Ask a Philosopher!

[raketooy]

This chicken-egg thing is just a matter of definitions. What people usually mean to ask is if chicken or chicken egg was first. If you define a chicken egg as an egg that contains a chicken, then the egg was first, as it was laid by some animal that is almost chicken but not quite. If you define a chicken egg as an egg that is laid by a chicken, then there of course has to be a chicken first.

 

[Hsinchu]

Yes, but he was the first person that propelled it to its position as a centrally held scientific theory and by that extension, lessened the extent by which the question "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" was asked as a philosophic question, because Darwin's theory provided the tools to answer that question.

Actually, Darwin never intended to propel anything into scientific theory. It is with shaken faith and great doubt that he records his findings about Natural Selection in the Origin of Species.

 

[Kerozine]

Mr. Fifty,

you can ignore my previous questions if you like. (Unless philosophers have uncommon/deeply profound views on the matter. )

Questions: What is the meaning/purpose of life? What do you think of pantheism?

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Actually, Darwin never intended to propel anything into scientific theory. It is with shaken faith and great doubt that he records his findings about Natural Selection in the Origin of Species.

Where did you find that out?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Aside from teaching philosophy, what are other good lines of employment can philosophy students take?

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Where did you find that out?

Hsinchu, do you mind if I bring up the pm?

 

[Hsinchu]

Hsinchu, do you mind if I bring up the pm?

not at all

 

[Imperialmajesty]

not at all

In that case, do believe that Darwin remained a godfearing man to the end of his life, or are you simply stating that at one point he was god fearing?

 

[Hsinchu]

In that case, do believe that Darwin remained a godfearing man to the end of his life, or are you simply stating that at one point he was god fearing?

For most of his life, Darwin was a man inclined to the beliefs of his contemporaries. His journey with the H.M.S. Beagle and the subsequent discoveries he made were both a personal struggle and (I believe) a revelation.

It is hard thing to say what a man's beliefs are when he dies for in that last breath he may catch a glimpse of the Mighty One or lack thereof and it is then his faith is most indeterminable by mortal men that yet walk the earth.

However, it appears that Google says he died a Muslim, while Wikipedia states he died heralded as a Dissenting Naturalist. I, for one, choose to believe that he had faith like I have faith. Faith that we can not know what we do not know and that the pursuit of truth is the nobler cause. (Sort of like philosophy, eh? )

 

[Fifty]

Why has philosophy so such low status in todays modern world?

or if you disagree if it has low status, how do it have high status?

I don't think it has any general status.

Do you think that generally being well up on philosophy makes a person on the whole happier or sadder (please, no discussion on what happiness is, the common definition will do)?

I don't think philosophy as such has any particular connection to happiness. I mean there might be a correlation between happiness and having a good, secure, middle class job in a 1st world country with high amounts of personal autonomy (which most professional philosophers have).

Thanks for the replies. Could you give an example of what such an error theory might amount to?

I'm trying to remember a thing I read about this for metaethics... I'll get back to you when I figure it out. One thing you might say is that people are very often in error about complicated stuff. Folk physics is completely wrong, for example. Why not folk metaethics?

what does research in ethics actually look like?

can you describe an average day at work of someone researching in ethics?

Read research in their field or in related fields, think about the points made therein, try to think of arguments or counterarguments for or against views they are interested in, communicate with other people in the field, etc. Its not much different than in any non-experimental field.

What objections would you level against St. Anselm's version of the Ontological Argument other than the (discredited) Perfect Island objection?

I am currently studying a course in Greek Philosophy and I've just done a tute presentation on Aristotle's objections to Plato's theory of Forms. I think, as most people do that Plato's separated Forms are a bit rubbish and Aristotle's theory of universals is much more acceptable (comparatively).

However, do hypothesised entities pose a problem for Aristotle?
I'm thinking particularly of God. Could not God be a Platonic form? (Let us assume for argument's sake that God exists) If we are supposedly made in his likeness and he is wholly perfect, doesn't he fit the defintion of "fully F and in virtue of which all Fs are F"? And this Form of human (God) is non-sensible and exists separately of all particular instances of it.

I may have that completely wrong in which case please do correct me!

I'll let the Theologian handle that one! I don't know much about the Ontological argument nor ancient philosophy.

Assume that the budgets for philosophical departments is doubled, and we're given a thousand years.
How different would a BA in Philosophy look from one nowadays? What progress is expected in the field, such that it can concretely be called 'progress'?

I don't think the methodology of philosophy will change much, although if certain people turn out correct then you'll see a lot more "experimental philosophy", in which the folk conception of various things of philosophical interest is figured out through experiments on non-philosophers.

I suppose we'll probably be working on some different problems, as science progresses. We'll probably know a lot more about what is and isn't a sensible theory. I mean, we've made a lot of progress in the last 200 years, progress that I'd describe as mainly clarificatory, so it wiill be interesting to see how it goes from here.

Why is the old distinction between Analytic and Continental philosophy mostly defunct? From what I have seen, it seems to be alive and well.

Because there is nothing that distinguishes "analytic" from "continental" philosophy except a commitment to logic and argument, which are obviously desirable traits of a school of philosophy. "analytic" work is being done on traditionally continental figures. Contemporary continental philosophy is in many ways just a synonym for bad philosophy. The only use of the distinction is historical.

1) What do you think of Alan Watts? I.e., how "respected" is he, where is he coming from (he is a Zen Buddhist no?), how would you sum up his views in one sentence, etc.

Not studied at all in mainstream philosophy departments.

2) Who are two of the most prominent American born philosophers? On that same vein is there a philosophical style/school/whatever you call it particular to the US or that was "born" here? (Is Thoreau a "philosopher?")

In terms of contribution to philosophy (and not general cultural or literary contribution), a recent poll among professional philosophers had Saul Kripke and WVO Quine as the two highest polling Americans on a list of the msot important philosophers of the last 200 years. I'd agree with that. The developpment of analytic philosophy had a lot to do with America, though the founding figures were not American.

3) What school of philosophy or philosopher's teachings would you say serves as the largest foundation for the American legal system and/or our form of government?

I'm not sure in terms of historical figures. Contemporary (say 20th century +) legal philosophy is dominated by figures like Oliver Wendel Holmes, Richard Posner, Ronald Coase, etc., though some of these clearly aren't philosophers. HLA Hart and Ronald Dworkin are both philosophers who are important legal thinkers.

edit: one more question! What is the definition of a philosopher? Serious question.

Someone who does philosophy? I think its quite contextual!



General Note: My basic "catching up" policy is going to be to answer about 3 pages or so of stuff a day, and hopefully catch up that way. Some double posts may be involved in this... apologies in advance!

 

[Birdjaguar]

And, what is God?

And what is God? You might as well be asking the question what is (Blank). It is a meaningless question imho.

It is only meaningless in particular contexts. In others, it is quite a powerful and significant question. Religious organizations may answer it in a way that is different from answers provided by the members of that organization. The meaninglessness of the question to you merely illustrates the context in which you view the question.

How one answers or doesn't answer the question has huge implications for people and how we get along in the world. It is not a trivial question.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Because there is nothing that distinguishes "analytic" from "continental" philosophy except a commitment to logic and argument, which are obviously desirable traits of a school of philosophy. "analytic" work is being done on traditionally continental figures. Contemporary continental philosophy is in many ways just a synonym for bad philosophy. The only use of the distinction is historical.

I assume the Deconstructionist's, the Poststructuralist's, and the Existentialists would disagree with your assessment in the second to last sentence and last sentence.

Anyway... this brings up another question, how does an analytic philosopher such as yourself view the works of the great dead philosophers of all the various schools of thought? For example Kant?

 

[Imperialmajesty]

It is only meaningless in particular contexts. In others, it is quite a powerful and significant question. Religious organizations may answer it in a way that is different from answers provided by the members of that organization. The meaninglessness of the question to you merely illustrates the context in which you view the question.

How one answers or doesn't answer the question has huge implications for people and how we get along in the world. It is not a trivial question.

True... but we are talking about it as a philosophic question, not as a question in which people already have a fuzzy pre-conceived notion that they are trying to clarify.

 

[Fifty]

You know.. like.. What is reality? What is the underlying driving force behind what we see, hear, experience, behind everything that "is"? Are we just brains in a vat, is the universe a hologram, is all the "behind the scenes" stuff driven by some sort of a supernatural entity, or.. Well, what *is* reality?

I realize that this touches on a whole bunch of philisophical concepts, but in the end it is a simple-seeming question: "What is reality?"

As a philosopher, how would you answer such a question?

I'd separate it into mini-questions, then divide those up into pseudo-questions and real questions, then divide up the real questions among ones philosophers can contribute to and ones best left to physicists or poets or whatever. Then I'd think hard about the philosophy ones and try to see what other people have said about them!

What is reality: I'm not sure this can be answered in a way that isn't a mere rephrasing. "reality" is a sort of primitive concept, like "set" in math.

What is the driving force: Ask a physicist!

Are we BIVs: Well, we know we aren't, at least on any plausible theory of knowledge. There is no good reason, after all, to concede to the uberskeptic that in order ot know something we have to be 100% certain of it.

How do the philosophers at the universities influence the 'philosophies' of the general population? Do the ideas even trickle down anymore at all and what would be the time frame?

Some examples would be cool aswell.
Cheers

I suppose they do in some ways. For instance, I'm sure some artists inform their work with some philosophy. Philosophy also has had an influence in the development of important technologies (like computers, which were related to Godel and Russell and philosophy-mathy-logicy stuff like that). Philosophy also interacts with, for instance, how high level judges think. Richard Posner, for instance, who is a sitting judge, has a philosophical theory of adjudication that surely informs his practice.

I'm sure in the long run that philosophy affects people's general philosophies of life. Many people these days, for instance, take a certain (incorrect in my view) philosophical view of knowledge and think it proves that moral relativism or moral anti-realism is true.

Did Quine conclusively nail the analytic/synthetic truth distinction discourse with Two Dogmas of Empiricism or is there some other accepted scholarship and debate about this issue?

Strawson and Grice (IIRC) tried to argue against Quine in "In Defense of a Dogma", though my understanding of the consensus is that Quine was basically right.

Are the logical positivists going strong today?

Nope. None exist that I'm aware of. They were undermined by Quine, Wittgenstein, the failure of Russell's Principia, etc.

Do philosophers today pay a lot of attention to Hegelianism?

Certain areas of metaphysics are surely informed by Hegelianism. There isn't much of an explicit attention among non-historical philosophers towards Hegel, though.

I'm just asking because in all the philosophy courses I've taken I've yet to see him discussed.

Try finding a course in post-Kantian German philosophy, in which he will surely be discussed.

What's the difference between something (like a book, a work of art, or a movie) that is entertaining and something that is aesthetically pleasing?

I think entertaining is a subcategory (or a contributing factor towards) aesthetic merit. So being entertaining can increase the aesthetic pleasure of something, but that does not mean all entertaining things are of high aesthetic value.

Who is the best nondead philosopher, and why? (besides Fifty)

Surely Saul Kripke is the most important. A recent poll among (mostly) professional philosophers had him as one of the top 30 most important philosophers ever.

Basically, he has done superimportant work in logic, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, metaphysics. SUPER important. He is a somewhat important figure in a variety of non-philosophy fields too, like computer science. His work Naming and Necessity will go down as one of the most important works of philosophy ever.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Actually, Darwin never intended to propel anything into scientific theory. It is with shaken faith and great doubt that he records his findings about Natural Selection in the Origin of Species.

If one publishes a big book (in several editions!) amassing evidence for a hypothesis, one is trying to propel it into generally accepted theory, no matter how much regret and (false) modesty one harbours.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm trying to remember a thing I read about this for metaethics... I'll get back to you when I figure it out. One thing you might say is that people are very often in error about complicated stuff. Folk physics is completely wrong, for example. Why not folk metaethics?

I don't see those as very comparable situations - folk physics being wrong requires people to be commonly and systematically mistaken about external reality (surely an uncontroversial claim!), emotivism (as I understand it) requires them to be commonly and systematically wrong about what they themselves mean when using moral language. Metaethics as a whole may be hideously complicated, but the particular question "do I, when saying something like ' Fifty was wrong to steal my chocolates', intend to make a statement of fact or an expression of disapproval?" is surely both simple and, unlike physical problems, accessible to introspection.

 

[Plotinus]

On the question of important American philosophers, don't forget the pragmatists (Pierce, James, Dewey). I think Pierce in particular was an important philosopher who is often overlooked, and pragmatism itself is interesting since it is pretty much the one major development in modern philosophy that was invented by Americans.

Personally I think that the greatest American-born thinker of all time is still Jonathan Edwards - he is probably more interesting as a theologian than as a philosopher, but he was still a remarkable philosopher with something interesting and original to say about pretty much anything to which he turned his mind. His work on ethics and responsibility is especially important.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Moderator Action: As a general rule, anyone interested in answering questions should give their credentials. If you just have general knowledge of the subject, let us know that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

A question for Fifty:

I know your opinions about postmodernism. Do those extend to post-structuralists as well? Along those lines, do you agree with Chomsky that Derrida is purposefully obscure and uses pretentious language to mask the simplicity of his ideas? Are there are any other philosophers to whom you would extend that description?

Thanks.

 

[Fifty]

So who is your favourite Philosopher?

I really like Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine. I'm not sure if I can coherently answer why... just in terms of the body and range of their work, their style and methodology, and so on. I also like Chomsky a lot, and he really ought to count as a philosopher since he's influenced the discipline so much.

What are current trends in Epistemology?

There has been a pretty strong "normative turn" in epistemology. People like to think about knowledge in terms of "what is it that makes knowledge a good thing to have". Also, "Why is knowledge better than mere true belief". Other people have taken a "formal turn" in epistemology, which likes to think about knowledge in terms of probability functions and the like. I have sympathy with both camps, but think the normative people are doing more interesting work. I feel like some people in the formal camp are effected with Economistitus, a disease characterized by the belief that the more mathy something is, the more sciency and better it is.

Why should the ethical distinction be made between human life and nonhuman life?

I don't think such a distinction ought to be made! It seems worthwhile to distinguish between persons and nonpersons, but I don't see why there ought to be an ethical distinction between human persons and nonhuman persons.

Can somebody support the death penalty and still be considered a pacifist?

I think the way we ordinarily talk about pacifism admits a variety of interpretations. If by pacificism you mean just opposition to war, then I guess one could support the death penalty and be a pacifiist. It would be a weird combo, though.

Questions: What is the meaning/purpose of life?

I don't think that question has an answer! Its tough to see what a good answer to that question would look like, at any rate. I guess the best answer I could give would be that the purpose of life is to be an excellent person.

What do you think of pantheism?

It seems like it has about as much going for it as monotheism, that is, not much! I don't think either of monotheism or pantheism has the goods on the other in terms of reasonability.

Aside from teaching philosophy, what are other good lines of employment can philosophy students take?

If you are too lazy to get anything other than a BA, you could be a criminal investigator, or you could do anything freelance.

Anyway... this brings up another question, how does an analytic philosopher such as yourself view the works of the great dead philosophers of all the various schools of thought? For example Kant?

Many of them were fantastic thinkers. Kant, for instance, is held in high esteem by analytic philosophers. Many, myself included, think a student of philosophy (particularly at the pre-PhD level) ought not spend much time reading historical philosophy, just as a physics student wont actually read Einstein.

I don't see those as very comparable situations - folk physics being wrong requires people to be commonly and systematically mistaken about external reality (surely an uncontroversial claim!), emotivism (as I understand it) requires them to be commonly and systematically wrong about what they themselves mean when using moral language. Metaethics as a whole may be hideously complicated, but the particular question "do I, when saying something like ' Fifty was wrong to steal my chocolates', intend to make a statement of fact or an expression of disapproval?" is surely both simple and, unlike physical problems, accessible to introspection.

Emotivists don't think that people are mistaken about what they intend, or about what they think they mean. They just think people are mistaken about the semantic content of some of their utterances.

That's really the best I can do... I have a hard time arguing against you since I'm a cognitivist myself!

I know your opinions about postmodernism. Do those extend to post-structuralists as well?

I suppose some (such as Foucault) who are associated with that movement have their merits, but on the whole there is much more chafe than wheat from pretty much every post-Kantian continental school.

Along those lines, do you agree with Chomsky that Derrida is purposefully obscure and uses pretentious language to mask the simplicity of his ideas?

Absolutely. Derrida is a perfect and utter charlatan and fraud, and I think very very lowly of any academic discipline that takes him seriously.

Are there are any other philosophers to whom you would extend that description?

Derrida is probably the worst of the bunch. A recent poll on a philosophy blog was on what person you most wish people would stop referring to as philosophers. The runaway winner was Ayn Rand, with Derrida coming in second and Leo Strauss coming in third.

Quite a few prominent feminist philosophers are worthless, too.


Now that I'm all caught up I look forward to being able to offer more comprehensive answers.