Those of you whom are regular visitors to these pages may have noticed a few changes to the Blog. These are part of the on-going Editorial process, and intended to make the Blog a more friendly place for Contributors and Visitors alike.
Simply, the List of Blogs has been updated to include a few new blogs (as part of our on-going attempt to maintain a nearly definitive list of the philosophy blogs on-line), which has meant that the List of Philosophical Links has been moved, and given its own post after the style of several other Philo-bloggers. Further, you will now find a post containing a means of contacting us in the new Nota Bene section; it is going to be here that Posts with on-going streams of discussion will be listed as they threaten to fall of the main page as well as other Posts Of Note, such as the Dialectic Tables Of Contents (which has finally found its way on-line) and the Fragmenta.
It is hoped that this changes will improve the Blog, in you – the Readers – interests.
The Editor.
Post Script, If you have any helpful comments feel free to leave them here. Many Thanks.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Peter Singer Appointed Time’s Influential Philosopher
Peter Singer, controversial utilitarian, has been appointed this year’s influential philosopher by Time Magazine (Time, April 18, 2005, p. 97). It is an interesting appointment to succeed Jurgen Habermas, and one likely to encourage some debate.
Arthur Caplan’s blurb on Singer is brief, pointing only toward Singer’s significance. But it does provide an insightful grasp of the relationship many of us, who are inclined towards ethics, have with Singer’s work (and him, by implication). Caplan writes:
I would like to open this post up for a discussion of Singer’s corpus.
Arthur Caplan’s blurb on Singer is brief, pointing only toward Singer’s significance. But it does provide an insightful grasp of the relationship many of us, who are inclined towards ethics, have with Singer’s work (and him, by implication). Caplan writes:
It is easy to demonise Singer … since his theory points toward conclusionsCaplan and I agree in disagreeing with Singer, but I am willing to concede that his arguments are always worthy of careful consideration. (I am one of those who has been trying to pull apart his arguments for the moral consideration of animals so that I can maintain my carnivorism in clear conscience, ever since Singer turned me into a vegetarian for a couple of weeks in 2002). I am also drawn to his arguments regarding infanticide and euthanasia.
that some find morally repugnant … Those who scorn his views can
rarely produce an argument about why he is wrong – they simply don’t like
his conclusions. But ethics is all about arguments, not moral pronouncements …
he is a man whose reasoning merits consideration by everyone. There are few
philosophers, living or dead, about whom that can be said.
I would like to open this post up for a discussion of Singer’s corpus.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Golding On The Existence Of God
Given the discussion in these parts over the past days, weeks, has revolved around God - His ontological status - it is perhaps fitting that Richard Swinburne has seen fit to prepare a second edition of his The Existence of God.
Here is the Notre Dame review, by Josh Golding ... Goldings observation that the best the theist can do is establish the 'objective probability' of God is apt; it is important for those who bandy proofs around here as if they are conclusive to remember that they are oft at best only logically sound, and that it is only when definitive and conclusive emperical evidence is established that the arguments may be considered valid - (there is the old observation that the Ontological Argument has never converted anyone) - and that until then it rest on the theist to prove existence and not vice versa.
Here is the Notre Dame review, by Josh Golding ... Goldings observation that the best the theist can do is establish the 'objective probability' of God is apt; it is important for those who bandy proofs around here as if they are conclusive to remember that they are oft at best only logically sound, and that it is only when definitive and conclusive emperical evidence is established that the arguments may be considered valid - (there is the old observation that the Ontological Argument has never converted anyone) - and that until then it rest on the theist to prove existence and not vice versa.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Philosopher's Carnival, No. Twelve
Inessentialism.org is presently hosting the Twelth Philosopher's Carnival. Wide range of material submitted, and references to several posts on themes that are presently under discussion here ... worth checking out if you want access to some different perspectives.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Dialogue? What dialogue?
For those who attended the horror that was the Christians and Sceptics 'Dialogue' on last thursday, all I can say is :"Ow, I think I just ruptured my spleen". (someting I said a number of times during the actual event).
If anyone would like to continue (or actually start) the debate/dialogue regarding the question "Do we need God?" or our favorite "Does God exist?" or the more relavent"Is it reasonable to beleive in God?", please feel free to make this the forum in which to do so. I would suggest starting a new thread/post for each indivdual question, so as to make the collection of replies neater and more coherent.
With regard to the event itself, I have this to say: Both side were poorly organised. The Sceptics especially so. The NASA (Newcastle Adventist Students Association) speakers spent much of the time pedalling account that a decent first year philosophy student could have refuted, or at least made a fair reply to. The Sceptics howerver, were not equipped to deal with even these somewhat elementary arguments. It would seem that NASA came out on top on the day, but only because their speakers were better at playing to the crowd. Don't be so smug guys, it was not a great victory.
So to everyone out there: If you want to have a real argument about God (or anything else) that might actually be a challenge, bring it on.
If anyone would like to continue (or actually start) the debate/dialogue regarding the question "Do we need God?" or our favorite "Does God exist?" or the more relavent"Is it reasonable to beleive in God?", please feel free to make this the forum in which to do so. I would suggest starting a new thread/post for each indivdual question, so as to make the collection of replies neater and more coherent.
With regard to the event itself, I have this to say: Both side were poorly organised. The Sceptics especially so. The NASA (Newcastle Adventist Students Association) speakers spent much of the time pedalling account that a decent first year philosophy student could have refuted, or at least made a fair reply to. The Sceptics howerver, were not equipped to deal with even these somewhat elementary arguments. It would seem that NASA came out on top on the day, but only because their speakers were better at playing to the crowd. Don't be so smug guys, it was not a great victory.
So to everyone out there: If you want to have a real argument about God (or anything else) that might actually be a challenge, bring it on.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
That thing about God
For those who can't get a copy of Opus here is the article in full.
Arguments Over the Existence of God. Part 1.
During O Week, the Philosophy Club was just one group on campus handing out a number of different flyers. Of the hundreds that were handed out, we received back a handful of written reactions. It is my intention to reply, as it were, to these responses, mainly by pointing out how they are not adequate solutions to the issue at hand.
The bulk of the responses were to a flyer that quoted David Hume explaining what is known in philosophy as the ‘Problem of Evil’. Here is what Hume had to say on the matter:
“If the evil in the world is from the intention of the Deity, then he is not benevolent. If the evil in the world is contrary to his intention, then he is not omnipotent. But it is either in accordance with his intention or contrary to it. Therefore the Deity is not benevolent or not omnipotent”(Hume, Dialogues Concerning Religion).
The problem is easy to see. By this argument, an all-powerful being that allows tragic, painful and unpleasant events to occur is not benevolent. If a being means well, and would bring about a different state of affairs, but can’t, then it is not omnipotent, that is to say it is not an all-powerful being. Both these attributes seem central to what people tell us that a supreme being is like, which is why this problem never seems to entirely go away.
One of our first respondents wrote:
“This assumes that God is unable to use the evil in the world to his good ends.”
This response falls short of a solution by a very long way. It might well be true that God could use evil events, actions or means to his good ends, as the response seems to suggest. But this an omnipotent being, right? He could have used good means to achieve his ends. Or bizarre chicken-dependant means. Or no means at all, since an all-powerful being could just attain their ends directly by willing them to be so. Hume assumes nothing; he just asks why an omnipotent being would choose such objectionable methods.
A more comprehensive attempt was fielded by one of our blue-shirted faithful brethren:
“But what if the Deity’s cheifest desire was not benevolence – but love. Then he must allow free will for us to love. Similarly, his will is that we have our own will. This means we can endeavour for or against him – our choice. Since we work against him there is evil in the world.”
This is a better effort. The appeal to ‘free will’ has been a standard response to this problem for a long time now. In one form or other it is at the core of many of the most enduring attempts to solve the problem. But does it work? At a glance it is pretty good. If we have a choice, then it seems plausible to suggest that these choices are not always going to be the right ones and people are going to suffer as a consequence. God has to let us be free to be bastards to each other. But think a bit more. There are a lot of things we aren’t free to do, such as levitate on command, digest quartz, or transform into wild animals. Some thinkers have suggested that since we are already not completely free there is nothing contradictory about having free will and not being able to hurt (physically at least) our fellow beings. On top of this it is worth revisiting the first response. It may not be logically incoherent to suggest that a really omnipotent being could have made us so we never made the wrong choice, yet were always still free. At the very least God could intervene occasionally, by giving the occasional evil dictator a premature, but painless death. If I could intervene to prevent a violent crime, with no danger to myself but didn’t, people would consider me a monster or an idiot. The question in many people’s minds is this: If it is wrong for me to not intervene, then why is it not wrong for God?
Arguments about ‘free will’ and how it relates to this problem are somewhat unresolved. Questions to consider would be: Is the ‘free will’ humanity possesses proportional to the suffering that it experiences? Is the freedom of one particularly nasty person, eg Stalin or Hitler, worth more than the suffering of the millions of victims they were responsible for?
There is one area, however, where this response clearly fails. Natural evils. I would have thought that so soon after a natural disaster, I would not see anyone fall into that trap. Sure, we could admit that us having our own free will could be responsible for us being crappy to each other. But it does not account for the suffering caused by earthquakes, and any number of other natural phenomena that we do not, (for the most part), have any control over. Our ‘free will’ and the pain and heartbreak these events can cause have no relation whatsoever, and hence is no defence.
For the same reasons, the following response is also inadequate:
“Maybe individual human discretion just gets in the way of her benevolence and omnipotence.”
Maybe. But how exactly could one “get in the way of” a supreme being that is credited with creating our entire universe? I apologise for any offence caused by using a quote that assumes the gender of God; if I had written it myself, I would have said He/She or She/He etc. If God does exist, then maybe it is a She. But it has no effect on this problem.
The last response I want to look at was to our “Babel Fish” flyer. This entertaining bit of logic has its origins in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams. For the uninitiated, the Babel fish is a fictitious animal; if you stick one in your ear you can understand any language you hear. I can’t believe anyone took it seriously enough to write back. Any way, here is the argument, adapted by myself from the radio script:
I. God refuses to prove that he exists, as proof denies faith, and without faith He is nothing.
II. The Babel fish is so useful that it is unlikely to have evolved by chance, and hence must be the work of God.
III. The Babel fish therefore, can be taken as proof of God’s existence.
I. Since God refuses to prove that He exists; proof of His existence constitutes a proof of His non-existence.
V. God does not exist.
(Adams, D. “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy).
The response consisted of the person critiquing each point in turn, and I will follow their lead:
“I – Gods creation is proof of his existence. He has advertised his existence. Faith means to know something and believe it.”
Creation is only proof of his existence if you already believe in him. If you don’t, it might not be so convincing, especially in light of the problems encountered by people during their existence. Creation can only be considered proof of God’s existence if it can be proven that He/She at least caused it, and if it can be shown that there was no other way that it could have come about. There are plenty of accounts that explain how the universe began that do not mention God.
As for faith, this is a tricky area. Knowing something and believing something are two different things. Millions of people around the world seem to ‘know’ things via faith in the way that is implied here, and they can’t all be right.
“II & III – Can’t argue with that”.
They certainly got that bit right.
“IV – See I.”
Sorry, still doesn’t work If God says that He will never prove His existence, and then does, three things are possible; He has at least gone back on his word, He isn’t as omnipotent as his advertising has led people to believe, or He doesn’t exist.
“V – Does so.”
Now we get down to the guts of the matter. In my experience, this is where most arguments with the faithful about the existence of God (or whatever) end up. Which is about what I expected.
In the end there is no clear winner. Believers will stand up and say that everything is ok because philosophers can’t prove that God does not exist. And they are right. But remember, in the same way that I can’t prove that God does not exist, they can’t prove that He (or She) does either. Keep that in mind next time someone tries to give you a pamphlet.
If you feel I’m mistaken in my reasoning, or just feel the need to argue, please go to the club website, http://uniofnewphilosophyclub.blogspot.com/ , and tell us what you think.
(References available on request)
-Sam Douglas.
22/2/05
Arguments Over the Existence of God. Part 1.
During O Week, the Philosophy Club was just one group on campus handing out a number of different flyers. Of the hundreds that were handed out, we received back a handful of written reactions. It is my intention to reply, as it were, to these responses, mainly by pointing out how they are not adequate solutions to the issue at hand.
The bulk of the responses were to a flyer that quoted David Hume explaining what is known in philosophy as the ‘Problem of Evil’. Here is what Hume had to say on the matter:
“If the evil in the world is from the intention of the Deity, then he is not benevolent. If the evil in the world is contrary to his intention, then he is not omnipotent. But it is either in accordance with his intention or contrary to it. Therefore the Deity is not benevolent or not omnipotent”(Hume, Dialogues Concerning Religion).
The problem is easy to see. By this argument, an all-powerful being that allows tragic, painful and unpleasant events to occur is not benevolent. If a being means well, and would bring about a different state of affairs, but can’t, then it is not omnipotent, that is to say it is not an all-powerful being. Both these attributes seem central to what people tell us that a supreme being is like, which is why this problem never seems to entirely go away.
One of our first respondents wrote:
“This assumes that God is unable to use the evil in the world to his good ends.”
This response falls short of a solution by a very long way. It might well be true that God could use evil events, actions or means to his good ends, as the response seems to suggest. But this an omnipotent being, right? He could have used good means to achieve his ends. Or bizarre chicken-dependant means. Or no means at all, since an all-powerful being could just attain their ends directly by willing them to be so. Hume assumes nothing; he just asks why an omnipotent being would choose such objectionable methods.
A more comprehensive attempt was fielded by one of our blue-shirted faithful brethren:
“But what if the Deity’s cheifest desire was not benevolence – but love. Then he must allow free will for us to love. Similarly, his will is that we have our own will. This means we can endeavour for or against him – our choice. Since we work against him there is evil in the world.”
This is a better effort. The appeal to ‘free will’ has been a standard response to this problem for a long time now. In one form or other it is at the core of many of the most enduring attempts to solve the problem. But does it work? At a glance it is pretty good. If we have a choice, then it seems plausible to suggest that these choices are not always going to be the right ones and people are going to suffer as a consequence. God has to let us be free to be bastards to each other. But think a bit more. There are a lot of things we aren’t free to do, such as levitate on command, digest quartz, or transform into wild animals. Some thinkers have suggested that since we are already not completely free there is nothing contradictory about having free will and not being able to hurt (physically at least) our fellow beings. On top of this it is worth revisiting the first response. It may not be logically incoherent to suggest that a really omnipotent being could have made us so we never made the wrong choice, yet were always still free. At the very least God could intervene occasionally, by giving the occasional evil dictator a premature, but painless death. If I could intervene to prevent a violent crime, with no danger to myself but didn’t, people would consider me a monster or an idiot. The question in many people’s minds is this: If it is wrong for me to not intervene, then why is it not wrong for God?
Arguments about ‘free will’ and how it relates to this problem are somewhat unresolved. Questions to consider would be: Is the ‘free will’ humanity possesses proportional to the suffering that it experiences? Is the freedom of one particularly nasty person, eg Stalin or Hitler, worth more than the suffering of the millions of victims they were responsible for?
There is one area, however, where this response clearly fails. Natural evils. I would have thought that so soon after a natural disaster, I would not see anyone fall into that trap. Sure, we could admit that us having our own free will could be responsible for us being crappy to each other. But it does not account for the suffering caused by earthquakes, and any number of other natural phenomena that we do not, (for the most part), have any control over. Our ‘free will’ and the pain and heartbreak these events can cause have no relation whatsoever, and hence is no defence.
For the same reasons, the following response is also inadequate:
“Maybe individual human discretion just gets in the way of her benevolence and omnipotence.”
Maybe. But how exactly could one “get in the way of” a supreme being that is credited with creating our entire universe? I apologise for any offence caused by using a quote that assumes the gender of God; if I had written it myself, I would have said He/She or She/He etc. If God does exist, then maybe it is a She. But it has no effect on this problem.
The last response I want to look at was to our “Babel Fish” flyer. This entertaining bit of logic has its origins in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams. For the uninitiated, the Babel fish is a fictitious animal; if you stick one in your ear you can understand any language you hear. I can’t believe anyone took it seriously enough to write back. Any way, here is the argument, adapted by myself from the radio script:
I. God refuses to prove that he exists, as proof denies faith, and without faith He is nothing.
II. The Babel fish is so useful that it is unlikely to have evolved by chance, and hence must be the work of God.
III. The Babel fish therefore, can be taken as proof of God’s existence.
I. Since God refuses to prove that He exists; proof of His existence constitutes a proof of His non-existence.
V. God does not exist.
(Adams, D. “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy).
The response consisted of the person critiquing each point in turn, and I will follow their lead:
“I – Gods creation is proof of his existence. He has advertised his existence. Faith means to know something and believe it.”
Creation is only proof of his existence if you already believe in him. If you don’t, it might not be so convincing, especially in light of the problems encountered by people during their existence. Creation can only be considered proof of God’s existence if it can be proven that He/She at least caused it, and if it can be shown that there was no other way that it could have come about. There are plenty of accounts that explain how the universe began that do not mention God.
As for faith, this is a tricky area. Knowing something and believing something are two different things. Millions of people around the world seem to ‘know’ things via faith in the way that is implied here, and they can’t all be right.
“II & III – Can’t argue with that”.
They certainly got that bit right.
“IV – See I.”
Sorry, still doesn’t work If God says that He will never prove His existence, and then does, three things are possible; He has at least gone back on his word, He isn’t as omnipotent as his advertising has led people to believe, or He doesn’t exist.
“V – Does so.”
Now we get down to the guts of the matter. In my experience, this is where most arguments with the faithful about the existence of God (or whatever) end up. Which is about what I expected.
In the end there is no clear winner. Believers will stand up and say that everything is ok because philosophers can’t prove that God does not exist. And they are right. But remember, in the same way that I can’t prove that God does not exist, they can’t prove that He (or She) does either. Keep that in mind next time someone tries to give you a pamphlet.
If you feel I’m mistaken in my reasoning, or just feel the need to argue, please go to the club website, http://uniofnewphilosophyclub.blogspot.com/ , and tell us what you think.
(References available on request)
-Sam Douglas.
22/2/05
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Douglas On The Existence Of God
Samuel Douglas has had his essay 'Arguements over the existence of God' published in Opus Issue 2, 2005. (Opus is the University's student magazine). Copies are available around the campus (there are stacks in the Auchmuty Foyer).
Given that the piece was born of an attempt to engage the various Christian organisations in discussion, this post is being made available to anyone who would like to comment on Samuel's piece, or who would like to make any - rational - comments on the general topic of God's existence.
Also, a reminder that the NASA debate will be held on Thursday (details).
Given that the piece was born of an attempt to engage the various Christian organisations in discussion, this post is being made available to anyone who would like to comment on Samuel's piece, or who would like to make any - rational - comments on the general topic of God's existence.
Also, a reminder that the NASA debate will be held on Thursday (details).
Ethics And Weapons of Mass Destruction
NDPR has just published a reivew of what looks like an interesting anthology on ethical perspectives regarding weapons of mass destruction. The review is available here.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Reading Wittgenstein's Investigations
Have come across two group readings of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.
The first, which seems to have made it as far as Section 110, though seems to have ended abruptly at this point, can be found here. The second, from Studi Galileiani, has only recently commenced and made it as far as section 2.
The quality of both is varying, but it is the web and you do seem to get that.
The first, which seems to have made it as far as Section 110, though seems to have ended abruptly at this point, can be found here. The second, from Studi Galileiani, has only recently commenced and made it as far as section 2.
The quality of both is varying, but it is the web and you do seem to get that.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Question - 29th March
The Schiavo case, as it presently plays itself out, raises the fundamental question of whether a family’s desire to keep their incapacitated relative alive should over-ride that person’s right to die?
Any thoughts, comments?
Any thoughts, comments?
Adorno as Antidote
"No one was better than Adorno at dissecting the psychic and emotional brutality of capitalism’s regimes of commodification and the increasing pressure it exerts on individuals to define themselves through consumption. This, he argued, led to the compulsion to shut off one’s capacity for empathy, whether with working people whose labor produces commodities (how could we shop at Wal-Mart otherwise?) or those whose homes, lives and futures are being sacrificed in the name of a market-friendly abstraction called “Iraqi freedom.” ... Adorno examined the phenomenon of highly commodified mass culture not to get people to read Beckett rather than go to the movies (although he clearly wished we would)."
From an article in In These Times
From an article in In These Times
Monday, March 28, 2005
On Sorcery
There has been a proposal, to be found over at Doing Things With Words, that the entire discipline of Philosophy be renamed Sorcery. Now, am not so sure about that, but I do quite enjoy one of the implications which would be the replacement of the world 'philosophy' with the word 'sorcery' (and its vice versa, the replacement of 'sorcery' with 'philosophy').
This would result in having to retitle a great many books, a point that has already been vaguely recognised, with suggestions of Russell's The Problems of Sorcery and Wittgenstein's Sorcerous Investigations. But why stop there ...
I would like to set down a challenge to see how many titles we can rename simply by replacing 'philosophy' with 'scorcery' and their varients. I suggest, to commence
Boethius, The Consolation of Sorcery (and by implication De Botton, The Consolations of Sorcery)
Derrida, Margins of Sorcery
Hegel, The Sorcery of Right
Hume, Sorcerous Essays Concerning Human Understanding (using the early title of the Enquiry)
Russell, History of Western Sorcery
Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Sorcerous
This would result in having to retitle a great many books, a point that has already been vaguely recognised, with suggestions of Russell's The Problems of Sorcery and Wittgenstein's Sorcerous Investigations. But why stop there ...
I would like to set down a challenge to see how many titles we can rename simply by replacing 'philosophy' with 'scorcery' and their varients. I suggest, to commence
Boethius, The Consolation of Sorcery (and by implication De Botton, The Consolations of Sorcery)
Derrida, Margins of Sorcery
Hegel, The Sorcery of Right
Hume, Sorcerous Essays Concerning Human Understanding (using the early title of the Enquiry)
Russell, History of Western Sorcery
Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Sorcerous
A Discussion on Wittgenstein ...
Being aware that Ol'Ludwig is gnawing away at the back of some of the minds around here - mine included - thought that it might be useful to link to this discussion taking place over at Thoughts Arguments and Rants on Interpreting Wittgenstein ... It appears to have little to do with meaning scepticism, though I did see Investigations section 201 mentioned somewhere, or thought that I did ... The question that I sort of have is in virtue of which fact can we be sure that anyone actually means 'Wittgenstein' when they 'Wittgenstein'? Could they not actually be talking about 'Kripkenstein' - a creature that seems to feature in a lot of the literature I have been reading lately.
Anyway, am going to return to wading through Blackburn, McGinn, and Wright on Kripke on Wittgenstein (the most fun way to spend a public holiday ...).
Anyway, am going to return to wading through Blackburn, McGinn, and Wright on Kripke on Wittgenstein (the most fun way to spend a public holiday ...).
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Debate: Life's Great Questions
The Newcastle Adventist Students Association is holding a public debate.
The topic: Are religious people kidding themselves? Is belief in God just a crutch? A product of wishful thinking? On the existence of God and whether humanity needs a supernatural person called God.
Sceptics Team Leader: Dr Colin Keay
Christian Team Leader: Dr Sven Ostring
Moderator: Dr David Dockrill
Time: Thursday 7th of April, 3 to 4.30pm
Location: CT202
The Philosophy Club is not affiliated with NASA, or any religious organisation on campus, we support any activity that increases the level of intellectual discussion. The Club encourages those members who can attend, to do so.
The topic: Are religious people kidding themselves? Is belief in God just a crutch? A product of wishful thinking? On the existence of God and whether humanity needs a supernatural person called God.
Sceptics Team Leader: Dr Colin Keay
Christian Team Leader: Dr Sven Ostring
Moderator: Dr David Dockrill
Time: Thursday 7th of April, 3 to 4.30pm
Location: CT202
The Philosophy Club is not affiliated with NASA, or any religious organisation on campus, we support any activity that increases the level of intellectual discussion. The Club encourages those members who can attend, to do so.
A couple of links from Houyhnhnm Land ...
Thought that these links might be of interest to different people ...
Regarding Jonathan Swift; his book Three Sermons, Three Prayers and his Thoughts on Various Subjects are both available on-line.
A recent post, from Philosophical Fortnights, on 'How philosophy gets done'.
Thanks should go the the Houyhnhnm for the links.
Regarding Jonathan Swift; his book Three Sermons, Three Prayers and his Thoughts on Various Subjects are both available on-line.
A recent post, from Philosophical Fortnights, on 'How philosophy gets done'.
Thanks should go the the Houyhnhnm for the links.
The Person Game
This blog is unique - it appears to be some sort of competition, one that recalls Borges' Lottery ... Apparently the contestants were given 'persons' (in the lose non-philosophic sense of the word person) and allowed to determine where these persons lived. This done, the controllers of the game allocate each of the players points based on how the controllers think that the person is going.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Desert-Island Philosophers
A meme, that can be traced back to Blogosophy, is haunting the philosophy blogs, and is now appearing here ...
The question has been asked: 'Which five philosophers works would you take with you to a desert island, given that you are probably going to be trapped there for a very long time?' To make the process of selection as easy as possible, you can take with you their complete works (however they may be concieved ...).
My list would probably be:
I. Michel de Montaigne
II. Niccolo Machiavelli
III. Michel Foucault
IV. Albert Camus
V. Bertrand Russell
(I get the feeling that I possibily would not be the sort of person that you would want to meet after some time on an island with these as my company ...)
Now, who would constitute your desert island five?
The question has been asked: 'Which five philosophers works would you take with you to a desert island, given that you are probably going to be trapped there for a very long time?' To make the process of selection as easy as possible, you can take with you their complete works (however they may be concieved ...).
My list would probably be:
I. Michel de Montaigne
II. Niccolo Machiavelli
III. Michel Foucault
IV. Albert Camus
V. Bertrand Russell
(I get the feeling that I possibily would not be the sort of person that you would want to meet after some time on an island with these as my company ...)
Now, who would constitute your desert island five?
And still it continues....
I've just read this snippet on our ABC site this morning on how the "Intelligent Design" argument is being dug up again, as an alternative to evolutionary theory. I'm not sure I even want to get into this debate, but this presentation of pseudo - scientific speculation as being in the same league as more rigorous theory, in order to prop up a backward and at times oppressive worldview is more than I can stomach.
In any case, (as Martin will inevitably point out), intelligence of a "Designer" is not so much the issue as benevolence. The existence of an intelligent designer might explain some biological facts (though I seriously doubt this), but please pause and take a look at the world around you. If you were omnipotent, do you think you could do better? Without answering several other important questions, this push for the acceptance of an intelligent designer does not come within spitting distance of putting a christian god on the map. Rather it indicates something much more ominous, an intelligent designer that is not so benevolent.
In any case, (as Martin will inevitably point out), intelligence of a "Designer" is not so much the issue as benevolence. The existence of an intelligent designer might explain some biological facts (though I seriously doubt this), but please pause and take a look at the world around you. If you were omnipotent, do you think you could do better? Without answering several other important questions, this push for the acceptance of an intelligent designer does not come within spitting distance of putting a christian god on the map. Rather it indicates something much more ominous, an intelligent designer that is not so benevolent.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
On Terrorism
Friday, the Eleventh of March, marks the first anniversary of the terrorist attack in Madrid. Several organisations around the world are holding discussions on the topic of terrorism to mark the occasion, including a summit in Madrid.
To mark, in our own way, the event we request that contributors and others post their thoughts on terrorism here and engage in the discussion.
To mark, in our own way, the event we request that contributors and others post their thoughts on terrorism here and engage in the discussion.
Winn On Beauty
Winn wrote the following as part of a piece on beauty:
"Extreme physical beauty, wherever it turns up, is an unnerving thing. It can appear anywhere -- on a street corner, at a restaurant, at the movies, in the park. Beautiful people stop us dead, bewitch, torment and bewilder. I got waylaid at the Legion of Honor the other day by two 19th century paintings of beautiful women.
Art licenses us to stare -- in museums, at the theater, the ballet, especially at the movies. But there's also something in our puritan constitution that makes us skeptical, suspicious, even a little ashamed of our bedazzlement. Shouldn't we value deeper and more lasting things and regard appearance as a fleeting, transitory apparition? Beauty may be truth (and vice versa), as Keats famously said. But when it shows up too clearly in human form, we don't really trust it, or our responses."
"Extreme physical beauty, wherever it turns up, is an unnerving thing. It can appear anywhere -- on a street corner, at a restaurant, at the movies, in the park. Beautiful people stop us dead, bewitch, torment and bewilder. I got waylaid at the Legion of Honor the other day by two 19th century paintings of beautiful women.
Art licenses us to stare -- in museums, at the theater, the ballet, especially at the movies. But there's also something in our puritan constitution that makes us skeptical, suspicious, even a little ashamed of our bedazzlement. Shouldn't we value deeper and more lasting things and regard appearance as a fleeting, transitory apparition? Beauty may be truth (and vice versa), as Keats famously said. But when it shows up too clearly in human form, we don't really trust it, or our responses."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
