Cornucopia of Philosophical Questions (10)

This page is for anyone who would like to help out with the questions submitted to Ask a Philosopher. Why not show us what you can do?

Please submit your answer by clicking the 'Answer a question' button. When you send your answer, please remember to include the original question. Thank you!

Liz asked:

Do you have any ideas or theories as to how psychics can know/ predict things? I'm not one to believe in the paranormal or supernatural, but I must say I've seen psychics do some remarkable things.

There's a non-fictional show on Court TV (US) called Psychic Detectives, about criminal investigations aided by psychics. When first consulted, almost all of the psychics request that they be given no information whatsoever about the case. Some will ask to hold something that belonged to the victim, as it may channel some sort of "psychic energy". Sometimes they claim to be able to see what the victim experienced, they will get flashes of numbers/ names/ colors and other details, etc., And all of their predictions will be accurate.

How are they able to know these things? As far as I'm concerned, there cannot exist any sort of preternatural 'action-at-a-distance'. So then is it just miraculous coincidence and guesswork?

I appreciate any thoughts on this matter.

TonI asked:

A metaphor was put to me, and I need to give a philosophical answer, can you help? Here is the metaphor:

At birth we are the empty glass. In emptiness lies substance. The glass is only useful because it is empty. As the glass is filled it losses it's usefulness to be filled and is only useful to hold the substance. Are we therefore only useful at birth? Untainted, pure and without prejudice, life experience is the filling of our metaphorical glass. At the rim of learning when we can no longer be filled are we just holding on, waiting to be dropped?

Thank you in advance

Jamie asked:

I am only now beginning to read Kant's work, and I have two questions that I have a hard time clearing up. Firstly, why is it that Kant rejects the dyad of presence and absence? Secondly, why is it that something cannot be present to itself? Related to the second question, if something cannot be present to itself, can the subject know itself without the aid of an Other to help define it? If I cannot be present to myself, and I can only understand myself in relation to an Other, can I ever fully "know thyself" to use the well worn Socratic maxim?

Thank you,

Jamie

Tim asked:

I am writing a paper concerning Ortega Y Gasset's position on, "Our lives are both free and forced (determined), or are both our choice that we're responsible for and our fate that we can't help."

I kind of lost... Anyone help me?

Emanuel asked:

Hello, my lifelong question is... And will be, How is it possible that since millennia billions of people do not ask themselves whether whether they have the right (!) To produce offsprings, and what is the difference between an act of killing in what form whatsoever and, Yes!, (Not) producing new offsprings?! Sincerely emanuel

Gemma asked:

I am reading Lucretius' book on the 'Nature of Things', but I am having difficulty in understanding: What is Lucretius theory of morality and why should we act morally?

Please could you help clarify this in as much detail as possible.

Seamusin asked:

how come John Paul Two said in 'Fides et Ration' [Faith and Reason] that philosophy and religion went hand in hand like love and marriage and horse and carriage?

Your definition of religion as being the acceptance of dogma unquestioningly is obviously a straw man. Religion without philosophy is bigotry and philosophy without religion is idolatry. Beannacht gan meas. Mise Seamusin

Stace asked:

I don't understand Sartre's views, maybe I'm just dumb. How could he have influenced Western Culture? And would he agree or disagree to people facing consequences for their actions?

Colin asked:

The question (1) is this — Can anyone (living or dead) make a statement/ proposition/ claim which is not in the 'modality' of:

a. Making a claim that some thing (predicate) is possible
b. Making a claim that some thing is actually so
c. Making a claim that some thing is necessarily so

I am not talking about the 'truth'status of the claim — but
merely how strongly it is stated (its assertion strength)

The question (2) is — On the assumption that all statements — in terms of their assertion strength — are of one the kinds suggested above — Is it logically possible to reach a conclusion which claims that something is actually the case beginning from a premise which asserts something ( plausible or implausible) as possible ? — Is it logically valid to conclude that something is necessary having begun with a premise of which claims (plausibly or implausibly) that some thing is necessary?

The question (3) — What use, if any could these observations have for 'doing philosophy'?

Bilal asked:

Define Teaching? What qualities should a teacher have?
Do and Do-nots of teaching.
Any valuable points to enhance the productivity of teaching?
How to become a good teacher?

Tal asked:

What is the point in philosophy if we don't know the answer to the basic most questions — like the reasons we are here, or what is this world?

Nick asked:

If I were to die and go to heaven because I had led a good life, and my wife would die and go to hell because she had led a bad one, and she was the only thing that ever mattered to me, would I be happy in heaven?

Ron asked:

I would like to know about:

1. David Hume's critique of method of induction
2. Immanuel Kant's critique of Hume's theory of knowledge
3. Karl Popper's conjectures and refutation
4. Popper's problem of demarcation of science

thank you

Maria asked:

I remember learning (a long time ago) about a concept — the "inherent index of truth," that there is a world of perfect ideas that exist only as memories to us in the world of matter, and that we know only what is real by our memories which serve as our inherent index of truth?

Was it Plato and is this correct?

Jubayer asked:

Popular events like the world cup and other international sporting events are essential in easing international tensions and releasing patriotic emotions in a safe way.

Do you agree?

Jess asked:

Is the Law of Identity an affirmation that Reality is non contra se, or does it only apply to singular objects/ concepts without regard to the whole?

Chantelle asked:

In Allegory of the cave, How would you relate the shadows on the wall to us today? I thought maybe through religion, govt, the United States etc. Are those correct?

Luke asked:

Is it morally acceptable for employers to read employee's e-mail?

Fahd asked:

What makes something an indeterministic universe?

Is free will possible in such universe? Explain please!

Embos asked:

Is appearance and reality, a philosophical wasteland?

Zarina asked:

Why does social inequality exist?

And what are its functions in society?

John asked:

What existed before existence?

Anon asked:

How does Plato's Theory of Forms relate to rationalism?

How does it relate to empiricism?

How does it relate to Kant's theory?

Lwazi asked:

What are similarities and differences between Plato's and Aristotle's Epistemologies?

Kate asked:

Is the mean point of view the most valuable? Eg. One person says; "If I walk on grass I will hurt my feet.", Another says "Grass will not hurt my feet", or "Grass will only hurt sensitive feet", or "It depends on the type of grass", or "It depends on the mindset of the person walking on the grass" etc. The mean = "Grass sometimes hurts my feet". This seems to be the most correct.

Can this framework apply outside of this simplistic example? If so, is this valuable? The statement "Grass sometimes hurts my feet" says little, but still seems the most valid point of view.

Jan asked:

If one question seems to be just as important as the next one — which also means sometimes none do — and one seems to be driftwood on the currents of life — how does one avoid one's mind turning into a "bric-a-brac" shop? I.E. How does one go about the business of structuring one's life and enquiry?

To rephrase, if I only feel that I'm morally obliged to have a purpose in life, but cannot feel any particular drive, how to I go about achieving that drive and some consistency?

Flip asked:

How could time exist in reality, if its past is no longer, its future is not yet, and its now is partless and indivisible?
- Archytus

Darlene asked:

Why did Zeno's paradoxes provoke a deep crisis in the intellectual environment of ancient Greece?

How did philosophical progress after Zeno require some compromise between the views of the parmenidean camp and those of the pre-parmenidean camp?

Mohamed asked:

Hello!

I'am quite embarrassed by the question: what is philosophy good for? (Theme of utility of philosophy nowadays)

I just want to get a convincing answer to this embarrassing question. Have you any reference to philosophical texts or any other resources that contain answers to this question? Thank you

Lorraine asked:

In laymen terms can can you explain what 'substance dualism' and 'property dualism' are?

Josh asked:

I have to do a paper for english comp 1 (it's extra credit so I don't have to do it but I'd like to). Our teacher asked us why do good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. He wants us to write a two page paper on it concentrating on something major in history (9/11, conquests, flu epidemics, black plague). Basically anything major in history that has happened to good people.

Any ideas? What is a good person anyhow, I for one don't believe anyone is good, but I told him that and he wasn't so "approving" of me writing a paper stating that. Any ideas or links you have about this would be much appreciated... One more thing... I'm not interested in a religious standpoint, I know why christians think it happens, but that's not something I'm interested in writing or even considering.

Ashley asked:

What is the difference between Plato's theory of the soul and Freud's view that the human psyche contains three parts, an irrational id, a conscious ego, and an unconscious superego, each of which can be distinguished from the others by psychological conflicts that arise among them?

Nicki asked:

Which do you think is the most successful, the verification Principle or the Falsification Principle?

Melanie asked:

Plato believed that censorship was an important task of the government.

Do you think that censorship is always wrong?

Josh asked:

Hi, I have an interesting philosophy question for you; my friend Sally has a rare disorder call the green orange switch. When you and I see orange she sees green, when you and I see green she sees orange. You want to prove whether she has the disorder or not under certain constraints. The constraints are that you and Sally are in a white room, both you and Sally are wearing white robes, you have an orange crayon and a blue crayon, you can tell Sally to draw, There is a window and outside the window you can see a patch of green grass, If you wait long enough you can see a beautiful orange sunrise from the window. Prove whether or not Sally suffers from green/orange switch.

Daisy asked:

What makes something beautiful?

Mark asked:

I was having a discussion with someone recently regarding presuppositional apologetics. I asked this person why I should presuppose the existence of God, and his response was that I cannot judge the quality of the response to that question because in judging it's merits, I would be "reasoning independently from God." When I asked what was wrong with doing that, I was told that my decision to "reason independently from God" was "reasoned independently from God" and therefore internally inconsistent. Is it indeed philosophically inconsistent to use my own "independent" reasoning abilities to judge the efficacy of my own reasoning abilities? What is the best means by which to counter presuppositional apologetics?

Sally asked:

What does it mean philosophically, when Genesis tells us that the world had a beginning? How does this compare or differ asked:

To be free means to be able to do what one wants without constraints. Do you agree or disagree — why?

I disagree because being free does not mean there are not constraints available, there are many constraints those who are free — for instance in our modern society we believe we are free to choose what we want, how we live and etc. However the government and laws constricts us from various things — therefore I believe just because we are free it does not necessarily mean we don't have constraints. What do you think?

Dave asked:

Why are humans attracted to violence?

Anjie asked:

Is a woman or girl truly free if she does not have control over when and if she should reproduce?

Herman josef asked:

How to start and approach the philosophical ideas of Walter Benjamin on the philosophy of history? Can you recommend a particular text that can help me to start with it?

Thank you
Josef

Sandy asked:

How do Parmenides and Heraclitus conclusions over the question "What is the ultimate non-physical force that unifies and governs all things?" Differ from one another?

Kate asked:

What is the definition of a philosophical question? That is, what makes a certain question of philosophical interest?

Stephanie asked:

I am currently reading Plato's "Republic". Do you think that the theory of a tri-part soul is really a very good theory? I am not sure if a soul can truly have three distinct parts as the writing suggests. The explanation of the three parts seems to have its strong points, but I'm undecided on if I agree with it or not.

George asked:

Mythology aside, what is the current state of the art in ideas about the beginning of everything? Is it still a paradox between nothing and the possibility of everything? The "Ten Big Questions" section does not advance beyond Leibniz, which is effectively the paradox idea with an arbitrary solution (as demanded by his sponsor).

Toni asked:

How has the Socratic Method influenced Western Philosophy in general?

Neil asked:

What are the major differences between cultural relativism and ethical relativism?

Robert asked:

I wrote this question after thinking about the definition of "infinity". I thought of movement through the Universe and if it's actually possible. And by movement, I mean movement of any kind. When you take a step, are you really going anywhere? Or is it only relative to yourself? If the Universe is infinite, and infinity cannot be measured, is it possible to move through it at all? There is no distance in infinity. Since infinite distance cannot be described in a foot, mile, kilometer or light year... How can one say that anything has moved at all, let alone tell the distance? Because, relative to the infinite universe, a mile means nothing. I write this assuming that "distance" means the space between the beginning of something to the end... But if infinity has no beginning or end, how can there be "distance" at all? And if there is no "distance" how can there me movement at all?

Erik asked:

Should we license parents? The thesis is that parents provide many of the foundational elements of a child's moral and social make-up and so it stands to reason that incompetent and incapable parents shouldn't have the right or responsibility of raising children. A related question would be do we have too many freedoms and liberties that we don't really have the self-control and self-knowledge to know how to use and manage responsibly?

Jorge Evans asked:

I am currently studying Berkeley and his idea that nothing exists. I was wondering if you could clear something up for me. I figured out form his argument that the material world only 'exists' in our minds, but my concern is if it 'exists' in our minds, shouldn't our minds exist, thus negating the argument that nothing exists? Now, if our minds are simply non-material things, then is Berkeley forced to subscribe to the idea that non material things exist, but material things do not? Any answers, or suggestions as to what to read to help me clear this up would be much appreciated, thank you.
~Jorge

Chris asked:

Could god create a statement that is both true and false?

Did god create the rules of logic or is he subservient to them?

And if so what are the ramifications?

Lee asked:

Assuming for sake of argument that God is the original energy source that created the universe, then what materials did he use to create with? If only God alone existed then wouldn't it stand to reason that the only materials he had in order to create with was his own essence, energy etc.? Would this mean that pantheism or monism is a more logical form of theism? Otherwise you must posit creation ex nihilo which simply seems to me to be an appeal to authority at best and an appeal to magic at its worst.

Shubha asked:

Much ink has been spilled on the status of economics as a science. Much of the discussion is misguided because it focuses on the ability of economics to generate certain truth claims (e.G. Predictions). Economics, however, can be helpful in understanding certain situations and in institutional designs. I was curious how a philosopher would deal with the the types of propositions that economics puts forth. For example, economists make the claim that under certain conditions, Y will occur or not occur. How should we understand the meaning of such a statement?

A similar question for law. A typical legal proposition is of the form if you do X, then Y might occur. How should we understand the meaning of such a statement?

Is there any guidance philosophy can provide here either at an abstract level or at a level than a reasonably intelligent member of the public can understand and better appreciate the workings of economics and law?

Megan asked:

Why is eating people wrong? This is a question that has come up on one of my assignments and I am stuck and I need your help. Thanks.

Jennifer asked:

What are the major similarities and differences between the Buddhist and Humean positions on the self?

Sandra asked:

Why does Kant think Plato is mistaken regarding morality?

Bob asked:

I have a question regarding the determination of whether a question is a "valid" question. I know that in set theory there are restrictions on how a set can be defined to avoid a paradox such as who shaves the barber in the town where he shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves. Are there any such "rules" for whether a question is a valid question? I think we often tie ourselves in knots arguing about answers to questions that have no answer since they are in some sense invalid questions. Perhaps my question is one such question.

Alberto asked:

Is Beauty a property of "being"?

James asked:

Why is it that as many people get older they long for a place in the country or near fields or beaches, or small towns, and away from cities. Is it a re-identification with nature? Is it a romantic notion? Is it a response to stresses? Why is this being seen in most western countries?

Nichole asked:

How much of human behavior is determined by previous — socio-cultural, genetic, familial and how much of human behavior is entirely free?

Why is freedom necessary for moral responsibility?

James asked:

Is existence of the external world only plausible with the reliance of perceptual intermediates such as sense-data? Can humans be sure of knowledge that exists outside our own perceptual insights? Or could it be said that the realities of the external world can never be attained?

I find such questions enticing yet at the same time increasingly hard to comprehend. John Locke's answers of qualities and ideas is the nearest plausible answer I can attain. I just wondered whether there is further development or insight into such questions? I also ask for your opinion on the subject. Thankyou.

Maritza asked:

What does Kant mean by, "Thought without content is empty and intuition without concept is blind" as he reconciles the idea of rationalism and empiricism?

Nicola asked:

What is death?

Travis asked:

Thomas Nagel objects to all forms of idealism. How does he arrive at this conclusion? What might an idealist say to change his mind? Would the idealist's argument be effective?

Emma asked:

Explain the main arguments expressed in the radio debate between Copleston and Russell about the existence of God.

Joanna asked:

What is a philosophical question? What makes a question philosophical in nature? What doesn't? Please give me some details -- it must be more than the structure of the question, no?

Jim asked:

If I am willing to concede that God is not all-powerful nor all-knowing can I "prove" the existence of an all-loving God?

I ask because I am learning about Zoroastrianism, which casts God (Ahura-Mazda) as a super-intelligent being and is yet limited in power and knowledge. This helps solve the problem of evil and the problem of innocent suffering, as well as supporting the intelligent design theory for creation.

Thanks for your consideration.

Ignacio asked:

How does/can philosophy contribute to the education of would-be engineers?
How does/can engineering contribute to the discipline of philosophy?

Jimmy asked:

What are taoism's opinions on these questions?

- What is epistemology?
- What can we know about the natural world around us?
- What is perception?
- How do you know the 'red' i see is the same color 'red' that you see?
- What is truth?

Thanks

Christian asked:

Why is intellectual stimulation (learning) beneficial? What do you solve from it? What purpose does it have? What is its meaning?

Daniel asked:

One for the aestheticists here: Why do we enjoy listening to music that makes us feel quasi sadness (it's not real sadness after all because it's not directed at anything)? As a rule, do we not tend to avoid what makes us feel any kind of sadness?
thanks

Simon asked:

Does music create emotion, or does it bring to the surface existing emotions?

Kalu asked:

Is sport war or peace? If not why is that when any two countries that are in dispute get to meet each other in any sporting competition, both governments are involved in making sure that their side wins and when they win they declare public holidays?

Kipyegon asked:

Given individual existence in a state and give the state control over individual, are there instances when an individual is justified to disobey the authority?

Phil asked:

In 'History and Class Consciousness' Georg Lukacs developed the idea that the proletariat is the subject of history. This seems to have been a great philosophical advance, in that nobody since has been able to convincingly theorize an alternative subject and the idea that there is no subject of history (or that capital is the subject of history) seems to go nowhere.

But Lukacs' idea seems to have very little support amongst philosophers. Is there a convincing philosophical argument against the proletariat being the subject of history, or is it just cynicism on the part of professional philosophers?

Syla asked:

How do Epictetus' and Nietzsche's views relate to the influence of others on their personal morality and ontology?

How do Epictetus and Nietzsche view individual power in relation to God and/or nature?

Emodi asked:

I am a research student in political philosophy.

1. I want to know the correlation between philosophy and democracy.

2. How can the backward states (AFRICAN countries) achieve the ideals of democracy?

Thanks for your anticipated answers

Nettia asked:

Compare the dualism of Renee Descartes and African dualism. What is the relationship of the physical and spiritual and how they interact?

Terry asked:

I find Descartes attempt to prove God's existence in the context of the Third Meditation confusing at best (of course I've only read it three times thusfar). Would you say he's successful in making his argument, and if so, how so? And if not, why not?

Generally speaking I find Descartes cryptic and confusing, much like code, and like code, I'm wondering if there exists the equivalent of a cipher which will make it clearer...

Laura asked:

Why might feminist approaches to knowledge be defined as 'critical-emancipatory'?

Paul asked:

Thanksgiving day. I am thankful, but to who? My wife thinks that you can be thankful for, but don't necessarily have to be thankful to. I am thinking that if you are to be grateful or give thanks for something then that implies that you are grateful to something or someone. If I was thankful to no-one then I wouldn't be thankful.
Do you agree?

Jane asked:

Is there no way to get to an understanding of human meaningfulness isolated/ detached from a systemic locus?

Or, on the contrary, one can only truly capture the meaningfulness of humanity if and only if it is viewed in the 'purity' of human individuality that has the inherently unique capability to exercise her/ his will in the act of choosing, decision-making, creating, even destroying?

I'm so confused about this question... Can you help me?
thanks

Shirley asked:

I am interested in the Philosophical views that examining the question: Should Science be regulated by ethics? Should the scientist just forge ahead and discover things that may pose great ethical dilemmas? For example, what would most philosophers say about cloning A HUMAN BEING?