ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Philosophers

FIRST OF ALL THIS QUESTION DEALS WITH SOCRATES--HIS LIFE SPAN WAS 463-399 B.C.E.--WHAT DOES THE E.STAND FOR? COULD YOU DIRECT ME TO A SITE THAT COULD SHOW ALL OF THE TEXT THAT THE FOLLOWING WAS FOUND FROM? "YOUNG PEOPLE 'LOVE LUXURY, HATE AUTHORITY.. ARE BORED AND ILL MANNERED AND LACK RESPECT FOR ADULTS' THANKS SO MUCH

"B.C.E." stands for: Before the Common Era, though it can also be taken to mean: Before the Christian Era. See the Wikipedia article for more information. I don't know a source for the quotation you mention.
Philosophers

Richard Rorty is dead and I think philosophy is poorer for it. But I have found during my undergraduate philosophy studies that most Anglo-American academics are largely hostile towards most of what he has written. Perhaps some one or more members panel can confirm this widespread hostility and articulate the more common reasons behind it.

Maybe "hostile" is a little strong. To speak just for myself, I never found anything helpful to me in anything I read by Rorty. And I guess that's why I didn't bother reading very much of what he wrote. I've only got so much time, you know? But if some people do seem hostile towards Rorty's writings, I can't said I wouldn't understand the sentiment. I found a lot of what Rorty wrote kind of hostile, not to mention a bit holier-than-thou.
Philosophers

Why has Ayn Rand become so inconsequential to modern philosophy? The point is underscored by the lack of any references to Rand on your site, save one instance where someone asked if there were any refutations of Rand's Objectivism available – to which a link was dutifully supplied. The point is further underscored by some questions in regards to women in philosophy (or the lack thereof) which, to my amazement, Rand was not referred to (even begrudgingly) as a positive example. My pet theories about this situation have something to do with her aligning herself strongly with Capitalism, while philosophers historically have been left leaners or overtly aristocratic (of sorts) but never very money orientated, which is probably seen as a very Earthly consideration to dwell on. Some say that Rands format of conveying philosophical ideas in the form of novels has not helped her cause much. If this consideration is to be given weight then why should Socratic dialog, for example, be so revered? The methodology...

I don't think Rand's alignment with Capitalism has much to do with her lack of influence on modern philosophy. It's true, to be sure, that the majority of philosophers nowadays tend to be left-of-center, but there are plenty that are not. To give but one example from recent philosophy, Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia could hardly be described as leftist, but it is an acknowledged classic nonetheless. Similarly, Rand's presentation of her ideas in novels isn't unique. There are writings of Nietzsche's that are in much the same form, and he's still taken seriously. I'm afraid the reason Rand is "so inconsequential to modern philosophy" is rather less interesting: The overwhelming majority of contemporary philosophers find her work to be of poor quality.
Philosophers

I am beginning to think this question is a big question mark not only to me, but to some of you Sirs as well--as I have submitted it a couple of times now, and it hasn't even been posted. But let me restate it. A position which holds that there are no absolutes (by which I refer to something akin to the noumena, in Kantian terms) is necessarily wrong. Such position could in fact be synthesized as follows: "I believe there are no absolutes." But such a claim is an absolute in itself. Thus, absolutes must exist. The alternative would be something like "I believe there might not be absolutes". Which nonetheless leaves room for the possibility of the existence of absolutes. Hence, absolutes can, indeed, exist. How do we, as "relativists", argue against the claim that seems to follow logically from what was said--and, that is, that "absolutes necessarily exist"? Thanks...

This is a version of a familiar argument against radical relativism. As one usually sees it, it involves the claim "All truth is relative", and then the question is whether the truth of that claim is relative. If so, then relativism may well be false, relative to something or other; if not, then, well, there is one non-relative truth. So far as I can see, this argument is solid. Radical relativism is self-refuting. It does not follow, however, that weaker forms of relativism are self-refuting. Indeed, even the view stated as "All truths other than this one are relative" does not seem to be self-refuting. One might wonder what motivation there was for such an odd view, but it does seem consistent. More interestingly, views like moral relativism is not self-refuting: The claim that all moral truths are relative to, say, one's culture is not itself a moral claim and so does not fall within the scope of moral relativism. (That does not, of course, mean that moral relativism is true .)
Philosophers

Why aren’t the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution - James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Alexander Hamilton, etc., people who wrote the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, and a lot more - considered great Philosophers up there with Locke and Rousseau? The Federalist Papers were used to justify the constitution, and the anti-federalists papers used to justify a bill of rights are great philosophical works, with more completing arguments than anything Locke tried to say (which is a whole different question, with its many flaws - and how Locke wasn’t as much an influence on the Founding Fathers as people once thought). What these people wrote has had as much influence over the world as any other "great" philosopher - but they are not taught as philosophers and are only learned about in history class. Any reason for this?

Not everything influential counts as philosophy, any more than it counts as science or literature. Yes, of course, the Federalist Papers and the like have had enormous influence, but they do not contain arguments for the same kinds of positions that you find in Locke's Two Treatises on Civil Government , Rousseau's Social Contract , or Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia . The Federalist Papers are much more concerned with concrete political matters—questions about how government should be organized—than with abstract philosophical ones. True enough, of course, the boundary between these is vague, and it is obvious that there are profound "philosophical" differences between the authors of these documents, some of which are made explicit. But that does not make them works of philosophy. It makes them, rather, works of political theory, and so it seems appropriate that they should be studied precisely where they are extensively studied: In political science and in law.
Feminism
Philosophers

I have a problem with Hegel's theory which said: the difference between men and women are like the difference between animals and plants, men are like animals and women are like plants because women are more sensitive than men and they are dependent on their feelings so they cannot make a good decision as a government member. I know this theory is for Hegel's period but why a famous philosopher like him said some thing nonsense, why did not he worth for women? Why most of the philosophers are man??

If you think that's bad, you should try reading Hume, particularly, "On Modesty". Hume there explains why it's morally required for women but not men to have but one sexual partner! Hegel, Hume, and the rest were human beings, and their opinions are just as likely to be infected by prejudice, ignorance, and self-interest as are those of any of us mortals. (One might say the same kind of thing, by the way, about Saint Paul and the other authors of scripture, all of whom were also numbered among us mortals.) Of course, it's part of being a reflective person to struggle to uncover such sources of bias. Hegel and Hume failed in this particular instance. I expect that says more about how deeply rooted sexism was in their cultures than it does about them personally. And, of course, their cultures were the antecedents of our own, so there's something to be learned here about our own culture, too. As for the question why most philosophers are men, I'm sure you can guess the answer to that question....
Philosophers

Hi, First, thanks for creation of this site. Second, I need some information about a greek philosopher with the name of "HEGESIAS" and also his philosophy called "philosophy of death/suicide". I searched in my country (Iran): books,magazines and also asking some professors but I don`t find my wanted, yet. Please if possible mention to some sites (links), books and so on.

A Google search will turn up a handful of articles on Hegesias. Or you can start with the article at Wikipedia .
Philosophers

My AP English teacher has a bone to pick with Enlightenment philosophy, specifically Descartes and Rationalist Epistemology. She feels that the application of its arguments and principles would justify far too many egregious things - slavery, exploitation, war, genocide. Somehow I doubt her reasoning, although I am able to understand how she came to those conclusions. My question is whether or not there are arguments out there to refute hers? Any response would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Josh.

I doubt your teacher's reasoning, too, but mostly on the general ground that Descartes didn't talk much about these issues and I, anyway, have a very hard time seeing how any sort of epistemology could lead to the justification of slavery. I mean, epistemology is important and all, but it is nonetheless limited in scope. It might interest you to know that a kind of early women's movement was based upon Cartesian principles, the idea being that the mind, being distinct from the body, was genderless.
Philosophers

In the past in places such as Greece, there were philosophers and scholars like Socrates, Plato, etc. Do we have any modern-day philosophers whose works are as highly regarded as the ancient ones? And were the works of the ancient philosophers, when they were alive, not regarded as highly as they are now?

This is a fun parlor game. I've often played it with friends andcolleagues. "Which philosophers active in the latter half of thetwentieth century will have their work read two hundred years fromnow?" The question can mean different things, and it's obviouslyimpossible to know. Our present sense of what was important in the workof the last sixty years or so may turn out to have been distorted byour own current interests. And things change. I've been told that ahundred years ago, Berkeley wasn't taken at all seriously. But he'sbeen a minor member of the canon for a while now. And people who doserious history of philosophy often read the work of many figures theywould themselves regard as "minor", because it helps them to understandthe environment in which philosophy was then being done. But it's clearenough what the intention of the question is: Are there philosophersaround now who have some claim to be members of the pantheon, up therewith Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, and Kant? With all...
Philosophers

Was Jesus a philosopher?

I don't think Jesus was a philosopher in the sense in which we use that term today. Just what counts as philosophy is, of course, pretty hard to say. But I take it that philosophy is in some sense characterized by the kinds of questions considered and the way in which those questions are approached. Jesushad some profound things to say, for sure, but they weren't addressed to the kinds of questions philosophers address, and Jesus didn't give the sorts of arguments philosophers do.

Pages