Ask a Philosopher!

[Clement]

Here's a way to think about it.

We have our galaxy, and there's a galaxy say a billion light-years away. We wait a billion years, now the galaxy is 1.01 billion light years away (I make no claim that this number is accurate). What happened? Did the galaxies move away from each other? Not really!

The space between them expanded! And in fact if you look at a galaxy that was 1 billion light years away in the opposite direction it will also be 1.01 billion light years away.

I'd be willing to bet you are correct, but unfortunately i still don't fully understand because even under those circumstances, if we are talking about a 3 dimensional universe it's edges/circumference must still increase in size and overlap with the "nothing" we were talking about earlier. (if the material universe is finite)

under the circumstances you mention the inside space may be the same space just elongated but what about the universe's edges? it's "skin" if i may put it that way, surely that can't remain the same size while the inside expands?

I'd like to point out here i don't enjoy being difficult, especially not with someone like yourself that is obviously more knowledgable on this subject than me and by continuing to question these answers i most probably show myself to be unintelligent so i don't do it in a throw-away fashion, but i must admit failure at trying to understand the concept you set out, as i mentioned previously, it may well be possible i just can't understand it.

 

[Perfection]

I'd be willing to bet you are correct, but unfortunately i still don't fully understand because even under those circumstances, if we are talking about a 3 dimensional universe it's edges/circumference must still increase in size and overlap with the "nothing" we were talking about earlier. (if the material universe is finite)

under the circumstances you mention the inside space may be the same space just elongated but what about the universe's edges? it's "skin" if i may put it that way, surely that can't remain the same size while the inside expands?

As I understand it, there is no real edge, just the limit to that which we can see.

I'd like to point out here i don't enjoy being difficult, especially not with someone like yourself that is obviously more knowledgable on this subject than me and by continuing to question these answers i most probably show myself to be unintelligent so i don't do it in a throw-away fashion, but i must admit failure at trying to understand the concept you set out, as i mentioned previously, it may well be possible i just can't understand it.

It's fine, dude. This stuff is counter-intuitive.

 

[Incodcito]

What is your opinion of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens?

 

[Ayatollah So]

My apologies if this question sounds a little silly maybe, but i ask it in good faith,

what is the greatest service/services that philosophy can do for mankind?

In my opinion, in the next century or so, it is to help humans avoid doing really stupid things with Artificial Intelligence and related tech. For one thing, help humans avoid "becoming" robots that have amazing intelligence and wit and musical ability and ... yet lack an inner life of a sort we could possibly relate to.

Identifying a person with their body can lead to equal silliness to identifying a person with their memories. In fact, the objection is much the same: the physical make up of my body is constantly changing. If I am my cells, I have a very short lifespan

No, many composites routinely survive changes in their parts. That includes rocks, trees, stars, and ships. A composite is not like a set in mathematics. At least, not the composites we have natural language words for.

 

[Fifty]

What is your opinion of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens?

Hitchens I find amusing but not very intellectually weighty.

I really really like the Dawkins of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, but not so much the Dawkins of The God Delusion.

 

[_random_]

Hitchens I find amusing but not very intellectually weighty.

I really really like the Dawkins of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, but not so much the Dawkins of The God Delusion.

What about Harris and Dennet?

 

[Fifty]

What about Harris and Dennet?

I haven't read anything by Harris.

Dennett is a reputable philosopher who has done a lot of major work in the philosophy of mind and in philosophically-oriented cognitive sciencey type stuff. One work on religion by him that I've read is "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", which I found to be a fun read (its basically an alternative explanation of religion in terms of evolution and whatnot). I also heard a debate he had with a prominent theist philosopher, which I thought was pretty interesting. Overall I think pretty highly of Dennett.


BTW, if anyone was curious as to what philosophers think is the best book for arguments against the existence of God, check out The Miracle of Theism by Mackie.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

BTW, if anyone was curious as to what philosophers think is the best book for arguments against the existence of God, check out The Miracle of Theism by Mackie.

I'm interested, how easy is it to read for someone with only a basic understanding of philosophy?

 

[_random_]

I also heard a debate he had with a prominent theist philosopher, which I thought was pretty interesting. Overall I think pretty highly of Dennett.

Who was his opponent? Dennet seems to be the best philosopher of the "New Atheist" crowd, so I'd be interested in any clips, transcripts or summaries. Since you mention prominent theist philosophers and seem to be okay with giving short assessments of Great Living Philosophers, what do you think of Richard Swinburne?

 

[Ajidica]

Why exactly is Cartesian Dualism pretty heavily discredited in modern philosophy?
I understand it has something to do with the need for Mind/Matter to eventualy intersect, but I was under the impression that Leibnitz and Spinoza rectified that.

 

[Fifty]

I'm interested, how easy is it to read for someone with only a basic understanding of philosophy?

I think its quite understandable to a thoughtful person without much philosophy background. Granted, its not an EASY read, but Mackie doesn't assume any familiarity with any substantive philosophy, as far as I can remember. I would say if you are interested in the issue, you should go for it.

Who was his opponent? Dennet seems to be the best philosopher of the "New Atheist" crowd, so I'd be interested in any clips, transcripts or summaries. Since you mention prominent theist philosophers and seem to be okay with giving short assessments of Great Living Philosophers, what do you think of Richard Swinburne?

I don't know much about Swinburne. He is apparently pretty important, but the only argument of his I've spent much time with is a hilariously bad a priori argument that God is triune (that is, he's trying to prove that the nature of God requires a Christian-style Trinity). Basically, God is all-loving. But in order to be all-loving, there must be a beloved with which you share your loving nature. And there must also be a third entity that you and your beloved love together. Hence, the Trinity!

There's a megaupload .mp3 link in the comments here that should be the audio of the Dennet debate. His opponent was Alvin Plantinga.

Why exactly is Cartesian Dualism pretty heavily discredited in modern philosophy?
I understand it has something to do with the need for Mind/Matter to eventualy intersect, but I was under the impression that Leibnitz and Spinoza rectified that.

I dunno much about the historical stuff, so I dunno what Leibniz and Spinoza did or didn't rectify. However, there are three main issues with substance dualism:

1) If mind and body are different substances, how do they interact?
2) Physiology seems to possess explanatory completeness (this is why neuroscience is so fruitful!), so why posit non-physical minds?
3) Substance dualism doesn't explain all that much!

I should note, though, that there are definitely folks out there who are dualists, but they tend to be property dualists rather than substance dualists. Substance dualists say that the mind is some sort of non-physical substance, whereas property dualists just say that mental states are non-physical properties, which is an important difference. I don't know of any modern defenders of substance dualism, but that doesn't mean there aren't any!

 

[Incodcito]

Hitchens I find amusing but not very intellectually weighty.

I really really like the Dawkins of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, but not so much the Dawkins of The God Delusion.

I agree on Hitchens. He really doesn't contribute anything new, though I did enjoy God is not Great in a quick reading.

As for Dawkins' God Delusion, what did you not like about it?

EDIT: I am interested in some beginners readings on philosophy. I'm assuming you are of the analytic school of philosophy, so I don't think I have to worry about you recommending Hegel or Heidegger to me

 

[Fifty]

As for Dawkins' God Delusion, what did you not like about it?

I actually haven't read it in full. But in snippets, it just seems kinda coarse-grained and lacking in nuance. More a polemic than an argument, I guess.

EDIT: I am interested in some beginners readings on philosophy. I'm assuming you are of the analytic school of philosophy, so I don't think I have to worry about you recommending Hegel or Heidegger to me

My general recommendation for folks new to philosophy with no specific desired starting point:

1) Read The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
2) Read The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
3) Browse the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu) from time to time and just read any article that tickles your fancy.

 

[Perfection]

I'm sort of interested right now in the philosophy of personal identity. Any recommendations on that?

 

[Gogf]

Do you that man has a telos?

Next on my reading list of MacIntyre's After Virtue, which apparently argues that ethics without a teleology has no real content. This makes some sense in that without the telos of "pursuing the good" I have trouble answering the question "why should I be moral" convincingly. With that said, it sounds like the existence of a telos could imply all sorts of crazy things.

 

[Perfection]

Do you that man has a telos?

Me? No.

I'm more talking about what it is to be an individual, or what exactly we mean when we say "I".

 

[Gogf]

Me? No.

I'm more talking about what it is to be an individual, or what exactly we mean when we say "I".

Oh, no, that was directed at Fifty.

I don't really know much about the philosophy of personal identity so I'm interested in what he recommends. I believe Heidegger has some interesting thoughts on this (ie if you are using a pen to write the pen is meaningfully a part of you) but I've only heard this second-hand and so can't really say anything about it.

 

[Millman]

I believe I like my friends. They can do all kinds of favors for you.

The question is what is the sound of one hand typing?

Despite all the philosophy we have to 'act' the truth about more than 90% of our life. Minus a constant omission you haven't old anyone or such.

 

[Perfection]

Oh, no, that was directed at Fifty.

Oh yeah, this is an "ask a..." thread, Perf forgots!

I don't really know much about the philosophy of personal identity so I'm interested in what he recommends. I believe Heidegger has some interesting thoughts on this (ie if you are using a pen to write the pen is meaningfully a part of you) but I've only heard this second-hand and so can't really say anything about it.

Heidegger died in 1976, which is like a bajillion years ago. I'd be skeptical if reading him would be better than reading something newer.

 

[Fifty]

I'm sort of interested right now in the philosophy of personal identity. Any recommendations on that?

I actually don't have much by way of help on that one, other than the standard recommendation to read the SEP article and check out its bibliography! Are you thinking along the lines of identity-through-time type stuff or what?

Do you that man has a telos?

Next on my reading list of MacIntyre's After Virtue, which apparently argues that ethics without a teleology has no real content. This makes some sense in that without the telos of "pursuing the good" I have trouble answering the question "why should I be moral" convincingly. With that said, it sounds like the existence of a telos could imply all sorts of crazy things.

I don't think man has a telos in some maximally domain-general sense. Man might have a telos with respect to specific domains, though. For instance, to be maximally virtuous or something like that might be an ethical telos. Achieving phronesis might be some kind of epistemic telos.

It depends also on whether when you ask "does man have a telos", do you mean "is there a goal that everyone ought to pursue" or "is there a goal that everyone pursues". I'm far more sympathetic to the first version than the second.

The question is what is the sound of one hand typing?

I dunno the details but its something like the phenomenal experience generated by a certain sort of causal interaction between certain sorts of sound waves and your brain.