our minds? Thanks,Jamie.
What were st. Augustine and Boethius thoughts on free will
Hello, I have recently been reading descartes meditations
and find it fascinating. Descartes said "I think therefore
I am" but is this really true? How do we know it is us that
is doing the thinking since the thoughts we are having could
be coming from somewhere else? Through our consciousness how
do we know if our thoughts, emotions and actions are controlled
not by ourselves but by something external to our minds? I
also read about the universe simulation hypothesis, same question
if we are simulations how do we know if we have any controll
of our minds? Thanks,Jamie.
Hi! I was wondering what inherent value is. I am studying
this concept in terms of environmental ethics. I understand
that if something has intrinsic value it makes you happy.
This concept applies to inherent value in animals according
to Mary Anne Warren, but what exactly is it? I'm not getting
a clear answer from anything and I am stuck. If someone can
help I would deeply appreciate it.
This is in response to a question of mine that was answered
by Shaun Williamson titled "How does philosophy progress?"
I feel like you only halfway answered my question, so I'm
going to rephrase it so that it is more direct. In philosophy,
there are times when two ideas/theories/"isms" conflict with
one another and are not compatible. It also seems to be the
case that in some of these instances logic and reason alone
are not enough to resolve this conflict. What I mean by this
is that one idea is just as logical/reasonable as the other
one. My question is in these cases, how can one determine
which one to agree with, provided that suspending belief is
not an option? In your first response, you brought up truth
as being the deciding factor, and I would agree with you,
but so often in philosophy the truth is unknown. Consider,
for example, the problem of consciousness as it relates to
dualism and monism/materialism. We don't know how consciousness
exists/arises. Therefore, it could be that it arises purely
from physical causes, which would lend evidence to materialism.
However, it also could be that consciousness is a product
or somehow related to the immaterial mind, which would lend
evidence to dualism. I understand that there is much more
to the arguments for both of these ideas, but for the sake
of argument let's assume this is all we have to go on. How
exactly is it that one would decide? My belief is that we
would believe whichever idea appeals to us most, for whatever
reason; popularity, an intuitive feeling, how well holding
that belief fits in with our other maintained beliefs, etc.
I'm not claiming that this is the right way to decide what
you believe, I'm simply saying that this is the only option
left. I'm asking whether or not there is another way of deciding
what to belief in these instances that avoids all this subjectivity.
What is thought? In asking this, I'm trying to avoid the question
of where thoughts come from. I'm asking more about what it
means to think. Is thought simply the brain trying to interpret,
make sense of, and understand the data it is receiving?
In what ways does Jean Paul Sartre compare to Nietzche?
Do you find empirical proofs (like the cosmological and teleological)
for the existence of God more or less convincing than rationalistic
arguments (like the moral and ontological)?
Using Kant's notion of a maxim to determine if it is wrong
to cheat on a final exam, that you feel is not beneficial
to you. How would Kant's approach to this differ from the
approaches of the ethical egoist and utilitarian?
Why do people ask: where are you from?
Hi, I would like to know if I have correctly identified the
premises and conclusion in this passage:
A Debate About Colour
A: I think I can show that colours are not real.
B: Not again. Im sure you can find better things to do with
A: No, really. I think Ive found a great argument. Hear me
out. Ok, so far we have agreed that things look various ways
to us. In particular they look to have various colours. And
weve agreed that sometimes we can have disagreements about
what colour something is; disagreements theres no way to resolve.
If colours were real then there would be a fact about what
colour things really were. But since we can't resolve these
disagreements, there is no fact about what colour things are
really. No more than there is a fact about whether someone
is beautiful, or about whether something is funny.
B: Hang on! I agree that we can't resolve these disagreements,
but why does that matter? can't there be facts about the world
we never sort out?
A: But isnt a fact just something that we all agree about?
So, if you and I dont agree about which flavour of icecream
is best, then this means that there is no fact of the matter
about which flavour of icecream is best. And if you and I
cannot agree about whether something is funny, then this means
that there is no fact of the matter about whether it is funny.
Similarly, if people cannot agree about what colour something
is, then there is no fact of the matter about what colour
B: So your argument depends on assuming that if we can't resolve
our disagreements about something, then there are no facts
about that thing. But is this really true? Lets go back to
another thing weve agreed to: The fact that we cannot resolve
the debate over whether God exists. We agree that here we
cant resolve our disagreement. Reasonable people can disagree
and never resolve their disagreements about God's existence.
But that does not mean there is no fact about whether God
exists. Why not say colours are more like God's existence than
icecream flavours or humour? In that case colours are real,
even though we might not always be able to agree what colour
Question: discuss this debate. Find the arguments on both
sides. Identify the premises made. What assumptions do they
share? Are the arguments sound? Are they valid? Are the analogies
convincing? Who has the stronger arguments? Does anyone win
Premises for A:
1. Facts are real because people don't disagree about them
2. We have disagreements about what colour something is
Conclusion: Therefore colours are not real
I have said that this argument is valid since if the premises
were true then the conclusion would follow. However I believe
it isn't sound since the first premise is not true and assumes
that the only way for a fact to be real is if people don't
disagree about them.
I find person B's argument a bit confusing and don't quite
understand the God exists analogy.
Can someone please explain the premises and conclusion of
And can someone please tell me if I have correctly identified
person A's argument. Thanks!
I am studying applied ethics at the moment. When considering
IVF would Kant not be pleased that I wanted to preserve and
add to the human population? What would he think of such advance
in science and infertility?
My question has to do with the recent uproar made by mostly
feminist students on the philosophy curriculum being offered
in the west. They say it's racist, white and ignores the ideas
of other cultures and race, particularly African and Indian.
They say that they too have been doing philosophy and that
if philosophy is all encompassing of ideas, we should have
them part of the curriculum. They say they see no need for
an almost exclusive European education, that world history
isn't just about Europe, and should be called world history.
Your thoughts on the matter would be highly appreciated. Thank
How many pillars hold up the sea
It's impossible to disprove solipsism.
But on the other hand, ist it prossible to PROVE the truth of
Sigurd Vojnov asked:
How do you, without changing the rules of classical logic,
show that sentence 3 does not follow from sentences 1 and
1) sentence 1 is not true
2) sentence 1 = "sentence 1 is not true"
3) "sentence 1 is not true" is not true
I am perplexed by the concept of 'the polls' in Hannah Arendt's
The Human Condition. Does she mean 'polis?'
It is a peculiar use of the term for which I have found no
precedent. Every time I read it I want to substitute 'polis,'and
wonder if it really makes much of a difference.
Are there any similarities between Marx's theory of 'alienation'
and Heidegger view of technology and the resultant 'deworlding'
We have seen on the one hand that play in its many forms cultivates
the virtuous characters of the individual, and that there
are ethical, social, and cultural benefits to it. On the other
hand, sport and games are often depicted as violent activities
that in a sense compromise the fundamental ethos of play.
Can you juxtapose and elaborate on these two positions?
What do you think about the Islamic government (Sharia law)
and the Islamic concept of God (One who is without attributes
and only One)?
I have this question in this logic course that I am taking
and have been stuck on it for quite a while, the answer is
true but have yet to figure out exactly why.
iii) Any valid inference remains valid no matter what extra
premises you may add to it.
True or false?
Which came first, the individual or society?
I was just wondering if you lovely people could clear something
up for me. I was wondering what the main features of temporal
experience are and how are they are significant to the metaphysics
of time? I've always been pretty interested with this type
of stuff and I can't find a clear answer anywhere.
thanks in advance,
Defend one of the four ethical theories we discussed (ethical
egoism, utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics). Say
why you think that this position makes the most sense. Defend
your view against opposing arguments and potential criticisms,
and discuss the other views and say why you think they are
inferior to the one youre defending.
rathin jha asked:
is the evil demon hypothesis true?
Plato as the major exponent of idealism
What is the application of idealism in education??
What is the application of naturalism in education
In the book Ethics and Infinity what ethical possibilities
do you find in Levinas that we have yet found in any other
philosophers? And what do you think of those possibilities?
If everything had its binary opposite, would everything equal
Is it possible into a naturalistic philosophy (naturalism)
the existence of inmaterial things? And, Is it possible that,
though God did not exist, could inmaterial things, even
1.) At the time Darwin wrote the origin of species which of
the following biological structures or processes were black
boxes? A. Cells B. Digestion C. immunity D. Vertebrate eyes
or E. All of the above
2.) Irreducibly complex systems in biology are problematic
for evolutionary theory because A. Biochemists disagree on
the number of amino acids that make up protein chains. B.
Biochemists disagree about the components of cilia. C. its
difficult to see how natural selection could retain a series
of intermediate mechanisms that are individually useless to
the organism. Or D. none of the above
3.) Behe defines irreducible complexity as a system which
is composed of interacting parts that contribute to basic
function, and removal of any of the parts causes the system
to effectively cease functioning. True or False?
4.) According to Behe it is no longer sufficient for an evolutionary
explanation? (As Darwin did in the 19th century?) True or
5.) According to Behe life on earth at its most fundamental
level is the product of intelligent activity? True or False?
6.) According to Behe a satisfactory explanation of a biological
phenomenon such as sight, digestion or immunity must include
a molecular explanation? True or False?
7.) According to Behe the fossil record is an important source
of info that could help scientists develop missing biochemical
explanation'? true or false?
Did Socrates's philosophical lifestyle have the potential
to "wake up" Athenians in a way that could have been useful
to that society?
Does the importance of being awoken in that way justify the
extreme manner that Socrates chose to live and die?
Do you agree that (to use a famous phrase from the eighteenth
century Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant), awakening an
individualor an entire societyfrom "dogmatic slumbers" is
a constructive and useful role of raising probing philosophical
questions? Is there a significant opportunity for philosophers
or others to play this kind of constructive role in our own
Which philosophers believed that it was okay to tell a lie?
Does God exist?
Does Plato, in your view, provide an adequate solution to the moral problems raised by the immoralists?
A scientist at Creation Ministries International says there
at 101 evidences for a young earth (an earth which is about
6,000 years old): http://creation.com/ageoftheearth
Could you please give your thoughts on this matter? It would
I have a question about human consciousness. How come we can
actively disobey what our brain is trying to tell us (For
example, if we put our hand on a hot stove, although it is
our natural response to pull away, we can choose to keep our
hand on the stove)? If our brain was the "control center of
the body", then shouldn't it be able to pull the hand away
from the stove if it was in control? If it is not in full
control, then does this prove human consciousness? If not,
then how come I can actively choose to disobey my natural
response? (I apologize for my stringing of questions)
Does the end justify the means?
If a person commits an act they know to be wrong (for instance
they lie) to get something they want, something intended to
be good, does the end ever justify the means by which they
got what they wanted?
What makes me "I" ? Please provide a detailed answer from
a philosophical perspective as I am only 14 years old student.
We have just started reading ethics and infinity and im having
a hard time understanding levinas. what ethical possibilities
do you find in Levians that we have yet found in any other
philosophers? And what do you think of those possibilities?
If this is the question, then what is the answer?
"External Perception is a Constant Pretension to Accomplish
Something That, it is Not In A Position To Accomplish quoted
Is This Correct?
What does Hans Kelsen's philosophy look like when put into
practice? for instance, how would he analysis Tennessee attempting
to pass a bill to make the Holy Bible an "official state book,"
while the Tennessee Constitution says that "no preference
shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment
or mode of worship"?
From my understanding, Hans says law is positive law, so I
feel like Hans would say that the law is what it says it is,
that "no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious
establishment or mode of worship." Therefore, it would be
a question of whether this is truly giving a preference to
the establishment or mode of worship.
But then the whole notion of Grundnorms has me lost.
Is the Tennessee Constitution the Grundnorm and the bill is
the law we should be analyzing instead? Or is U.S. Constitution,
or something else the Grandnorm?
Hello, I'm writing an essay titled "'No act is intrinsically
criminal'. Discuss" I know it might sound silly or dumb but
I have no clue what the title means and I'm struggling to
write my essay. I really want to get a good grade. Please
can you help me. Thank you.
What is meant by Nietzsche's dialectical method the subversion
What is meant by Nietzsche's notions
of human equality and of the universality
of moral maxims ?
How does Nietzsche's philosophical insight
subvert and overcome the ontological and
epistemological categories of Western metaphysical thinking.
Would Rousseau agree with Marxs account of the way we have
moved from primitive societies to modern society? Why or why
How does the Memory Theory give rise to the Duplication Objection?
I was taught that awareness is essentially who we truly are.
For instance this is the driving theme within Buddhism. Is
it possible to argue that this view is wrong, if so, how?
what we mean by utility of philosphy in literature and how
I'm writing a paper on Gettier's cases being , and I need
help, these are the parts of the outline I can't figure out
how to phrase/type.
Present the individualist theory you are explaining
How individualist theory resolves the Gettier case
Socially oriented theory
How socially oriented theory fails to resolve the Gettier case
Elucidate the jaina theory of self bondage and liberation.
Part of Aristotle's argument for his conclusion requires everything
to have an ergon, or proper function. How plausible is this
claim when applied to natural objects?
The utilitarian is often criticized for ignoring rights. What
are rights, and does hedonistic utilitarianism act against
Farhan Mustafa asked:
I would like to ask you a question on metaphysics in philosophy.
What are the strengths of applications of metaphysics in secondary
schools nowadays. (8 points). Waiting for your kind response.
Hazel Hofman asked:
I am interested to know how apperception (not sure what is
the current thinking on this) fits with the multiverse or
parallel universe theory. If there is any to explain philosophically
perception within the concept of parallel universes, I'd appreciate
i need help with 3 questions I don't understand
1) Why do Parmenides and Zeno think that change/flux/motion
2 What is Descartes substance dualism? How can we know there
is a substantial difference between minds and bodies prior
3) What is the Humean problem of induction? If generalizations
cannot be rationally grounded, then why do we believe in them?
Why doesnt Descartes simply determine what's real by looking
around him and use his sense experience?
How does Rousseau account for the emergence of civil society?what
is the change, or more precisely, the transformation of material
relations, that accounts for the founding of society in a
robust sense (i.e., civil society)?
With regards to Plato's "Republic", what are the different
definitions of justice, and what is the relationship of justice
With regards to Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, what is the
function of a human being? Why is the good of the city higher
than the good of a single individual? Can virtue be particular
to an individual and still universal?
An ethical question regarding government mass surveillance:
Given the data that an organization such as the NSA has on
individuals internet usage, does that organization have an
ethical duty to, apart from stopping violent crime (terrorism
etc), to stop people searching for ways to selfharm and to
commit suicide (which is also a crime in some places)? If
the former can be justified shouldn't the latter be necessary
what did socrates have to say about choosing rightly?
Plato believes that through dialect we can know whats just,
beautiful, virtue, love, good, but in general people are in
disagreement about these terms. In your opinion, do such universals
exist? And can we know them? If yes, why?
Hello there, well I am looking for a definition to a phenomenon
that I have experienced all my life and that I have been told
by others that they have experienced this phenomenon as well.
"When I want something I never get, but when I don't want
something I get it right away in great abundance".
What is the name of this phenomenon, and why is it so frequent
in my life.
I have dabbled in this for years, and maybe its my subconscience
or karma or it has to do with something with the laws of attraction
as well. Maybe I have a negative aura or energy to who I am.
I have also experienced that people that I have never met
before in my life( personally or through photos or any information
of them) have a negative reaction to me as if they hate me
or dislike me yet they don't know or have never known me before.
Let's say there is a moral philosopher who is repeatedly doing
some morally questionable action towards others, for example
harassing, stealing, or bullying. (From what I hear, moral
philosophers are not that moral, are they?) One day she becomes
the victim of this same behavior for the first time. Would
she revise her own actions, and how would she go on rationalizing
My attempt at an answer would be that a utilitarian would
revise the utilities related to that behavior and maybe that
would make her change her ways. A Kantian would think of the
categorical imperative and perhaps decide this should not
be a universal law and therefore one should not act like that.
Is that about it or is there more to this?
The prisoners in the allegory of the cave as political leaders
create shadow reality for people and that people have to break
the chains to see things for themselves.
How would you explain this? and how would someone argue against
this if they do not feel the same way?
In the second chapter of The Ethics of Ambiguity, Simone de
Beauvoir lists a serious of character types (the subman, the
serious man, the nihilist, the adventurer, the passionate
man, etc..), culminating in her existentialist ideal.
What type of character would the underground man be from Dostoevsky's
"Notes From Underground"?
Does game theory give a morally acceptable procedure for making
Is it really true that what does not kill me makes me stronger?
how does Socrates sees the meaning of life?
What existed before Christ ?
What are the problems in the nature of matter in Russell's
Problems of Philosophy?
if my clothes are off and there is no one to see me, i'm i
what are essential features of consciousness
Is it possible for something to have the property of hardness
without itself not being hard? Or, is it possible for something
to have the property of softness without itself not being
Is an act morally good because God approves of it or God approves
of it because it is morally good
Do philosophers agree on the nature of philosophy?
If a hundred individuals are suddenly 'born' into utter darkness
into a place where there is nothing to sense and thus no
conscious sensory experience, and yet (for the sake of argument)
are able to survive in such a condition does there become
a 'common being' between them all by virtue of the fact that
their conscious experiences are equally void? Aren't the hundred
individuals one individual if their experiences are precisely
Hi, My question can be asked about shout all skeptics
in many ways and versions,
But perhaps the simplest and easiest ,I would be the example
of Nietzsche ...
Perhaps,more than anyone else ,Nietzsche had demolished any
sense of certainty
Of almost any truth or knowledge ,it seems of any kind...
The question I always had is...
What about this very conclusion itself,quite a huge statement
,with such certainty
Coming from the same man,who at the same time saying,practically,
That mad is delusional ,Nietzsche's conclusion is self contradictory.
In similar vain,Nietzsche thinks ,will to power is what drives
And looking at Nietzsche's own life ,practically lived poor
and suffering all his life,
How does will to power apply to the life he lived and he himself
Understandably ,the theory is general and universal,but didn't
his life and of many others that sacrifice their lives for
what seems clearly ,other than for power...
TRANSITING FROM B.C.E. TO C.E.
If the dates during the B.C. era moved backwards, e.g. from1000
B.C.E. to 400 B.C.E to 350 B.C.E. and down towards zero, then
was the first month of the year December or January?
What did the people who lived during the B.C.E. think would
happen when the year reached 0000? End of time?
Was the first date of the C.E. (A.D.) era 01.01.0000 or 01.01.0001?
If, say, the first date of the C.E. was 01.01.0000, then what
was the date the previous day? Was it 01.01.0001 B.C.E., 01.12.0001
B.C.E. or 31.12.0001 B.C.E.?
And if the first date of the C.E. era was 01.01.0001, then
was the date the previous day 01.01.0000, 01.01.0001, 01.12.0000,
Elucidate the idea of unconscious .also proof the existence
Giwa Victor asked:
With all we learned from history is that nobody learn anything
from history. Discuss?
Is every belief a candidate for knowledge?
How can Nietzsche,as an example,believe in what he says,with
While much of what he is saying,is basically demolishing any
belief in certainty.
How would we know if past generations experienced time differently
(perhaps more slowly) than we do today? Is it possible that
time is moving more quickly for us? Could this be used as
an argument for why past generations are "better", in terms
of artistic achievements etc.? Did they simply have a more
stretched out experience of time in which they had more time
to consider the world? Or is this just a very silly question
Why does Wittgenstein disagree with Bertand Russell's interpretation
of atomism in Tractatus?
How did Socrates know he was wise?
ANSWER AROUND 5 SENTENCES
1. What is Nietzsche's argument in the literary piece of On
Truth and Lies in a Normal Sense , in a nutshell?
2. What makes scientific knowledge and empirical observation
untrustworthy On Truth and Lies in a Normal Sense, in Nietzsche's
3. How does Nietzsche's notion of "truth" relate to Plato's
The Allegory of the Cave and Jean Paul Sartre's Existentialism
notion of "lawmakers"?
What is Steven Hawking's argument in "Is Everything Determined?",
in a nutshell?
There are some striking parallels among Plato's "The Allegory
of the Cave," Jean Paul Sartre's "Existentialism," and Henry
David Thoreau "Where I Lived, and What I Lived For." What
Why does Thoreau call the average person a "sleeper" in "Where
I lived, and What I lived For"? How does this lifestyle differ
from living "deliberately"?
What is the nature of scientific reasoning, according to Jacob
Bronowski in "The Nature of Scientific Reasoning"? What role
does imagination play? Does this differ from the picture painted
by Steven Weinberg in "Without God"?
What if religion disappears today? What be the implication
1. Social point of view Is it not the religion that plays
a major role in holding back 99 against 1 amongst other things?
Will not it create anarchy as a very first reaction as the
religion is the fundamental identity amp; bedrock of human
principles (de facto legal too)?
2. Ethics/ Morality-Will then every legitimate/legal action
then have an inbuilt moral amp; ethical qualifier holding
near to negligible intrinsic value? Will not anything intrinsic
then be seen with a prism of hedonism? Will then incest be
acceptable if agreed upon barring/controlling biological complication
resulting from it. In sum, any desire agreed upon amp; legitimized
by state will then be deemed acceptable amp; morale.
according to Epicurus, what is the soul?
In Chapter 4 of Mill's Utilitarianism he offers a partial
defense of the utilitarian moral theory. Which aspect of utilitarianism
does he defend? And which aspect does he leave undefended?
why was Socrates condemned?
Is it possible that time is going backwards?
Who is your favorite presocratic philosopher and why?
What are the philosophical implications of the flight of Solar
was Plato a rationalist or an empiricist?
It am relatively new to philosophy and studying the aqa philosophy
a level syllabus. It seems to me from my reading that some
writers view Plato as a rationalist at least partly because
he believed that some knowledge is innate (meno). however
from my general knowledge It seems to me that Plato was really
a mystic who believed that most people are driven by their
habits or conditioning and he therefore advocated theocracy
as his preferred political system.
I would therefore be more inclined to say that Plato was more
of an empiricist than a rationalist neither of which terms
existed in his time.
What is the age of the Earth if time does not exist?
I recently saw (YouTube) a very interesting discussion between
Lawrence Krauss, Daniel Dennett and Massimo Pigliucci on the
limits of science. One point that was not discussed adequately
was that science sometimes turns to philosophers to help formulate
the right questions. Dr. Krauss agreed apparently only if
the physicist or other scientist runs out of questions to
explore. I feel that the philosophy of science should play
a larger role, but it intrigues me that scientists DO turn
to philosopher to formulate the right question. That is, how
does one know that they're asking the wrong question? Is there
a method for evaluating such, and for formulating the right
question? I don't expect Steps 1, 2 and 3, just some insights.
I recall reading, in the past, about a philosopher who acknowledged
that the existence of god was completely irrational and that
he probably didn't exist. However, he emphasized that despite
this fact, people should and need to believe in religion to
feel happy, moral, and fulfilled in life, and so, belief is
necessary. I can't recall who this is although I'm leaning
towards Kant or Aristotle. Do you know who I can attribute
this idea to or where I can read more?
Possibly this question is too broad, but what does it mean
to say that ethical propositions do not refer in relation
to Metaethics. Could you give a concise outline?
I am just getting into the philosophy Of Guy Debord. What
is your definition of "spectacle"?
what is direct realism?
What are the premises of Descarte's indivisibility argument
for substance dualism?
Thoroughly summarize Descartes' development argument in MeditationTwo
of the Meditations on First Philosophy. How does Descartes'
initial skepticism lead him to certainty? What can be known
with certainty, according to Descartes at this stage of the
argument? Summarize the wax argument at the end of the second
I am studying intro. to Philosophy, Specifically, Aristole,
Kant, and Mill's Ethical theories. Which one would you consider
the most reasonable and why?
What is the significance of dreams for philosophy?
When Newton said, 'Hypotheses non fingo' was he lying?
Can anyone here explain what J.L. Mackie in his analysis of
causation means by an 'INUS condition'?
Is philosophy still of any use today?
Wittgenstein once commented on Bertrand Russell that he had
'run out of questions'. Assuming Wittgenstein was right, what
kind of problem or disability is this? What is the solution?
Evaluate John Henry McDowell's contribution to philosophy.
Can you explain the rationalist vs. empiricist controversy.
Is the debate about the origin of our ideas or justifications
for our beliefs?
Is mourning a relationship a healthy process in healing. Is
it healthy to mourn one's relationship to family even if nobody
has died? What do you feel about this attachment to a parent,
is it sensible to let it go if we have established our own
life to include our own families?
From a Kantian perspective is it morally permissible to torture
a person(who will die from the injuries) as the only means
to find out where he has hidden a nuclear bomb that is set
to go off in the city or area where you live? Why?
does a cloned human have soul
Jamie Jones asked:
Descartes in his meditations tells us that an evil demon controlls
all our perceptions, but the meditator retains the power willingly
to suspend judgment, the cartesian demon cannot simply force
its victim to have any arbitrary chosen belief. For example,
it cannot install and run an arbitrarily chosen train of thought
in the mind of the philosopher thereby making the philosopher
beleave whatever the demon wants. But how could descartes
be sure of that? If this was the case in our reality how would
we know or discover it? and how could we deal with knowing
it? I guess what im asking is are our thoughts and perceptions
and even actions controlled by us?
Shane Revis asked:
What I am about to say is a desperate call for help. I am
reaching out to you so that I may be assisted with this dear
worry I have been plagued with for several years
Basically, I am paranoid about what will happen to me after
I die. Because of argument amongst equally learned, intelligent,
capable philosophers, I cant figure out what the afterlife
(if there is one) will consist of. The reason this is an obsession
and highly alarming to me is because several different religions
state you must believe such and such in order to escape hell
(eternal torture). You cant simultaneously be a follower of
incompatible religions, so its like youre taking an eternal
chance in believing anything. Moreover, it seems the superiority
of one religion over the other cannot be determined. Philosophers
argue about this stuff night and day, and the arguments never
end...nothing is ever decided for certain. No one can be sure
of anything. Must I believe that when I die, Ill more than
likely go to some sort of hell? My morals arent terrific,
you know. This is driving me mad! It is something I dwell
on ALL the time. Life is so terribly fragile, and any of us
could go at any time. Im at a higher risk of death than a
lot because of heart disease problems in my genes.
What is a man supposed to do in a predicament like this?
You probably have beliefs about the afterlife, but how can
you be SURE of them when you are aware of the other equally
knowledgeable minds that dont believe as you dothat have solid
arguments for their own worldviews and against your own? You
cant say that youre somehow superior to a whole mass of intelligent
where do I come from?
How does direct realism explain what happens when we read
a story? We are certainly perceiving more than just marks
on a page, and our mind can build a pretty convincing picture
for us based on these marks. (It also gets better at it with
practice) The image we build is unique to us, yet shares
a common grounding in the reality of the print on the page.
This seems to me to be neither direct perception, illusion
or hallucination, and I'm not sure it could be described as
sensedata either, as the picture we build bears no direct
relationship to the text. Has this ever been put forward
as a criticism of direct realism?
Dapinderdeep Singh asked:
if I found a wallet with 500 cash in it would I return it?
Who is to say what time it is? side note for all we know
what we think is 7:00 o'clock am/pm when it could be 3:00,
I've read a fair bit of secondary literature about Heidegger
(although I must confess I have not successfully completed
Being and Time) and I am still perplexed about what "being"
is. What is it, actually? Additionally, I don't understand
Heidegger's contribution to the postPlatonic ideas of being.
Can someone please summarize 1) what being is (or at least
where the long conversation about being now stands); and 2)
what exactly is Heidegger's contribution to a concept of being.
Many, many thanks.
.Values are not objective, are not part of the fabric of the
world can you explain this quote that was said by Mackie
Can you please explain Descartes' arguments for the position
called Substance Dualism, and the position he is arguing against
(materialist monism, 'mind' is just (brain) matter)?
can you explain Descartes' argument in Meditation II which
establishes the nature of the 'I' as a 'thing that thinks'?
And clearly explain what the I is, and what the 'I' cannot
be on his view?
Why are we here?
Can happiness be defined and measured
What is love?
How does Plato's Epistemologist theory become the basis of
his political thought ?.
Akeem Reed asked:
I'd like for you to answer this question about what we can
know and how we can know it. In the light of Descartes' extraordinary
method of doubting everything that is not absolutely certain,
how much of what we see and hear, think and believe, is really
certain? Can there be any certain knowledge does there need
to be? Is "I exist" the only absolutely certain truth, as
Descartes says in the Second Meditation? What about the famous
"dream" and "evil deceiver" problems raised by Descartes do
these show that everything except "I exist" can be doubted?
The rates of teen pregnancy in many countries have risen over
the past decades, despite the increased availability of contraceptives.
Suggest how parents, teachers, religious leaders, government
officials, and teenagers themselves could help remedy this
situation. Include at least one concrete suggestion for EACH
What is this logical fallacy?
"Paypal was not available, so I decided to use Paypal?"
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FREE WILL AND DESTINY
I've been seeing this on the web lately.
"This sentence is false."
I am high school student from India, both Philosophy and science
has always interested me but I came to know that Scientists
(or empiricists) like Stephen Hawkings declare that science
has killed philosophy, so are they right?
I thought it was pretty obvious that Kant was a moral absolutist
and really meant that one must not lie, at any cost. If an
axmurderer came looking for a victim, and asked you where
the intended victim was, Kant insisted one must not lie even
to save his life.
But, I was in a conversation the other day and the topic came
up. My interlocuter insisted that Kant really didn't mean
what he said, but rather it was "a thought exercise".
What do you think? Did Kant really mean that we should not
lie, even to save a life?
No moral philosophy so far discovered or created is yet perfect,
as in completely rationally sound and creating the courses
of action resulting in the best possible world (or with the
proper intent to create the best possible world). correct?
So then we must fall, as imperfect but striving to be rational
and good, to the nextbest or currentbest philosophy. Given
some simple additions, if necessary, namely to continue the
search of the infinite possibility space of moral philosophy
for a/the perfect moral philosophy and proper fallback to
the nextnextbest moral philosophy for those edge cases where
a specific moral philosophy might fail, is there any way to
determine a best moral philosophy? asked another way, is it
possible to determine if one flawed moral philosophy is in
any way better or more correct than another?
If there is a metric, then does not adding specific search
and/or fallback clauses make the currentbest into an essentially
perfect moral philosophy?
And then if not, then what could uniquely distinguish a/the
perfect moral philosophy from one of the aforementioned flawed
Finally, is a moral philosophy metric necessary for there
to be a perfect moral philosophy?
The Philosophy and Ethics of Sex and Money.
How can philosophy help us think about a recent trend of women
attempting to sell their virginity online to the highest bidder.
Medical student 'Elizabeth Raine' is a recent case. She planned
to sell her virginity for 801,000 before backing out.
1. Consenting adults should have the right to do what they
want with their body and money?
2. She does not help liberate women, but perpetuates the objectification
of women as commodities instead of human beings, and contributes
to violence against women.
3. If a university, medical school, and the medical profession
punish or expels such students, are their actions morally
defensible or not?
Marriage is an extension of business (karl marx). Agree or
Pick any question...
African philosophy: is there really such a thing?
Essence and existence: which is prior to the other?
In the future do you think 'believing in God' will be classified
as a mental illness?
Why do good things happen to bad people, and bad things to
Where does theology end and philosophy begin?
How is human illness a philosophical problem?
How is Nietzsche's philosophy of 'Will to Power' and 'Slave
and Master Morality' related to Christianity? Besides critique
of Christian values, what does Nietsche think of religion
Do we say Scientific Method or Scientific Methods?
If something cant be defined can it exist? and vice versa?
Is it inevitable that Guy Debord's ideas expressed in Society
of the Spectacle will become entirely absorbed by the spectacle?
The No-Self Theory; Hume, Buddhism, and Personal Identity.
What are the 7 theories to Hume's no-self Theory?
I need explanations on The Problem with St. Augustine's Theism
and possibly references
using suitable illustrations from a school setting,discuss
the various ways principle of empiricism and rationalism find
expression in the process of Education?
These days philosophy is often viewed as discourse (doctrine,
argument,conceptual analysis), as a subject for intellectual
study. But the Western tradition (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle,
Stoics, Cynics, Pyrrhonists, Epicureans), strongly emphasizes
that philosophy is discourse plus a way of life striving for
wisdom, and ancient accounts of philosophers often tell us
how they lived rather than just what they said.
What, then, are the distinctive features of a philosophical
way of life? And can one call oneself a philosopher without
living such a life?
omar hussain asked:
What are the two main kinds of bad faith?
Noel John asked:
In asking the "right" question, one must not be insensitive
and must consider the state of the listener. For example,
it would be rude to ask an unemployed person as to why he
can't find a job. This is not a "right" question since the
speaker failed to use discernment in his question.
according to dualism mind/body problem is a person still himself
if he loses his memory
Is curing someone of a multiple personality disorder an act
of murder, and can a human have two souls?
The other day, I found out that one of my friend's relatives
was diagnosed with a type of dissociative identity disorder
(multiple personality disorder). However unlike most cases
of DID, she got along quite well with her alter. The disorder
was not majorly affecting her in any negative way, and she
had no intentions of treating it. So that got me thinking.
If someone developed a dissociative identity disorder during
their early childhood, with each identity having its own set
memories and thinking patterns. Would the act of curing that
person of the disorder by eliminating their other extra identities
be similar to murder?
The theory that I believe in is that a human can have multiple
souls (just for this argument, let's presume a soul is created
by reaching a level of consciousness). According to some neuroscientific
research, only 5 of our brain activities are conscious and
95 are unconscious. And if we presume that two souls could
share unconscious brain activities, like knowing how to walk,
monitor heart rate, read written words, and so on. Then a
human with two souls would only require a brain that's 105
(95+2*5) as efficient as an average human brain. Which is
well within the realms of biological plausibility. So I believe
that in some severe cases of a dissociative identity disorder,
a human could have two or more souls. And by treating them,
you are in a way commenting murder.
However I'm not a professional philosopher, and I'm sure that
there are a lot of flaws in my reasoning.
kelly almond asked:
I think that every brain is not biologically the same. So
is Kant taking the individual brain into consideration when
it filters the world? Is he accepting that many humans perceive
the world in ways that are different than other humans?
If time travel existed and I projected myself 0.1 second into
the future, would I still be visible?
If any of you have read the Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus,
I do not understand the absurd victory at the end. This quote
in general is puzzling;
"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always
finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher
fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes
that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master
seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that
stone, each mineral flake of that nightfilled mountain, in
itself forms a world. The struggle itself towards the heights
is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus
Could you please break this down so I can really understand
what Camus is getting at?
I have been reading 'The Vita Active and the Modern Age' by
Arendt and I am a little confused by Arendt's discussion
about Descartes' use of the term dubito ergo sum and cognito
Arendt comments that Descartes' "famous cogito ergo sum...
did not spring from any selfcertainity of though...but was
a mere generalisation of a dubito ergo sum" p279.
Hence is Arendt suggesting that Descartes' selfcertainity
of thought was the truth of self, ie 'if I think, therefore
I am' or was it that because of the Cartesian doubt, Descartes
believed that whilst ever he doubted, it offers validity to
the claim that if I doubt, that was proof that I was thinking,
and therefore I am?
I apologise if this is a bit .... confusing in the writing.
I am trying to come to terms with the idea or rather Arendt's
comments about Descartes' work.
Any clarification you could offer would be appreciated.
In De Cive by Hobbes in chapter XII Of the internal causes,
tending to the dissolution of any Government there's a quote
that refers to the bibble "The most ancient of all Gods commands
is, Gen. 2:15. Thou shalt not eat of the tree of knowledge
of good and evill; and the most ancient of all diabolicall
tentations, Chap. 3. vers. 5. Yee shall be as Gods, knowing
good and evill; and Gods first expostulation with man, vers.
11. Who told thee that thou wert naked? Hast thou eaten of
the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not
eat? As if he had said, how comest thou to judge that nakedness,
wherein it seemed good to me to create thee, to be shamefull,
except thou have arrogated to thy selfe the knowledge of good
and evill?" And I was wondering what Hobbes mean by "naked"
in politically terms, initially I thought it mean the shame
in being a subject under a ruler but my philosophy teacher
said I was wrong and quote Kant in something like I needed
to see the spirit of the text and no the literally words and
I wanted to know your vision about what naked means politically
in Hobbes, I apologise for my poor English, thank you
Which act do you see as the more immoral act:
1. Defacing a widely recognized symbol of freedom, in this
instance, the American flag.
2. Initiating violence against someone for defacing said symbol
I am very interested in anti-psychiatry and what philosophy has to offer in this field today. I believe it is more and better than psychiatry. I am also very interested in the modern philosophers who have accessed this field through existentialism, phenomenology and ethics. Any comments suggestions or criticism? Or even guidance.
In regards to an addict and their addictions, it is quite possible to want to be sober, and not want to be sober, at the same time.
Though, the addict, knows that using is bad for them, the urge continues. The voice in their head tells them they want to do it.
The addict caves, and uses, and experiences shame.
Is the shame justified? How can the addict differentiate between their own moral compass, and that of the disease?
Can we have happiness without sadness?
Is it easier to love or to be loved?
I am so scared of death, how am I going to not scare it anymore? Please help me, I'm only 11 but I am scared....
1. how does philosophers do philosophy? What methods philosophers use to gain new knowledge?
2. What is meant by the term rationalism and empiricism?
3. explain the following terms deontological ethics , teleological ethics , absolutist ethnics and relativist ethnics
In which book, which chapters does Hegel talk about 'everything happens for a reason'? Are there other authors that talk about this topic? What are the titles?
I want help for an essay on the topic 'The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled'
Russell stated that the theory of solipsism reduces to 'solipsism of the present moment' because I can't know for certain that I existed in the past or will exist in the future.
Does it even make sense to suppose that I MIGHT just exist for a fraction of a second (how small a fraction?), say, while while I was tapping the second 'l' of 'Russell' in the first paragraph?
shereemah bryant asked:
The idea of the optimistic progress of Being, Spirit, Mind, Reality, History, God, etc., through a triadic process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis is known as
Do believers have right path?
When Descartes concluded his process of methodical doubt he claimed only to have certain knowledge of his own existence and the existence of God. The problem seems to me is that his knowledge of God was based on his belief that God was perfect, and that he was not. Does that not mean that Descartes possessed certain knowledge of perfection and imperfection too?
Descartes lived during the transition from early Baroque to high Baroque when the Catholic church dominated European culture, and that Descartes was a Catholic and therefore he would have taken it for granted that if God existed he would be perfect. This objection feels weak, what do you think?
how does Socrates answer the 2nd question of philosophy, "How can I know what is"? In other words, explain Plato's epistemology.
For a moment assume that Descartes' argument works in proving God's existence, does the ultimate conclusion follow as stated in premise 6? Can Descartes be certain that God would not allow an evil demon or computer to systematically deceive humanity? Maybe God has a reason, or needs to teach humanity a lesson?
in the term metaphysics of presence does presence refer to a physical presence or presence of time?
What kind of thinking may be going on in the mind of a headless man? Existentialism, or...
He had a sudden accident where his head was cut clean off, but managed to walk for some meters before falling down cold.
What may he be thinking before falling down dead,and do philosophers think about this?
Do you think that technology could ever replace the memories of being curled up with a great book or the feel of an old book with its pages turned and worn, marked with someone elses notes or messages?
How do mythical stories attain authority, and what is the role played by the Muses who are often cited at the
beginning of them? What does Hesiod's term Theogony mean?
I'm trying to understand the differences and similarities to Kant and Humes theory abut cause and effect.
Can you explain the the basics in witch they are similar and different from each other?
Matthew 10:28 in the New Testament seems to show influence from Greek Philosophy; however, I would not say that it came from Plato. It seems that it might come from Aristotle who later influenced St. Thomas Aquinas. The soul cannot be killed by mankind. If the body is killed, the soul can live on if the person is a believer in Christ. However, if the person is not a Christian, the soul and body will be thrown into hell and annihilated. The Christian soul lives in heaven until the Second Coming occurs. Afterwards, it is reunited to the body. Aquinas seems not to have believed in the inherent immortality of the soul because God could still destroy it. Jesus sacrifice seems to be what gives the soul and later the body immortality. The souls of those destined for hell are now in hades waiting for the resurrection and the Last Judgment. One might say they are on death row now. I realize this is not the traditional view of the Church. I would like to see your ideas. Charles Wynns, BA, MA
Is there such a thing as intellectual elitism? To what extent should we allow our intellectual pursuits to run our lives and is it better to have friends with the same intellectual interests as you?
I have a close friend of mine who I feel I'm drawing away from because for months I've been feeling that we are too different mainly because I can't be myself with her. I can't talk to her about anything serious and when I try she shows absolutely No interest. The problem is I spend a lot of time with her and when I do I feel like I'm losing a part of myself I can't afford to. I'm afraid of being elitist. At the same time being an introvert I value the friends I have but this one is suffocating me.
For a moment assume that Descartes' argument works in proving God's existence, does the ultimate conclusion follow as stated in premise 6? Can Descartes be certain that God would not allow an evil demon or computer to systematically deceive humanity? Maybe God has a reason, or needs to teach humanity a lesson.
I was recently stumbled across a philosophy book at my local library and picked it up for a read. One of the topics was concerned with proof/information about something along the lines of "x is x if it is simply x". A real life example might be "a chair is a chair if it's simply a chair" or "green tea is green tea if its just green tea".
The topic seemed interesting but I have forgotten what it was concerned with or which philosopher had come up with the proof. Any help/information to help me narrow down to a specific topic would be very much appreciated.
What would be a philosophy of beer?
If you had to make a choice, which would you save and why: (a) a newborn human infant, (b) thirty adult gorillas.
'The world is all that is the case' (Wittgenstein). I am struggling to see the point of this. Isn't it obvious? What is the case, is the case, and what is not the case is not the case. How things are in the world depends on what is the case. End of discussion.
I can't think of any philosophical questions. Is there something wrong with me?
In the UK, the Liberal Democrats are a spent force and Labour with the election of Jeremy Corbyn have made themselves unelectable. What would be a credible political philosophy that could serve as the basis for an alternative political party to the Conservatives?
Suppose the universe is a computer simulation, within a computer simulation, within a computer simulation... Is there any decisive logical difficulty in the idea that it could be 'simulations all the way up'? Does there have to be something REAL that isn't a computer simulation?
Who, in your opinion, is the more important philosopher (and why):
Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger.
Can we know if we have a soul? What about other people or animals?
1 .Explain some of the benefits a student may gain by studying philosophy.
2. Explain the Socratic Method of Teaching. Is this a useful way for students to learn?
3. Explain how critical thinking can be used to analyze a philosophical issue.
4. Compare and contrast induction, abduction, and deduction.
5. Explain some of different areas of philosophy which will be discussed in this course.
6. Compare and contrast various views on substance such as materialism, dualism and idealism.
7. Evaluate the 4 views as to the nature of universals and particulars.
8. Explain and evaluate the views of Anaximander regarding the nature of substance.
9. Explain and evaluate the views of Pythagoras regarding the nature of substance.
10. Explain Aristotle's 4 causes.
11. Compare and contrast rationalism and empiricism.
12. Explain the difference between A priori and A posteriori knowledge.
13 .Compare and contrast Foundationalism and Coherentism
14. Compare and contrast pragmatic theories of truth with the correspondence theory of truth.
15.What are some of the implications of Godel's Theorem?
I have a question on religion. It seems these days with the rise of the prosperity Gospel the idea of religion being a social construction is very visible. I'm a Christian however but I've never viewed it as a religion, in fact I find the idea of organized religion deplorable. My question is is it possible to envision a pure world free from human pollution. Before I used to think the world was determined purely by human nature now I realize that our existence also weighs heavily on us.
Do you think the world would be a better place without religion? By that I don't mean atheism but rather if people pursued truth maybe in the we would realize that what drives us to look up is the innate emptiness we all feel inside. And if humans realize that we're all knowingly or unknowingly searching for our origin maybe we'd all come to one conclusion. Or maybe That's undermining the complexity of our experience as a race.
What did the person who hit a stone and said "I refute him thus" while disagreeing with Berkeley mean by that action?
Try to imagine that you had a cognitive defect such that you could not think of world in terms of causes and effects. What might it be like?
Some physicists are currently supporting a new theory that there exist an infinite number of parallel universes beyond our own, some of which contain an exact copy of you and me, with every action we will ever or have ever done. What does this mean for uniqueness and legacy? Can you offer some optimistic mindset for someone worried about retaining some degree of uniqueness? Thanks a lot!
Government is an idea that has a stronger resonance in the U.S. than in Europe. In 2014 there was an armed standoff between Federal Government Agency officials and Militias at the Cliven Bundy Ranch. Why is that Americans tend to be more distrustful of their state/government than Europeans?! (The Danish seem more satisfied with the idea of being 'governed' than any other population). Is it history, geography, politics, culture or psychology? What does it say about Hobbes' idea of human nature being 'immutable'?
What is the true meaning of, 'What goes around comes around'?
Is Islam incompatible with the US Constitution? Why? or why not?
'God save the Queen...' From what, exactly?
As a good atheist, can a Brit sing the National Anthem without hypocrisy?
What do you understand of the statement: "we all have 2 lives, the second one begins the moment you realize you only have one? thx
What is the difference between Descartes' doubts about using our senses under bad conditions and Descartes' doubts based on the problem of knowing when we are dreaming?
I am wanting to know what would the Philosopher Kant think about the fact that we throw away enough bottles to wrap around the world 190 times in a year, and what would he want to do about this and how would he solve thins issue.
What, according to Socrates, is the soul compelled to believe concerning reality? Does socrates feel this is a reasonable criterion? why or why not?
Do you believe - I say believe for lack of a better word - but do you believe that humans are a creature in evolution. Not Darwin's evolution but social evolution. That since the dawn of time human beings have been moving further away from their basest self, or rather from the unchecked obedience to their natural inclinations. In the same vein can it be said that human evolution is driven by man's struggle with his nature and his desire for that which is good or better. Such that it's possible to envision a being on a journey to his highest self and that highest self as the end of history.
Question: Are all beautiful paintings good paintings? If you answer Yes I would say that it's impossible to view all the beautiful paintings in the world, so it would be impossible to conclude that all beautiful paintings are good paintings. If you answer No, if you view a beautiful painting how can you judge whether it's good or not, if not all beautiful paintings are good paintings? What would your answer be?
What is the principle of utility and how does mill argue for it?
How do you use the FULL-Truth method to determine whether an argument is valid or not.
I have to symbolize the following sentence:
H: HAL goes crazy
E: Everyone aboard is killed
F: Frank replaces the AE-35 Unit
D: Dave will fly into the monolith
C: Communication will be lost
Communication will be lost if and only if HAL goes crazy.
I'm just wondering how I'm supposed to symbolize this sentence.
How do compatibilists respond to the source argument against compatibilism?
Why does Socrates in Plato begin constructing the ideal city?
Why do you think, according to Plato we can never know what is false?
using contemporary examples discuss Plato's argument that a best society is one ruled by philosopher kings.
Question: What are your toughts regarding (1) "presuppositional apologetics" (van Til, Bahnsen, Bruggencate etc.) and (2) the so-called "transcendental argument for the existence of God" (Slick etc.)?
Charlie asked: p>
How do I know what questions to ask? and even then what do I do with the knowledge that I aquire.... I think/ feel that from all the questions ive asked and all the things that you can try to tell people but most of them dont want to know any ways or even think of thees things. I can say that I learn for my own interests but to understand that people arnt interested which would mean that most people dont really show any appeal which would point me down a path to be anti social or I should say more so but I think that would be selfish and pointless in the sense that there is more knowledge around other people and understanding that they dont want to know and that they are happy not knowing it seems that they show a.... I dont know how to explain the "effect"? (sheep?) I guess im just confused by my own perspective. p>
Brad asked: p>
Could you tell me what Heidegger's answer to the question 'What is being?' For the life of me, despite trying to read both secondary works and Being and Time, I don't understand it. Being is everywhere, You'd think it wouldn't be so difficult to explain and understand. (Maybe it's difficult for fish to understand water??) Your comments will be much appreciated. Thanks p>
Kenneth asked: p>
Can pure thoughts or emotions create or change reality? p>
Jacob asked: p>
True or False? Hick concludes that this world is well adapted to the purpose of soul-making. p>
Nitish asked: p>
I am a post-graduate in Applied economics based in India. Despite having studied Economics I have deep interest in philosophy, my interest lies especially in epistemology whereby I want to understand the underlying mechanism of our ways to create and impart knowledge to others. when I was studying economics there is a sense that discipline intends to solve world's problems but then it's by its own means and there must be a limitation to it, given the practices of the discipline by virtue of the way knowledge is created via models or abstraction. This aspect is/ was never a part of discussion/ syllabus as what is the limit of our solutions or what we are trying to achieve is that what we desire? so I want to equip myself with the understanding of the philosophy of the discipline and then understand its limitations (in terms of offering solutions to modern day problems) for the way it's practised in its pedagogy/ finance ministries/ central banks/ international institutions and others. I would therefore appreciate if you can point out a systematic study plan for me citing references. I intend to do Phd in this area, so I wouldn't mind going to advanced readings gradually expecting that you guide me as Socrates did to others! p>
Selena asked: p>
A friend believes that the five human senses - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and feeling - are independent from one another and from our judgment of people and the world around us. Explain what is wrong with your friends belief. p>
What does a foundationalist mean by 'certain'? How does a foundationalist know when s/he is correct?
Why is astrology not knowledge according to science?
WHAT IS A LIE?, AND WHICH OF THE THREE CONDITIONS WOULD A SUCCESSFUL LIE UNDERMINE?
Why does Descartes switch from considering the hypothesis that he might be dreaming to considering the hypothesis that a malicious demon is deceiving him?
Hume argues that the phenomenon of double vision shows that "our perceptions are not possest of any independence existence." What does Hume mean by "perception"? What does it mean to say that something has no "independce existence"? Set out Humes argument in the form of premises and conclusion. Is the argument convincing?
What does Hume mean by "continued existence" and "distinct existence"? What connection does Hume find between the two? what is his explanation of how the "coherence" and "constancy" of "certain impressions" give rise to our belief in the continued existence of tomatoes, trees, tables, and so on? Is his proposed explanation correct?
Is in vitro fertilization a 'natural' process?
Is the idea that all things derive from an arche credible? Why do the milesian philosophers tend to identify the arche with the divine?
compare epricurus and camus?
Compare Gorgias skeptical philosophy to Protagoras maxim. What do they mean?
Do you need to be religious in order to be Moral?
Can an octopus surround a building?
Is it possible to prove or disprove the following question: The entirety of the universe could have been created 3 seconds ago. The egocentric predicament. As in can anyone prove without any doubt that it exist beyond my mind?
How does Socrates sufficiently defend himself against his accusors in Plato's Apology?
I have a question on power. The idea of power is very complex. But my question is directly connected to God. You might not believe in God but let's just presuppose His existence. One of the most difficult questions I've come across is the problem of evil in philosophy if religion. The argument many people present presupposes an omnipresent, all powerful God who is almost a puppet master. But I find is idea of power problematic and perhaps we just misinterpret the essence of power. What if the problem of evil cannot be answered by the idea of the failure of an all powerful being but rather by the argument that God's power is self limited. Maybe power is not definitive of existence but rather responds to existence. What if to God power is not being able to make everyone bend to His will but rather , it's found in granting a degree of freedom to His creation so that those who do yield to him do so out of pure understanding. Basically what if power isn't all powerful but rather understanding the limits inherent in the idea.
Could Descartes' idea of God be materially false, and why does it matter?
Why is truth relative and why do we say that there is no absolute reality (that we can see)? how is that even possible, the existence of a life has started somewhere so we could say that absolute reality exists, something objective, concrete, something that even if it is influenced with our perception would not change. How could a person get near the absolute reality and truth if everything is influenced with our perception and perception of others?
What is ethics?
What is the Cartesian Circle? Why is this argument problematic for Descartes? Provide at least two ways that this argument has been reinterpreted in the contemporary literature to address the objectionable argument?
What does Leibniz mean by a 'world'? What does compossibility mean? How does an adequate view of compossibility help Leibniz respond to Spinozas necessitarianism?
Why is uncreativeness ugly?
What do you feel is the strongest argument for the existence of God in the Meditations? Cosmological from Meditation III or Ontological from Meditation IV? And why? P.S. your blog has helped me soooo much. Thank you!
Dear sir/madam, could you give me a broad explanation about the "meaning of philosophy"? You can answer it in the form of an essay if you don't mind. Thanks.
In groups of four, we have to teach 15 minutes about a philosophical topic. We got terms which we have to explain to the other students. My topic is "the slippery slope principle". I can't find much comprehensible information in the internet etc. So I'd like to ask you. Id would be very nice, if you could give me some simple explanation. Maybe you also know, how I could teach it to my colleague. In form of a game, video or maybe music?
Thank you for your answer, I'm very happy and I'm sure, that I would get some good help!
If you speak german, it would be nice if the answer is in german. :-)
What enables Descartes to be skeptical of reason and conceptual relations?
I'm doing a paper where I have to critique an argument. I've chosen Springer's All Animals are Equal and his theory regarding speciesism.
I've argued that there's something more to it than just socially constructed views on our human superiority.
For example, if you and a stranger were tossed into a strange wilderness with only poisonous plants and a rabbit, your instinct would be to eat the rabbit as opposed to cannibalising the other human.
Would Singer's theory not encourage us to see both the human and the rabbit as viable food sources from which we should choose between without bias?
My claim is basically, that speciesism is not something that gives grounding toward his moral claim, that we shouldn't eat animals -- sure, I don't personally agree with factory farming and humans eat way more meat than they need to, but I don't think, based on the analogy provided, that speciesism is the only reason we see animals as a food source.
ANY thoughts on this or ways you've seen my argument goes wrong would be appreciated.
Are your own ideas about reality most in agreement with the thinking of Locke, Berkeley, Hume, or Kant? Explain your answer.
Following Kant, many critics of theism believe that there is an ontological sleight-of-hand by importing the existence of a Necessary Being into every cosmological argument, which is an illegitimate move from experience to logical necessity
Necessity Does Not Apply to Existence But Only to Concepts
According to this objection, a Necessary Being is a misapplication of the term necessary, for necessary applies only to concepts or ideas, never to actually reality.
Immanuel Kant offered several alleged contradictions, or antinomies, that he thought resulted from applying cosmological arguments to reality. At least three of these antinomies apply to the cosmological argument.
Some critics argue that even if God is the originating Cause of the universe, he is not the sustaining Cause of it. God brought the world into existence, but He is not needed to keep it in existence.
What are the main similarities and differences between Substance dualism and Logical behaviourism?
Most of us take for granted that even when we are not looking, the ice-cubes we saw in the freezer yesterday remain both solid and cold. Is this assumption rational or true? Why or why not?
I had a question in regards to Kierkegaard, why does he claim that Socrates is not in the category of sin? (his reasoning)
What are the qualities a question must have if it is to be used as the basis of essay?
I. it can't be answered in a single sentence or paragraph.
II. it requires investigation.
III. it must be able to be answered conclusively and definitively.
IV. it must lead to a conclusion that is debatable.
How did Hobbes explain the emergence of society?
what did Hobbes mean by "the leviathan?"
Can one have Platonic Love?
(as in a life partner relationship without a sexual dynamic, so as to clarify not including Altruism or biological family bonds).
how did Thomas Hobbes explain the emergence of society?
what did Rousseau attack in his essay "Discourse of the arts and sciences?" and why?
what are Bacon's idols of the mind, and what was his new method for acquiring knowledge?
what did Locke mean by the term "property"? how do men preserve their property?
how is Descartes' method of doubt related to his statement "I think therefore I am"?
explain what is meant by monism, dualism, and pluralism. which seventeenth-century philosopher was identified with each of these metaphysical positions?
what does Locke describe a something I know not what? how does Berkeley use this description to argue that matter does not exist?
explain why Hume thought it was impossible to empirically prove cause and effect?
when inference is expressed in language it is called
What is Buddhism epistemology, ontology, Metaphysics and Axiology?
I am a students of M.Phil of Trubhuwan University in Nepal. I am trying to understand the philosophical perspective to see the theories and other. But I couldn't understand the epistemology, ontology, metaphysics and axiology of Bhuddhism.
Hope to get satisfying answer from you.
Explain what Plato means when he says "Beauty causes beautiful things"
I have a rather unorthodox question that requires the response of a philosopher. I am in a Marketing class for an online Masters degree program and in one of our discussion posts, a classmate made the statement that all people who love to shop are prone to impulse buying or will make emotionally driven purchases.
My rebuttal was that just because a person loves to shop doesn't mean that they do not take a strategic and logical approach and rationalize their purchases. I said that this statement is a fallacy for this reason as well as others. I added that some people who are on a budget or are frugal will strategically watch what they are spending their money on each month for food, entertainment, clothes etc so that they do not overspend or make impulse buys, but these individuals might love going to malls and love to shop. I added that the Quakers and others with strong faith in their higher power live very simple and structured lives where they do not succumb to temptations and desires of the flesh. But with that being said these individuals may have a deep desire to shop or have new things just like everyone else as we are all human.
This person later changed all people to all women and tried to cite some study that was done to validate his point but it's still not true because each person is wired differently and unique. I would like an answer with a little more substance. So please help! Thank you kindly!
Is philosophy required to be based upon scientific knowledge, at least partially?
What is the main argument on Descartes "Meditation 1 and 2? And, is the argument good (valid/strong, sound/cogent) or bad (invalid/weak, unsound/uncogent)?
What is the main argument on Bertrand Russell, "Appearance and Reality"? Explain why the argument is good (valid/strong, sound/cogent) or bad (invalid/weak, unsound/uncogent)
A recent investigation into universities in Northville reveals that the percentage of philosophy prefessors who are female was 11.2486102% in 2012, 10.9399783% in 2013 and 10.6400161% in 2014. This is very alarming because it tells us that in only 37 years , 6 months and 15 days, female philosophy professors will constitute less than 0.33333333% of Northville teaching force. Identify two main problems.
The cia world factbook is one of the most reliable sources for worldwide statistics. According to it only 99 % of germans are literate- with a population of 80.716 million people, this means a straggeering 807,160 germans cant read! But working from the same source , we see that only 351,100 canadians have trouble reading, clearly canandas education system is superiror at teaching is citizens to read ? Is there a problem with this question.
Could precognition be a reality if the past, present and future exist simultaneously?
What do Platos Apology, the Allegory, Descartes Meditations, Lockes Enquiry, Abrams Spell have to do with each other?
Question: most of the essays were not never finished.
1. logical form
2. Give the obverse and converse
3. Give the contrary or subcontrary, contradiction and the subalternate
What is the difference between Kant and other epistemologists on the status of God, the soul, and causation in our body of knowledge? Be sure to show clearly what Kant means by calling these Ideas of Reason as opposed to how Hume or Plato and the rest would analyze them.
Kant created a 'Copernican revolution' in epistemology. Show how his theory avoided the problems Kant found in both rationalism and empiricism, explaining the Forms of Sensibility and the Categories of Understanding
Can I get to know what a rock really is? Should I just hang out with it? How would Bergson, James and Kant answer such questions? What reasoning would they advance for their viewpoint
if metaphysics veil is to be drawn between some of our ideas and how things really are 'out there' one might begin to ask whether any of our ideas can support notion of what really exists in the bodies themselves what does this mean
Do you know whether you are dreaming right now? Why or why not?
A friend believes that the five human senses - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and feelingare independent from one another and from our judgments of people and the world around us. Explain what is wrong with your friend's belief
I am interested in moral philosophy, particularly the conception of living well. My question is: how should I go about developing expertise (or, at least, significant understanding) in this particular area? Ultimately, I'd like to write a book or series of essays that formally defines my views on what it means to live well.
I began the process by taking two ethical theory courses at my university and later reading Aristotle, Cicero, and Emerson in-depth. I want to be deliberate about how to proceed but am uncertain of the appropriate direction to take (or even how to locate philosophers who have written extensively on the topic). Any guidance would be much appreciated. Thanks!
"Al Gore's global warming theory maintains that everything is getting warmer, not colder. But if thats true, then my tea should be getting warmer, not colder, as it sits here in the cup. Same thing with the food on my plate. But of course that never happens. Therefore, there is no global warming. Al Gore is wrong."
a. beside the point
b. appeal to pity
c. ad hominem
d. straw man
The word fallacy as used in logic refers to:
a. mistaken opinions
b. a category or group of things that share some attribute
c. erroneous beliefs
d. common patterns of defective arguments
Is there any validity to the claim that an atom can be in two places at the same time?
I'm an atheist. While challenging my indoctrination in my youth I came to this reasoning concerning infinity and god/s;
How is it logically possible for an infinite being in it's perpetual existence to come to 'thought' let alone 'create' or 'affect', clearly the domain of a time governed universe?
An infinite being can never come to a point in time when fresh thought is formulated, because that would mean that an infinite being took X amount of time to come to that thought.
In perspective; How could an infinite being pick up time 'X' to formulate the though to initiate the universe, and act upon it at time 'Y' as opposed to time 'Z' for instance.
Logically speaking, can the 'creator of the universe' be an infinite being?
Thanks for your time.
Rose Ann asked:
Deduction is a form of inference in which the conclusion is already contained in the premises and induction helps us claify what we know. True or false?
Rose Ann asked:
Soundness is a feature of correct inferences like the inference to the best explanation?
The empiricist maintains that knowledge is composed of synthetic propositions whose truths are only contingent and acquired a priori?
The Coherent theory of truth states that truth is a matter of whether there are corresponding facts?
Naive realism states that what we can directly perceive is ideas or impressions? Heraclitus claimed that humans are the measure of all things and thus that only change itself is unchanging?
Tettier shows that the tradional definition of knowledge is incorrect and claimed that one can have knowledge only when one's belief is true and justified?
Descartes maintained that only those that are perceived exist?
Berkeley like Locke believed that only those that ae indubitable can be knowledgeable?
Are these true or false?
Hello. I am very educated, formally and informally, and tend to think that the more formal education (ie, college education) one has, the more liberal their political beliefs (ie I have in mind the American political spectrum of liberal and conservative, perhaps another parallel line consisting of Libertarians which are liberal socially and conservative economically). I only know a few others who read philosophy but they tend be be very liberal like myself. For instance, we all know of Noam Chomsky (who doesn't like labels but after reading a dozen or more of his books I take it he's quite liberal) and sympathize with if not vote Green Party.
So, do philosophers (which I define as those perhaps with Phds in philosophy) tend to be more liberal or conservative? This is a whole other question but just as intriguing, and similar because it arises from such thinking as I've stated: how many philosophers believe in a monotheistic god? I would assume the number is low. Thanks for your time and consideration.
Why is factory farming immoral?
How would you go about building a suitable morality? What considerations are of most importance? Do you think that morality has a purpose? If so, what is it?
Question is relation to the article by James Rachels called, 'Morality is not relative'.
Define metaphysics and discuss its value vis-a-vis opinion of certainty and truth
What is the science that deals with the human good? Explain why Aristotle sees it this way.
Hi, Im a biology student, im interested in paleobiology. How the philosophy can be usefull to paleontology? Is there the "philosophy of paleontology"?
Of what there is, which are identical to which?
What is there?
Becky Jones asked:
'god is too remote' do you agree?
do you consider the milesian effort a philosophical waste? begin your essay with your opponents and state their own views.
Who is a philosopher?
In what philosophy resource can information be found about what human beings are other than the physical body?
Are we ethically obliged to help North Korea?
Kant argues that it is impermissible to lie; make false promises. How does he come to this conclusion? Explain. Is Kant successful in showing that we have a duty never to tell a lie? Why or why not?
Is there conflict between being a good person morally and being a good friend? Explain why or why not by looking at what utilitarianism would say about our obligation to friends. If there is a conflict between being moral and being a good friend, are our duties to our friends stricter than those to others (strangers)?
Can we dissociate rights of citizens from their duties?
Can citizens have rights without duties? Discuss with examples.
I can't understand the difference between normative and descriptive claims.
can you help be sort the example below, as normative or descriptive claims?
1- Don't murder?
2- we must cultivate or intelligence
3- some people do whats right just because its in their own interest.
4- cheating is unfair
5- pleasure is ethically valuable.
What type of school system would Nietzsche endorse or create?
Hello. We are making a film about Richard Linklater and are interested in a line from his animated film, Waking Life. The line is Dream is Destiny. Rick remembers someone repeating that line for him or showing him in a book but that is all he recalls. I feel as if I have read it somewhere.
If philosophical zombies existed, would they talk about consciousness just like we do? Or, if you tried to talk to a philosophical zombie about consciousness, would they be fundamentally unable to understand what you mean? If the latter is true, would we then be able to tell if others were conscious just by talking about it?
One might argue that what a philosophical zombie ascribes to consciousness differs from what we do. They "think" that a certain physical phenomenon is what we call consciousness, but they aren't experiencing it like we are. This explanation is unsatisfying to me because it's impossible to pinpoint what exactly they're ascribing consciousness to.
Another possible explanation is that the philosophical zombie is physically "programmed" to have a discussion about consciousness. If this were true, if there were a world of only p-zombies, where would the concept even come from? It would seem pretty random that consciousness, something so abstract and unheard of, would be such a common topic of discussion among p-zombies.
Discuss and critically evaluate Descartes' wax example in Meditations 2. What is it meant to establish? Discuss some possible criticisms.
What are Pythagoras' views on: the workings of the mind; how we acquire knowledge of the world; how we know that our knowledge is true?
Do you need to know what to teach in order to teach
Do Gilbert ryle and Buddhists have the same point of view on the mind? Or do they have different point of views? If different what are the differences?
Why is philosophy against desire?
The urge or the need to succeed or to become some thing or to come to a realization of fulfillment through work or live exemplary toward the loved ones surrounded or to motivate other to not to give up their dreams, isn't that what is expected. If not work than what? What can give our lives any meaning at all?
Are we all one? My rotational analysis feeds back to me that we are a multi-rotational system and I do not need another to exist as I am self feeding, I do not need to be observed;...because I observe myself and serve nothing other than my many "me's". I am fully conscious of this and not, due to my sometimes seemingly binary nature. So please, other part of me...
Can you explain the fact value distinction problems and solutions pertaining to the views of emotivists/ cultural relativists/ individual subjectivists/ divine command ethicists/ egoists? and how evolutionary ethicist/ utilitarians/ kantians provide a solution to this problem?
How do virtue ethicists try to solve the fact value problem?
it is where philosophy started to exist?
According to Pythagoras, (and Daniel Kolak) the symbol '2' is ___ and refers to ___?
what are the differences between the ancient notion of the self and the modern notion of the self?
St. Thomas Aquinas developed The Cosmological Argument in the 13th century on the basis of Aristotle's arguments. What are the notions supporting this proof?
Should there be a limit on prison sentences? If so, why?
John is bumbling along the street one day and falls through a trap door. Underneath this trap door, he find himself in an underground chamber being maintained by a large circle of well-respected, rich and powerful citizens. For over 13 years these people, whose public lives continue to be resplendent with 'good works' on the surface, hold John in solitary confinement subjecting him to extreme forms of psychological torture and humiliation for their amusement. His own 'upstairs life' is in the meantime effectively destroyed. John knows that even if he were somehow to escape, if he tried to go to the authorities or otherwise tell his tale he would be committed to a mental asylum.
Before this John would have considered himself an average guy or even slightly better ethically speaking. While quick to ire he was also quick to forgive if a matter of dispute were correctly addressed. Now all he can think of is getting back at his tormentors by any means possible. Despite their 'other side' he considers them the vilest specimens of mankind that have ever lived.
Is John becoming a bad person?
Starting especially with Descartes and running through Locke, Hume, and Kant, discovering and articulating a foundationalist account of knowledge - with the particular goal of putting scientific knowledge on a firm foundation - was a central element of the Enlightenment project. Explain what this means, illustrate it with examples from each of these authors, and evaluate their competing arguments.
What lessons should we draw from their efforts? In light of their efforts, what sort of foundation, if any, can be found for science? Does science need the sort of firm foundation these authors were looking for?
Is preference utilitarianism a form of rule utilitarianism?
What is true happiness?
A possible argument that a computer running an algorithm cannot be conscious?
Imagine, to the contrary, that a computer could experience a moment of subjective awareness by running some program code. Let us put that code inside an infinite loop and set the program running with a counter that increments with every iteration of the loop. In principle the code runs a countable infinity number of times and the computer experiences an infinite number of identical moments of consciousness.
Now imagine the computer "waking up" in one of these moments of consciousness. It asks itself the question "what is the prior probability that I should find myself in a particular conscious moment with some definite counter number n?". As it knows that it will run forever then the prior probability of finding itself in the moment n is 1/infinity which is zero.
But this reasoning is true for all n so that the probability of finding itself in any moment is zero. This contradicts our assumption that the computer does find itself conscious.
Perhaps a computer running a program cannot produce conscious awareness?
What is the best journal for submitting my solution to the paradox of Achilles? Is there a prize in proving the paradox of Achilles to be false?
Please kindly email me your answer to my questions. Thank you.
I disagreed with the following argument of yours:
"One of the most obvious rules of logic that Zeno's paradoxes violate relates to a non-sequitur fallacy. In other words, Zeno's premises are affirmative (positive) but his conclusions are negative. Specifically, in Achilles and the Tortoise Zeno states that both Achilles and the tortoise are moving forward (positive premises) but Achilles never catches up with the tortoise (a negative conclusion with no negative premises)."
I think that Zeno does have a negative premise in his reasoning and it is that while Achilles and the tortoise continue to move forward, the distance between them continues to decrease. The decrease in the distant ancestors between them is a negative premise.
scott ward asked:
The student says I am akin to a caged beast waiting, waiting for the next day, waiting for the moment of enlightenment, waiting on desiny, waiting to see the glory of the next level, and the teacher replied:
How can you justify greed in ethical terms?
Is it right to follow the law(s) of a country, even if they are clearly against its constitution? If not, what would a philosopher do?
If animals were conscious isn't it more likely to be an animal. I mean there's thousands more animals than humans so what's the chances of finding your self human. Doesn't this mean animals are not likely to be conscious
Is hard determinism consistent with knowledge; that is, is it consistent with justified true belief? It's the "justified" condition that strikes me as problematic. If hard determinism is true, then wouldn't my thoughts (including my belief in the truth of hard determinism) be the predetermined outcome of physical events in my brain? It may well be that natural selection favors my having certain (predetermined) thoughts in various circumstances, but the survival value of those thoughts is not necessarily the same as their truth value.
As a boy, when I first came across the stock syllogism, "All human beings are mortal, etc." it took a second or two for me to grasp its logic. My mental effort and subsequent understanding felt like the opposite of experiencing an automatic brain process; e.g., a startle reaction. And how would the ability to grasp a chain of formal logical reasoning have favored survival among the prehistoric environments under which such thinking would have presumably evolved?
In addition to your answer, I'd appreciate any recommended books or articles for further exploration of these topics. Thanks!
Hi, here's one more question related to hard determinism: Is hard determinism utterly futile?
Here's what I mean: Take the often-heard argument that criminals should be treated leniently because (certainly under hard determinism) they aren't morally responsible for their crimes. But, if we are to apply hard determinism consistently, a censorious judge can no more help being censorious than a criminal can help being antisocial. And the "bleeding hearts" can't do otherwise than bleed, and those who are moved can't do otherwise than heed.
Like some vast Punch and Judy show set into motion, everyone does what the bouncing atoms bid them do. Our impact on each other is essentially the same as that of colliding billiard balls.
And if I despair that free choice is an illusion, even that despair is not my own, but just another predetermined swerve of the synapses.
And if I despair that even my despair is determined--even THAT despair is not freely chosen.
Under hard determinism, I have no agency whatsoever. Contra the compatiblists, being a hand puppet is hardly an improvement over being a marionette.
A final irony: In the discussions of hard determinism that I've run across, the writers often lapse into addressing the reader as if they have a choice of how to react to their exhortations--but I suppose the writers can't help themselves.
We all now, currently, it's impossible to "scientifically" or "physically" go back in time. But if you had the dying urge to do so, say if you wanted to correct a critical mistake you made, and provided you would not disastrously change the cause of history by doing so, could the following be plausible: you are given a drug which puts you in a coma for the rest of your life. You have a dream in that coma that lasts from when you were knocked out until your real-life death. The events in the dream start the day before you do this bad thing, so you can do something different instead. So essentially, this drug simulates your life from a certain point until your death. My question is, is this the same as going back in time in reality ("scientific" or "physical" time travel)? Or even, is there a difference between the two? And, what's more important, the "reality" of life, or our interpretation of it, or are they the same (because everyone has different interpretations)?
What is the point of the Sorites paradox? I'm a regular listener of the Rationally Speaking podcast, and couldn't help but notice that Julia Galef concludes "that philosophers think there should be a precise definition or a right answer". I'm of the opinion that the point of the thought experiment is to help us realize the "messiness" of language. Which of us is closer to the truth?
what is the meaning of direct pressure,how does it play an important role in group thinking in engineering?
How do you tell the difference between induction and hasty generalization/sampling bias?
When making an inductive assessment, how do you check to make sure you are not making a hasty generalization/sampling bias?
My question concerns real vs. nominal definitions.
In brief: is it possible for real definitions to be either true or false?
For example, let's assume I fix the denotation of the term "tiger" (as I point to a large, four-legged cat). Then, I give a real definition of "tiger": an eight-legged invertebrate.
Would it be reasonable to say that the real definition of "tiger" I have given is false? Assuming the earlier denotation of "tiger" I gave by pointing to actual large, four-legged cats?
Ngonadi ifunanya asked:
I am not everybody but I am somebody
'Under Athenian law, one could not be prosecuted for a crime if it could be shown that the action was done unwillingly, under duress, by threat of force, or from ignorance. If Socrates' view is correct, how could anyone be responsible for his or her actions? If one acts under the influence of passion or other non-rational motives, is one morally responsible? Can one be 'willfully ignorant' of the law?'
Hello, this question is about things that have happened in the past, experiences we have had and how we think about them.
Does it make any sense to say this: Regardless of whether or not humans have free will, regardless of anything else, the universe unfolded the way it did until this second and it could not have happened any other way, therefore it is pointless and unhelpful to regret the bad experiences we have had.
Someone makes a decision that turns out to be a bad one, and you can say well if you made a better decision of course the universe would have unfolded differently and you would have had a better experience, a better life, but is that true? Is it possible to argue that whatever has happened, good or bad, had to happen because it actually did happen, and that's all the proof you need. It doesn't matter if the Determinists or Libertarians are right or wrong, it has nothing to do with a belief in fate, something happened in the past therefore it had to happen. The world wars happened, now we can look back with hindsight and see how they could have been avoided, but when you take into account all of the many and varied factors at the time that contributed to them isn't it possible to say that they had to happen, how couldn't they?
what is the philosophical analysis of the following motivation statements.
(a) I am not everybody, but I am somebody.
(b) I can not do everything, but I can do something.
What are the three activities/methods of philosophy with examples?
I'm interested in the implications of Arthur C Clarke's third law, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Do you know of any philosophers who have addressed this? Can you recommend some reading? Thanks for your time :)
Descartes & The Problem of Other Minds: In the reading from Descartes for the first section of Unit 2, we are introduced to Descartes' mind/body dualism, wherein the mind and body are taken to be completely distinct types of entity. In particular, the mind is taken to be immaterial (nonphysical) while the body is wholly material (physical), and it is the mind which is taken to be the self on Descartes' view. Gilbert Ryle, however, argues that if Descartes is correct, then a certain puzzle arises: since the immaterial mental states of others are not observable, we can never know whether other people really have minds (or might instead be zombies or automata). This is supposed to be a problem for Descartes' view of self because surely we DO know that other people really have minds. If you write on this topic, you should argue whether this is a genuine problem for Descartes. If it is, can Descartes' view be fixed to avoid this problem? Explain why or why not.
Is a photo stored on a camera the same as a memory in our mind?
Richard Wilson asked:
Are you able to solve this? Who made this statement?
"...this recommendation is based on my belief that it is sometimes more appropriate to attempt to rebuild reality so that it conforms with the moral premises of our perspective theories than to restructure scientific statements so that they conform with current empirical observations"
There was once three fortune tellers, namely Truth (who always tell the truth), Lie (who always lies), and Wise (who sometimes tells the truth or lies). An investigator was sent to know if who is the Truth, Lie, and Wise.The investigator asks the one who is sitting on the left: "Who is sitting next to you?" She replied: "Truth".The investigator asks the one who is sitting on the middle: "Who are you?" She replied: "Wise".The investigator asks the one who is sitting on the right: "Who is sitting next to you?" She replied: "Lie."Who is sitting on the left, middle, and right respectively?
Is the power of God possible to exist?
does philosophy matter?
Which one of the meditations in the Meditation on First Philosophy by Descartes is the most important in meeting to goal of establishing a new foundation for the sciences?
A friend believes that the five human senses - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and feeling - are independent from one another and from our judgments of people and the world around us. Explain what is wrong with your friend's belief.
Is the idea of God essential to the realist conception of
the past, and by extension to the realist argument? Must we all be a
dualist, however mild, to sustain realism?
Is science born from Philsophy?
And what about Quine's anti-foundationalism? Is it a correct philosophical position?
All education questions are ultimately questions of philosophy.explain with practical example
Hi I was wondering why conceivability isnt sufficient for logical and metaphysical possibility. And the arguments substantiating this viewpoint? As well as the implications of this om conceivability arguments such as Descartes'.
Why is tranquility the highest goodness, according to Epictetus?
What is the one connective in the English language that connects two propositions in such a way that one of the propositions is asserted and the other is unasserted?
What are the subject matters of the ff:
Epistemology, ethics, logic, metaphysics, and aesthetics?
Thank you in advance!
How does Plato's theory of reality build on the theories of Parmenides and Heraclitus?
For Plato, what ultimately is real?
What reasons are there for believing or disbelieving that Plato was right?
What is the different between religious wisdom and philosophical wisdom?
Kant diagnoses human reason as suffering under a 'peculiar fate', namely 'that it is burdened with questions which it cannot dismiss...but which it also cannot answer'. What does he mean by this?
So my question is, Is Philosophy related to Logic?
In my opinion, Logic has a practical conclusion to arguments, whereas philosophy doesn't provide that.
Philosophy sounds very vague and superficial while logic makes total sense.
I know that facts prove Logic is a branch of Philosophy but have you (with all due respect) heard of any theory that proves it otherwise?
(P.S.- I'm a young high school going girl. I have scattered thoughts. Have keen interest in Logic.)
Present your understanding of the program of virtue epistemology. Tell briefly how is supposed to differ from Cartesian inspired, traditional epistemology. Show in what sense the notion of intellectual virtues, and vices can supposedly give us a much better theoretical understanding of epistemic goods.
How much of Augustine and Thomas' philosophies can be seen in modern day theology?
How do I know that I'm not the only person who exists and everyone else is not a figment of my imagination?
Why do people do things that they know are not in their own best interest?
Why does philosophy matter?
Which living things matter, and which don't?
How has the human understanding of the concept of God changed over time?
If I have a six pack of beer how many items do I have: one, six or seven?
Joseph Kelly asked:
What is prescriptivism?
Joseph Kelly asked:
What are the objections to emotivism
im taking a philosophy class and reading the book named "Biffle- a guided tour of five works by plato"- and as i read the book it is asking me questions like "in order to answer the first question i would have to?
I come from a Muslim background and when one looks back at intra Islamic polemics, one will find a massive debate about the question: Where is Allah/God?.
There are two main camps in this debate, the Asharis and the Hanbalis ( otherwise known as the Salafis/Wahabis).
The Asharis believe that God does not have a 'place' and that he exists in a realm that is outside of directions, places, space, time.
The Salafis/Hanbalis believe that God is literally 'above' the universe in a direction in a way that is unique to him. They hold that concepts such as space and time are meaningless concepts that don't have an actual reality (like numbers).
My question is, if God exists, then where does he exist?
do u agree that behind all our actions we are seeking pleasure and avoiding pain [emotional or physical]
Could precognition be a reality if the past, present and future exist
1. What common-sense methods do we have for telling whether people are nothing but selfish?
Am I mind or body?
Dear Philosopher -- is there a law or principle in philosophy that states that all positive statements in a language can be turned into a question and can also be negated?
thanks in advance
Hello, I have a question about Descartes' dualism. A lot of people have argued that with his dualism view comes the problem of interactionism: How can the mind have an influence on the body since it is a non-extended substance?
I was wondering how Descartes has defended his opinion when facing these criticisms. Did he consider that the union of the mind and the body (lying in pineal gland)was the reason of this interactionism ? How did he explain that?
Thank you very much for your answer !
Why is this world devoid of love though everyone knows the significance of love? What has eroded us to such an extent that it seems futile to love or love is seen as merely as a weakness? Has Materialism completely out shadowed Love or Love itself has become part of Materialism?
Why do bad things happen to good people? And visa versa?
Which of the following would be real and which would be solely experimental?
An idea; Mr Spock (of Star Trek); A feeling of loneliness; the state of Arizona; An itch; the state of euphoria; Your car; the sound of music; An atom; the Pythagorean theorem; Pythagoras gravity; A heartache; the law of gravity; A beautiful painting; heat; A dirty picture; temperature; A poem; the office of the President of the United States; A mirage; The President of the United States; The planet Mars; the state; The God; Mars; a sunset; A scandal; A toothache (in your wisdom tooth)
Example of a moral dilemma which a deontologist and a utilitarian would probably disagree on, and explain why.
Dear Philosopher -- if we categorize sentences in English, would Positive Statements, Negative Statements, and Interrogative Sentences the same level of hierarchy?
Do we need one to create another, or any one of the three can be created independently of the other two?
Thanks in advance
Why it is neccesary to consider society in planning education in social development?
With vivid examples show the relationship between liberation and development.
Why is it not good for us to get all we wish? Why is it 'hard to fight against impulse'? why should we fight against it anyway?
Plato suggests that education is a difficult trek out of the cave into the realm of the Forms and the Good
Plato suggests that education is a difficult trek out of the cave into the realm of the Forms and the Good, but ultimately, it is the soul remembering what it already knew from its previous existence there.
What is your understanding of learning? This will also reveal something of your understanding of human nature.
Who is Plato?
With the incarnation, God made himself particularly vulnerable to the various aspects of this world (war, disease, famine, rejection, etc). And he was willing to die for us to live despite our fallen nature. Would a sense of vulnerability be an aspect of God's nature? I'm not suggesting that God is imperfect or unable to see his plans through. But there does seem to be an element of vulnerability he has taken up with loving us and accepting our rejection of him. In our own lives, the most loving and beautiful things make us vulnerable.
My dictionary's definition of "define" is "declare the exact meaning of". Does this definition declare the exact meaning of define?
Is all knowledge dependent on culture?
In Meditation II, Descartes states, "I am; I exist - this is certain." Explain why Descartes claims that his knowledge here about this cannot be doubted?
What is the nature of the "I" for Descartes and why doesn't it refer to the physical body of Descartes?
what philosopher once said everyone needs these 3 things - something to do, somewhere to go and someone to love?
Both Boethius and Socrates argue that it is better to suffer injustice than to perform
injustice, i.e. suffering injustice does not cause real harm to a just person, but performing unjust
actions does cause real harm to oneself. What reasons do they have for holding this view?
I want to know philosophy related to villages
Which of Meno's definitions for virtue do you find most convincing? How might you answer Socrates' objections to the definition in question more effectively than Meno did? On the grounds of the definition you've picked, do you think virtue can be taught?
My dictionary's definition of "definition" is an "exact description of a thing". The definition doesn't contain an exact description of a thing, it only mentions it, so it doesn't qualify as a definition. Paradox?
Explain Aristotle's proof that humans have a proper function.
Who was more fecund Plato or Aristotle,. Is there anything that we can know absolutely via empiricism?
What Nietzsche means by this?
"I am a man who wishes nothing but some daily reassuring beliefs to seek and find his happiness in this daily greater liberation of the mind."
This is from which era of his philosophical life, and does it have any direct connection to any of his works?
What does Aristotle think that human beings are? What kind of life is a good life according to Aristotle? What are the virtues and vices and how do they fit into this? How could Aristotle's philosophy be used to justify drinking a glass of wine at dinner?
Descartes, drawing on the success of the Copernican system, believes that many of his former beliefs must be false. How worried should we be about the fact that the world is not exactly as it seems?
Galileo says, "To excite in us tastes, odors, and sounds I believe that nothingis required in external bodies except shapes, numbers, andslow or rapid movements. I think that if ears, tongues, andnoses were removed, shapes and numbers and motions wouldremain, but not odors or tastes or sounds." Do you agree? Why or why not?
If it is possible that you're being deceived by an evil demon (or, aliens, evil robots, or whatever), what does this mean about what we can or can't know? Is there anything you could still know even if you couldn't trust your senses?
I've heard of Geniology but it's mostly a wacked out religious cult and not a solid political theory. Are there any other political philosophers who craft a meritocracy based in intelligence, or who attempt to incorporate specialization into a political structure in the way that Smith did into economics?
Stefano Z asked:
Explain what kind of dualism is found in Russell, Plato, and Descartes
What does Taylor Carman mean (in his foreword in Heidegger's Being and Time) by "Yet the entity-ness of the entity is just what possession of the property was supposed to explain." It is prefaced by "What would an entity be without the property of existence? Nothing. And what could have such a property? Only an entity." I understand that Carman is stating an entity is that which has the property of existing and that Heidegger classifies Being as a separate characteristic of an entity and existing. But the sentence explaining it (see above) is rather wordy and confusing. I fear I am missing vital info by simply glossing over this information. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
This is not a test or essay question,(I mean its a pretty obscure line to have a prompt based off of) but I am going to be taking Heidegger courses in the coming fall and wanted to get a good grasp on the subject before diving in. I have already read Question Concerning Technology and now want to read Being and Time but this line is really getting me! Hoping there are some fellow Heidegger aficionados on this site, ones with better knowledge/experience than I currently have
Are metaphysics and epistemology keys to interdisciplinary approach in science?
This is my line of reasoning. Science does experiments and experiments generate data. Data itself has no value, in the sense that to gain knowledge we need to interpret that data and see how it 'fits' in the existing knowledge. Also, to make an experiment we need to make some assumptions, both metaphysical and epistemological. For example, to investigate the nature of subatomic particles, we need to make a metaphysical assumption that 'the outer world' exists and that such particles exist. Furthermore, we need to make an epistemological assumption that 'the outer world' is knowable and that experiments are a knowladge-generating method. So, philosophy can act (or acts?) as the first and the last step in scientific method. Since philosophy can engage itself into answering a question from multiple perspectives (read multiple science disciplines)and philosophical assumptions are needed to do science can philosophy act as a glue that enables interdisciplinary approach? Also, is philosophy inherently interdisciplinary? Can we use this for better understanding of interdisciplinarity?
why do you think the various academic disciplines we have today broke from philosophy?
I'm really struggling to make sense of today's world. I feel as though I'm out of place and can't readily relate to people's obsessions with money, status and instantaneous gratification. Is it me or has the world changed?
Regarding the mind and its knowledge of reality, how does Chalmers' argument compare with Plato's metaphysical views presented in the allegory of the cave? How does the Brain in the Vat compare with Plato's views?
Do objects in the external world really exist? Can we demonstrate whether they do or don't? Discuss with reference to the arguments of Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. In the end, who offers the strongest argument? Discuss fully.
Briefly explain the Turing Test, and then discuss whether you believe a machine will ever be able to pass the Turing Test. If not, why not? If a machine could pass the Turing Test, would this mean the machine thinks, and so is self-aware, in the way that you and I are self-aware? Or is there some relevant property we have that the machine would still lack? If so, exactly what is this property?Finally, what implications does this debate have for the question of whether we each harbor an immaterial soul?Be sure to make use of the arguments of Ryle, Lycan, and Searle in developing your answer.
The haze in Singapore causes problems for the capitalist economic system. The forest fires in Indonesia cause the haze in Singapore. The forest fires in Indonesia are caused by the greed inherent in the capitalist economic system. So the capitalist economic system is inherently self-defeating.
Is this a valid or invalid argument?
Are the positions:
I exist therefore you don't exist
We exist therefore they don't exist
They exist therefore we don't exist
Western philosophical positions identified with a particular school or author?
I believe it is in Tibetan Buddhism. Any references regarding Western or Buddhist thought would be appreciated!
what philosophy would you ascribe to - Rand's, Aristotle's, Plato's, or a Combination of some sort and why?
Can we unknow what we already know?
In Buddhism there is no self, so to whom is the accumulated karma transferred in a future life?
I'm currently doing my assignment and got stuck. I have read the boy over and over and I'm still not grasping on everything. Please help me. Thank you.
Defend the idea that the mind is non-physical. Using some of the tools philosophers like Plato or Descartes have given, give a convincing argument that this is the case. What problems might arise if indeed the mind is non-physical? How would you account for these?
Do you agree that (to use a famous phrase from the eighteenth century Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant), awakening an individual--or an entire society--from "dogmatic slumbers" is a constructive and useful role of raising probing philosophical questions?
What does Whitehead mean by "causal efficacy" and "presentational immediacy"? How do these notions pertain to the tension between Becoming and Being, novelty and order, along with consciousness and the body?
What is the difference between relational and unilateral power? Include in your response a discussion of the following dichotomies: actuality/possibility, force/persuasion, competition/attraction, and eros/tragedy.
call me john asked:
Assumimg it is possible for a person to have memories that he does not believe are correct, how would you define the word "memories"?
Note: Its okay to use the word "beliefs" in the definition , as that is a much simpler word and I understand it already.
Imagine that you are Descartes and you want to prove the existence of God.
Choose the argument from this group of five (The Five Ways by St. Thomas Aquinas) that you think is best. Will it work? Why or why not? What makes it better than the other four? This last question can mean What makes the argument better in general, as you judge it? or What makes it better for Descartes?
Image that theres a famous, rich celebutante whose Bentley is dangling precariously off the edge of a cliff. Below, past a jagged craggy precipice, a school of hungry hammerhead sharks is circling. The celebutante is frantically tweeting her plight to her millions of followers, promising a large reward to whoever can rescue her. You decided to try your luck, even though you are afraid of sharks, cannot swim, and have no search-and-rescue abilities.
A) Using Aristotle's doctrine of the mean, explain whether your decision to save the celebutate is good or not. B) Explain Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative and then explain whether your decision to save the celebutante is good or not. C) Using either Aristotle or Kant, explain the deliberative process of someone you was acting morally (and their deliberative process) when saving the celebutante.
If the conclusion of an argument seems to be proven simply because nobody has contradicted it, the argument is called...
Is there a philosophical tradition that permits a "prime mover" (GOD) who created that which we know, or, can ever know, using "eternal" truth/laws, given that we are also subject to those laws THEN leaving us alone to work out our own lives?
What is the essence of human beings? What is Aristotle's reasoning?
According to Kant's Groundworks, what is the moral law? What is at least one of its formulations? And how is this imperative different from a hypothetical imperative?
Why is Heidegger's fourfold the house of Being? Why is house of Being homelessness?
Which groups of people populate the first moral community Socrates describes (in chapter 3)?
Vivian Bouza asked:
Kant argues that humans are 'rational animals,' and therefore reason, as what distinguishes us from the animals, is an organ that has special and specific value. What, according to Kant, is the purpose of reason, and how does he make his argument?
Tamasin Bouza asked:
Kant argues that only those actions that are undertaken both in accord with, and from, duty, are considered to have true moral worth. What is meant by the distinction between 'in accord with' and 'from' duty? Why does Kant make this distinction, and what are its implications for his understanding of morality? Why and how does acting in accord with and from duty make us morally better people?
I am taking an ancient greek class and we are studying Aristotle obviously. I am kind of confused on how his accounts about change in Physics 1.7 and 3.1-3 differ. If anybody could help that would be greatly appreciated!
is it possible that the intelligence in evolution has learned to survive death?
Where does the intelligence in evolution come from? even instinct is intelligence.... can it come from no intelligence?
I have always thought of science as a methodology for creating models of our observations that we can use to predict the observational outcome of a future experiment or other interaction.
Scientific theories that are more accurate at predicting the future outcomes are considered better theories.
What perplexes me is then how can the study of the past (e.g., anthropology, archeology, etc.) be considered science since the outcome is already at hand and we are trying to create a theory that predicts what we are already observing. In fact all theories that predict what is already being observed seems to me to be equal in scientific validity no matter how weird the theory.
What did West means when he says: 'Plato says philosophy is a meditation on and a preparation for death. And by death, what he means is not an event, but a death in life because there's no rebirth, there's no change, there's no transformation without death. And therefore, the question becomes, how do you learn how to die? And of course, Montaigne talks about that in his famous essay, 'To Philosophize Is to Learn How to Die.' You can't talk about truth without talking about learning how to die.'
What are Avital Ronell basic presumptions on ethics?
How do we eliminate dogmatism?
is there a meaning for the existence of things?
is there a need for any other question?
Tim Moss asked:
Since seeing Donald Trump's rise I have seen the comparisons to NAZI Germany. But I remember (perhaps naively) that many of the NAZIS believed what they were doing was for a greater cause. Many gave up high paying roles and professed the interest of the nation. Goering justified the Holocaust with a genuine (sounding) belief that he was bettering the nation. By comparison, we live in a post-fascism society, Trump must know what he's saying and doing is inflammatory and contradicting.
I was wondering, assuming both outcomes are equally ethically wrong, is it more evil to influence people to do something evil you logically don't agree with for your own interest, or to influence people to do evil when you believe it is for the common good?
Singer makes the claims that modern day conservatives are much like those who prosecuted Socrates for 'corrupting the youth.' Since common sense morality must be challenged in applied ethics, why do you think this charge against conservatives is valid?
My questions concern personal identity or the particular self or "I". Why does my particular self inhabit this particular body? Imagine a twin earth (twearth) identical to earth except that on twearth my self inhabits a different body and the self of that different body inhabits "my" body. Will that scenario be contradictive? Will it be possible/contradictive dependent on the definition of "self" among philosophers?
Hello, I hope you can help me but I am not sure of it. I am doing a research project over Hume and Kant and their similarities/differences and am gathering different points of view from different philosophers such as the ones at my university. If you could answer the questions below about both Kant and Hume, email me back. If not, thanks anyways.
1. Do the contents of the mind passively mirror what is experienced, and if so, how does this work? Or is the mind active in forming the representations it knows, and if so, how?
2. What are some reasons for claiming either that the connection between events located in the events themselves, or in our minds? What is gained or lost in either case?
3. Does the world appear to us in a way that is a) maces dart, governed by law; or b) contingent, dependent on experience?
4. What accounts for the manner in which the world appears to us? What models are proposed by the thinkers you have chosen, what arguments are offered in support? And which one best explains the nature of these functions?
5. What are the limits of knowledge? Can we claim to know more than our representations of things, and what are we to make of the objects of classical metaphysics?
John Depe asked:
Does the categorical imperative provide a reliable guide to good action?
I wonder how philosophers were dealing with economical issues in ancient Greece: who took care of for instance Plato's and Aristotle's everyday needs: food, clothes etc.
what is the difference between concept and idea and what is the report between human and the world?
In the light of Descartes' extraordinary method of doubting everything that is not absolutely certain, how much of what we see and hear, think and believe, is really certain?
How could i know if i'm genuine and not just a compilation of ideas taken from others?
What were Berkeley's main arguments for immaterialism?
If humans were removed from the earth, would then greater (natural) harmony prevail, or would another species evolve intelligence and the endgame remain the same?
Does there exist a philosophical term for a general "Hate/ disgust for the contemporary society/ modern world"? I think it's becoming quite widespread.
I would myself like to suggest: Pan-misanthropy
What is a number?
Who is greater, Aristotle or Kant? and why?
If the thesis of determinism is true then every future event is determined. Does that mean that the future event is ALREADY determined (I mean now) or is the event only determined when it actually occurs?
Evaluate Karl Marx's contribution to Philosophy.
Is pleasure a good? What is good about it?
How do you explain the (apparent) existence of fifteen galaxies whose estimated age is much older than the estimated age of the universe?
I note that this site has been running continuously since 1999. Do you ever expect there will be a time when the questions run out - when there are no new questions to ask? only the old questions in different words?
Can you know that you are currently dreaming?
I wondered as to your take on the whole issue of how during times of human rights /humanitarian crisis in another country, the governments of other countries seem to take every step imaginable to save their citizens /nationals who happened to be abroad in that country, and they consequently leave the citizens of the affected country to deal with the implications of the crisis as best they could.
As a result of the economic down-turn starting in 2008, efficiency has become more and more the byword of the successful business person. The axioms of the efficiency expert are: "Eliminate what need not be done; simplify what must be done; combine tasks wherever possible."
Putting this into practice means, among other things, eliminating people's jobs. Sometimes it also means making one person do two or three people's jobs. As company's gain the upper hand in employment (when the number of employees wanting good jobs is higher than the number of good (i.e. high paying) jobs available), they will more and more expect employees to be willing to work longer hours and to do accomplish more and varied tasks.
1. Under what circumstances is it ethical business practices to ask employees to multi-task or do more than one person's job?
2. Under what circumstances is it ethical for an employee to refuse to do more work than can be taken on in a conventional 40-45 hours per week?
3. Let's assume that it is BECAUSE employees are willing to multi-task and do two or three people's jobs, that others LOSE their jobs. Who is more at fault ethically? The employer who requests the extra work from the remaining employees? Or the employees who are willing to do the extra work, thereby putting the others who aren't willing out of work?
4. How do you feel John Locke would have solved the above ethical situation differently or the same as you did using your philosophy? Please explain the reasons for the similarities or differences.
I really only need #4, I just would like to know how John Locke would have solved the above ethical situation.
Can you please explain why Descartes ontological argument is synthetic rather than Anselm's analytic version of Gods ontology also is religious language meaningless? Thank you for your time.
What is the problem of evil? And any criticisms if possible? Thank you
how does Plato explain the essence or nature of things is/are? theory of forum!
Theory of Forms - Plato
What is really real, how do we know?
which is the correct order of these three items typical of Platonic dialogue of the early period. A. Socrates and his partner admit that they are ignorant of the answer. B. Socrates objects to a solution proposed by his partner. C. Socrates congratulates his partner for finding a solution to a problem.
What is the distinction between an action that is done merely in accordance and one that is done from duty? Which type is worthy of esteem? Why does Kant think that only one type of action have moral worth?
what is the problem of permanence vs change? :D
How would you interpret this saying:
To be is to die,
To die is to understand,
But only to the extent of what we the living truly understand.
I would be fascinated with your answer.
Is religion necessary for a meaningful life?