ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Identity

Some years ago I heard one of the Beatles in the course of a conversation about his career opine that 'after all I might easily have been someone else, mightn't I'. I remember not being sure about this proposition. One half knows what is being got at but on the other hand, it seems barely intelligible. Could I easily have been someone else? Ian g

Several years ago, in a fit of anger at her father, my daughter turned her anger on me and demanded that I explain to her why I had ever gotten involved with him. I pointed out to her that she had no right to be angry at me on these grounds, since she wouldn’t have existed had it not been for my involvement with him. Her origins are essential to her, and she wouldn’t have existed had it not been for these origins. Might she then have reasonably replied that she could have been someone else? I agree that this claim is barely coherent. It is true that she could have had many different attributes. She might not have developed certain interests; she might not have looked exactly the way that she looks. But that’s not to say that she could have been someone else; it’s to say that she– the very same person– could have had certain different attributes. For further thoughts that are relevant to this question, see 302 and 433 .
Identity
Logic

How do formal logicians respond to Marxist/Leninist/Dialectical logic claims? For example, in "An Introduction to the Logic of Marxism", George Novack explains that the law of identity of formal logic, that "A is equal to A", is always falsified when we try to apply it to reality. Here is a quote from the book, in which he quotes from "In Defense of Marxism" (it is long, I apologize): "... a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true -- all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, color, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself at 'any given moment.' "Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this 'axiom,' it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word 'moment'? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that 'moment' to inevitable changes. Or is the 'moment' a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a...

According to a standard conception of identity, if A is identical to B , then A and B haveall of their properties in common. This principle is commonly known asLeibniz’s law, after the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a 17thcentury German philosopher, who articulated this implication of ourconcept of identity. This principle is also referred to as "theprinciple of the indiscernibility of identicals". This law or principlemight seem to imply that if a particular object (say a particularquantity of sugar) changes over time, then it’s not the same thing–after all, the properties of the object at one time are different fromthe properties of that object at another time. However, this reasoningrests on a confusion. Leibniz’s law does not imply that if A at T1 has properties f , g , and h , then A at T2 must have these same properties. Instead, it implies that, if it is true of A that at T1 it has properties f , g , and h , then at T2 it is true of A that...
Knowledge
Logic

I once took a graduate course in education in which I was the only non-teacher. One day, I disagreed with something said by another student, and her response has always baffled me. She said: "Who are you? You can't question me until you've walked in my shoes." In other words, she felt that I was unqualified to question her, to cast doubt on anything she said. Who was I to say? Well of course her response was nonsense but how so? As a matter of logic or illogic, was her remark an example of an appeal to authority? She certainly felt that she was an authority.

I have such a visceral reaction to your fellow student’s comment. I just want to slap her on your behalf, which of course I’d never do, but I’d want to! But then I wonder what your comment was. Maybe she was just verbally slapping you, and while verbal slapping is no better than physical slapping, it is just as understandable. But let’s assume that what you said was perfectly reasonable. As a hypothetical example, let’s assume that you were respectfully questioning her view about how to handle disciplinary issues that arise in the classroom. And let’s take her claim not as a verbal slapping, but as a serious claim about the conditions under which you count as having the epistemic authority to question her. She claims that you can’t question her unless you walk in her shoes. Does this mean that you can’t ask her a question? Surely, she can’t mean this. So I suppose that she means that you are not epistemically permitted to doubt the truth of her judgment. And what does she mean by the...
Children
Ethics

I've really enjoyed reading the answers to the questions posed on this site and I've come up with a question that was inspired from an experience my 5 year old daughter recently had. My question is this: Why is it wrong to snitch on a friend? I can see in cases of minor mischief that snitching on a friend would seem to be unloyal but just how far should our duty to our friendship extend? I'm asking this from the context where you know your friend has done something wrong and in which you were not involved but your friend has requested you remain silent on their behalf.

I know that you’re primarily interested in the more sophisticatedquestion concerning the extent of our obligations to friends, but I’mstuck on childhood “snitching,” or as it’s known in my family,“tattling.” “Don’t be a tattle-tale,” I’m often tempted to tell my fiveyear old when she tells me of some minor indiscretion of her fourteenyear old sister. Why not? Didn’t her sister do something wrong? Andshouldn’t wrong-doers be held to account? And isn’t it my job as aparent to enforce all morally legitimate norms? No, it’s my jobas a parent to do what is in my power to protect my children fromunjustified harm and to help them to develop their capacities to livegood, worthwhile, and morally decent lives. If they are being wrongedby someone else and if they do not yet have the skills or authority toprevent that wrong, then I must intervene. But the usual situationsthat motivate tattling aren’t like that. Most tattling is motivated byenvy. Tattlers tend to regard moral norms as arbitrary...
Value

Within my grade at school, certain people seek out (I'm not sure if they do it consciously or unconsciously) the negative aspects of other people in the grade, without seeing any of their good qualities (which I believe they, like everyone, have). I was wondering why people do this, not only at school but in society in general? Why must so many people spend so much time (and I mean A LOT of time) focusing on such insignificant and often superficial aspects of people?

And here’s another way in which focusing on the negative traits of others serves a self-defensive function. If I notice how virtuous, intelligent, witty, and beautiful X is, then I might be forced to notice how my own traits pale in comparison. In contrast, if I notice the peccadillos of X, then I can take great satisfaction in the fact that I’m superior in at least these trivial respects.
Love
Value

If no one ever loves me during my lifetime - if I don't ever have a relationship - will I have not lived properly? Is love that important to life, or is it something you can choose to engage in if you like? Thank you.

On Aristotle’s view, in order to determine whether Bob is living a goodlife, we first need to determine what kind of creature Bob is– e.g., ishe a human being, a dog, or an oak tree. We then would judge thequality of his life against a species standard of flourishing. Forexample, our view of what it would mean for a dog to live a good lifeis informed by our views about the nature of dogs. We tend to think ofa dog who lives its life in a cage as not living a good life for a dog,even if we imagine that it is given sufficient drugs to feel nodiscontent or frustration. A good life for a dog, we think, would beone thatinvolved companionship, running around, barking at threatening noisesand strangers, and so forth. Because a dog in a cage on drugs is notgiven the opportunity to engage in doggy activities, it is notfunctioning as a dog at a high level, and so, is not living a good lifefor a dog. If Bob is a dog, Aristotle would say, then we would judgehis quality of life as good just in case he had a lot of...
Ethics

Why should I be concerned about torture? As a middle class, white atheist living in the UK, neither I nor anyone I know is likely to suffer from it. I consider my aversion to it to be mere sentimentality. Bill Foster

I wonder what you believe is the relevance of the fact that you are an atheist. Perhapsyou believe that in the absence of God, nothing really counts as goodor evil, and so, for you, the only practical question that suchpractices as torture raise is whether you (or those close to you) arelikely to suffer from them. If so, then I’d suggest that you consider the following posting on the relationship between religion and morality: 27 .
Ethics

Is it, in general, better to take actions that could be described (variably, according to your moral temper) as sinful, or wrong, or regrettable, "in your stride", rather than feel guilt if it is the case that guilt will not diminish the probability of its happening again? Is guilt something irrational in the sense that we would really be better to (i) rid ourselves of it (ii) discourage aspects of the upbringing of children which conditions this response in them, so long as there are other ways to disincentivize harmful behaviour?

If you regard guilty feelings as a form of self-punishment, then it is reasonable to ask whetherthere isa less painful way to achieve the same positive effects. But I agreewith Hilary Bok that feelings of guilt are not self-inflictedpunishment. She writes: “If we care about living by our standards andabout the state of our wills, then we will find the thought that wehave failed to act as we think we should painful. In so doing we arenot giving free rein to self-hatred or turning internalized aggressionon ourselves, but responding in the only appropriate way to a factabout our conduct. For just as our claim to love another person iscalled into question if the demise of our relationship to that personleaves us unmoved, not minding the fact that we have willingly violatedour standards calls into question our claim that they are, in fact,standards we think we should live by. . . . We can avoid the pain ofguilt in only two ways: first, by living blameless lives, and second,by ceasing to care about the world we...
Ethics

Why is murder considered a crime when the person who was murdered was going to die whether or not that person killed him or her?

While it is true that, given the current state of technology, each of us will eventually die, it is not true that, no matter what, each of us will have a life of a particular length. A longer life is often more valuable than a shorter life because it often contains more good things than a shorter life. With a longer life, I have the opportunity to develop my talents, to engage in long term, complex and valuable projects, to build and cultivate complex and valuable relationships, and to have more fun. Murder is a bad thing, it seems to me, simply because it cuts short a life that otherwise would have been much longer and more valuable both for the person who lived it and for others who are positively affected by her life. From the point of view of the person who dies prematurely and of those who are affected by her life, it doesn’t make much difference whether her life is ended by a murderer, accident, or disease. It’s the same loss in any case. Unfortunately, though, accidents and diseases...
Suicide

Suppose someone is thinking about killing himself. Can philosophers or philosophy give him reasons for or against doing it? Or isn't suicide a philosophical subject?

I think that the primary thing that is wrong with murder is that it ends a life that is valuable, both for the person living it and for people who love her or otherwise benefit from her existence. In contrast, I think that often, when people consider suicide, they believe that their life is no longer worth living. They are in a great deal of physical or psychological pain, and they don’t foresee that things are going to get much better. They don’t believe that their existence is particularly important to others, and they can’t imagine that their value to others will change soon. They don’t believe that their life has much point, and they can’t figure out what could possibly give their lives meaning. For them, non-existence seems to be an improvement over existence, not because they assign a positive value to non-existence, but because existence seems to have such a negative value. If they are right, then suicide is not wrong in the way that most murders are wrong. However, I think many people who...

Pages