Leina asked:

What did Marx mean when he said that 'religion was the opium of the masses'? Was he dismissing religion? If that's the case why did he change his religion from Judaism to Christianity? Or was that simply a convenient career move?

The exact quote from Marx is:

"Religion is the sigh of the creature overwhelmed by misfortune, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

For Marx, religion was a profound expression of distress and suffering, offering comfort when none could be found; but it was also a delusion, dulling awareness of the true causes of misery. Which is to say that is was like a drug (like opium) which Marx thought was given to the masses by the ruling class to divert them from their miserable lives and to make them easier to deal with.

Marx, himself did not change his religion. He was born into a family which had changed theirs years before. Marx was, himself, an atheist.

Ken Stern

Joee asked:

How would Leibniz have criticized Locke's theory on Personal Identity?

I am preparing for a debate over the resolution "When in conflict globalization ought to be valued above national sovereignty" which is pretty self-explanatory, but is just basically discussing whether combining global community is more important than a nation's individuality. I am looking for some philosophical information to use on either side to build my own knowledge in the subject and to use in the debate (which would have to be presented under a time restraint). Philosophers, their philosophies, and quotes would all be helpful.

This is not my field, but I'd like to add the equivalent of a footnote. There was recently a study, published (I think) in Scientific American or Science (sorry about the lack of reference), which gave the results of a mathematical model of the economic interactions between countries. The study relates to the general issue of globalization, anyway. The results were that if one country was much richer than another, free economic interactions were bad for the poorer country: its rich got richer, and its poor got poorer. On the other hand, if the two countries were reasonably close in wealth, free trade benefited both of them.

Steven Ravett Brown

Nick asked:

I was wondering if anyone could give me some strong arguments against the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche?

Critics have been doing this for 100+ years. I think we're slowly getting around to an acceptance that we should stop blaming the diagnostician for the diseases of his patient.

Jürgen Lawrenz
Sydney

Adam asked:

At the end of the day does any of it matter, is there a right way to be, a way to be that that is more right than any other, taking for granted that religion is man made, there for there will be no reward after death, does anything we do in our life matter, as after death it will all be lost anyway??

Of course it matters. It matters what we do in our life today. It matter to us and it matters to others alive today. Sometimes what we do will matter when we are dead and not there to care, but it might still matter to those alive.

Everything matters. If we accept that small things don't matter, like lying, for instance, then it becomes socially acceptable and things escalate and we don't mind who lies. We will allow it from parents, teachers and politicians. Surely that matters? We have standards and even if there is no God and no afterlife, we simply have human standards and we know what they are.

Rachel Browne

Your question contains a number of assumptions. The examination and questioning of the assumptions that we have taken for granted is fundamental to the development of a sound philosophical attitude.

Even taking for granted that religion is man-made, does it follow that nothing that we do in life matters,or that after death it will all be lost? Religions are attempts by humans to come to terms with aspects of reality. This does not mean that they are worthless. Much that is good in the world, including much great art, has been inspired by religion. How we live our life, and what we do in life, matters both to ourselves and others. Religion can make a great difference to how we live and how we act. That difference is usually, but not always, beneficial. Religion that does not accord with reality can be counter-productive. A religion that is fully in accord with reality would not be. Is such a religion possible? I believe it is.

Christianity has been the most productive religion to date, but the Christian explanation of the world, particularly the explanation of the Christ-event that was forged in the next five Centuries, no longer resonates with modern thinking. There is a need for a critical re-thinking of the Christ-event. I have argued elsewhere that:

1. The existence of a self-existent entity — a God — is the best explanation of the existence of the contingent Cosmos.
2. The only motive for a self-existent entity to act is to enable the production of another entity that is similar to itself.
3. The self-existent entity cannot directly create an entity that is similar to itself. Any directly created entity is obviously non-self-existent, and so is dissimilar to the self-existent entity.
4. The only course possible is for the self-existent entity to initiate a process involving self-organization and self-creation, to enable the possible self-creation of a communal entity that is similar to the self-existent entity in both creativity and goodness.
5. The stages of the development of the Cosmos to date have the appearance of such a process. The present human-moral-cultural stage is part of that overall process.

Angela asked:

What exactly is a Darwin Machine? Is it different from a Von Neumann machine?

The first is just a conceptual tool, not something that actually exists. It relates to adaptive intelligence in evolution. But a von Neumann machine is a real machine, also known as the CPU of a digital computer.

Jürgen Lawrenz
Sydney

Olga asked:

I have difficulty with translating my paper to English. If you could tell me what exactly "sensibility" means in philosophy if such a term exists at all. Is it the same as sensuality, does it relate to the theory of affect, and sexuality? This word in Russian is very ambiguous: we use it for Kant's two forms of sensibility (space and time) as well as for general describing of what could be called "love discourse" in relation to human emotions, as well as referring to Nietzsche Genealogy of Morals (people of "straight sensibility" (I am not sure I get it right) vs. people of ressentiment, so it could be understood as reactivity, affective response in intersubjective relations. Could you tell me the equivalent in English, is "sensibility" the right word? I hope I made myself clear.

The word "sensibility" is defined by the Merriam English Dictionary with the following meanings:

1: ability to receive sensations: tactile sensibility

2: peculiar susceptibility to a pleasurable or painful impression (as from praise or a slight) — often used in plural

3: awareness of and responsiveness toward something (as emotion in another)

4: refined or excessive sensitiveness in emotion and taste with especial responsiveness to the pathetic

Perhaps meaning 1 is the nearest to the meaning in Kant. And meaning 3 is perhaps the nearest to the one you describe second. "Sensibility" is certainly a word in English and the title of a famous English novel by the 18th century writer Jane Austen is Sense and Sensibility in which the term is used in meaning number 4 above.

Ken Stern

Scot asked:

God designed humans to be similar to each other, we all have arms, legs, a brain, and hair. But they are all unique, no eyeball is the same color and definitely no two people look alike. If these minor differences are present, then why wouldn't our sight, smell, and hearing work slightly different from each other? Is my "blue" the same as your "blue"? Is my "F sharp" the same as your "F sharp"?

It's probably just as you say. In philosophy, this is the problem of "qualia". My problem is that I could write 50 pages without blinking an eyelid on this topic, and yet everything I might write would surely be contentious, because it's still a red hot issue at present. So my suggestion is that you consult a philosophical dictionary under the heading of "qualia" and go on from there. Have fun!

Jürgen Lawrenz
Sydney

Louise asked:

What I regard as cheating is considered OK by many American university students — one survey revealed that as many as 75% of the interviewed students had purchased essays, term papers or even their masters theses from other writers, usually through online "paper mills", instead of doing their own work. One student responded to the question Why do you cheat? by saying "If you're not cheating, you're not trying."

As a non-cheating student in classes as large as 400 students, I can vouch for the difficulty of competing against students whose written work is done by professionals and whose exams and classes are taken by paid substitutes. They get better grades, look smarter on school records and get better opportunities for jobs as the "A" students. Professors don't bother to make themselves available to students or to get to know them, so they have no way of knowing that many of their "best" students got their grades by cheating.

These papers cost a lot of money, but cost is irrelevant to students who use Daddy's charge cards to pay for them, stay in party mode and assign their education to writers and sit-ins. I do not see that they really lose out. They do not care whether they are educated, they want to make money and hang with people like themselves, and they will graduate with far more social advantages than I will, swotting away while they cruise the clubs and make the connections that will get them the best paying jobs. I'm sure they will continue to cheat at their jobs by using insider information and paying underlings to do all their work for them as they take the credit for it. They will have better grades and no doubt get into better grad schools after they get tutoring for GMAT exams or even get access to tests, and present their references as top of the class pupils with good social connections.

I am bitter and struggling for my grades and wish I could find a way to rationalize cheating, because it seems I am being a sucker by not doing it.

They say it doesn't matter if they cheat to get through required courses that they'll never use, (like Ethics, haha.) What is your take on this cheating epidemic? It is not only common in University, but also in lower schools, where 75% of seventh grade students had cheated, and 63% of sixth grade students, according to a Duke University study. Professors do it too! One east coast professor was allowed to continue teaching after being caught lying to his Vietnam History of the War classes about his (non)experience fighting in Vietnam, or the several historians and writers who have been caught presenting plagiarized material as their own work in books, or the journalist who made up his own "sources" to quote. I know one cheating professor who even used old, forgotten dissertations in his newly published book and presented the work as his own, because I worked for him!

Is there a new philosophy that makes cheating laudable because it is so prevalent and because there is no benefit to not doing it except a feeling (useless) of virtue? I can't say that I recall anything much from my courses, even ones I got excellent grades in only a year ago, so it's not as if I am so much better educated than cheaters are.

They all act as though cheating is an out of date concept and practical results are everything. I feel as if I am adhering to some outmoded philosophy (not religious — I was brought up Unitarian) that works to my ultimate disadvantage yet I can't seem to let go of it. Please comment, this disturbs me every time I see a fellow student sitting in the U. pub while I am flogging myself toward the library. It is ruining my educational experience, plus there are not very many fascinating minds to connect with. My University is ranked in the top 5 in the U.S. — it's not as if this is happening where it won't affect the future, but then look at the President — did he really have what it takes to get to, let alone through Yale? I wonder.

There is no philosophy of cheating. Instead, cheating is a strategy for accomplishing a goal with a minimum of effort. Moreover, cheating is a calculated risk. The cheater reasons that his professor will likely not check his work, and he may thus escape capture. However, penalties are severe if a cheater is ever caught (expulsion or other severe penalties, in Universities where I have been). Honestly, a notation of expulsion on a college transcript is something that is never washed away. That horrid legacy will haunt anyone who is caught cheating. The fact that increasing numbers of Universities are subscribing to anti-plagiarism systems should sound a note of caution to all potential cheaters.

You have high ambitions for yourself, as you described. I applaud your effort. However, it is important to remember that not everyone shares your desire for top grades, nor do they have the same talents as you. When you find yourself admiring the guy drinking beer at the bar as you trudge to the library, remember this: He might have paid his look-alike friend to take a test for him. Or, he might be celebrating an "A" on a test, after hours of his own studying. Or, he may have a photographic memory. Or, he may simply keep a different schedule than yours. Or, this person may be content to get the lowest passing grade and does not see the need to study until his grades fall below passing.

Cheating is not a philosophy, it is a strategy. People who cheat to succeed are also the same people who ran Enron, WorldCom, and any number of other businesses with abysmal ethics records. Their "luck" ran out and now most of them are scrambling to cover their hind sides before someone else exposes them. That is the life of the cheat.

At the end of the day, the only opinion of yourself that matters is your own. If you are willing to risk a college degree for the sake of a better letter grade, then perhaps your life's priorities require reassessment.

Take care and don't cheat.

Jeffrey Kenton

let me tell you something about honesty. Nothing philosophical, nothing religious, but practical:

It is about being honest to yourself, to your own way.

If you identify something in the world around you that might be of help to you and you feel good with it then take it. If you do not feel good with it then leave it and do it your own way. This is real simple. If you saw the whole world cheating around you and you don''t feel good with it then do not look left or right'! Do not compare your way to the way of the others! This is very essential! Never compare! Honesty might bring material disadvantages with it but not necessarily. The example I have before my eyes is my boss. He was one of the German top managers and I was real lucky to be his secretary in the past 5 years. He was an honest man through and through, he had an outstanding career in our company over the past 35 years and last Friday he retired and he got lots of good-bye emails of which I read some. It is unbelievable how he was seen as an example to others, how much respect all those people paid him. He was the one in our company in several years who retired on his own terms, he was forced to nothing.

It is a deep and very real experience to me that people who go their own way in honesty to themselves and to others are guided by some invisible hand. This is nothing religious but a real experience! This way is not the bright and shining, funny and good looking way of the mass but your own which may often be dark and full of hindrances but in going this way you will become a personality people can trust. Would you ever trust somebody or pay respect to someone of whom you know how he got his degrees or whatever by cheating. What he achieved is a lie. Would you want to build your life on a lie? Besides being afraid that it will be known some day. If you see them sit together, drinking beer in a pub do you really think they can ever trust each other knowing that they are all able to cheat? Leave them alone. Let them live their lives how they want. Find people in your school or university who are honest like you. Be together with them, your own people. This gives some confidence and you are not alone. If there is no one you can turn to the way to the library is the best way you can choose. In case there are no fascinating minds alive around you be sure there are lots of the most fascinating minds who left their thoughts to us in the books.

My favourite is still Seneca and his letters to Lucilius. They are brillant for somebody in your situation. I know because I was in a similar situation but I was the one being cheated. And not only once. It helps to stay honest, go your own way despite of what happens to you and gives you confidence doing the right thing and showing this to all the others. And the strength to separate from people who are not good for you which might bring with it that you are often alone but again, not necessarily.

I wish you the strength to not looking left or right when there is nothing good for you to see.

Martina Blumenroth

There has always been dishonesty, cheating, lying, stealing, torture, maiming, and killing throughout human history. Many times it results in no punishment for the unethical; they get rich and powerful. If you doubt that, just look at world leaders and the rich today and throughout history. I assume that you've just realized that, and that you're shocked by it. I don't blame you, really... but there isn't much difference between conduct today and in the past, as far as I can tell. Human beings haven't changed much. Actually, things might be a little better... people don't usually torture others, at least physically, for public entertainment any more, as virtually all societies used to do, and there are watchdog groups, such as Amnesty International and the ACLU, now.

If cheating is successful, then you will do worse than cheaters in your grades and future jobs and money, probably. However, you will learn the subjects you study, and you will learn to behave ethically under duress. Children learn from example, and you will be setting an example. If you feel very strongly about it, start making a fuss: write letters, start a club, talk to the administration. Perhaps something will come of that, perhaps not. I'm certainly not going to give you a message of hope here... given human nature as it is shown by human history, the picture is bleak. There are a few people, here and there, who try to keep things going, intellectually, artistically, ethically. Not very many, really... most are indifferent, some are hostile. That you can reflect as you do above is a good sign... you are able to choose your values, which most people do not do. Good luck.

Steven Ravett Brown

Your letter to us is eloquent and disturbing and I am sad to read it. As you say, this is a practical problem that affects what our society turns out to be like.

The first comment I would make is that I don't think the situation is the same here in England. I studied at Uni here a few years ago (I graduated in 1995). The classes here, both at school and Uni, were certainly much smaller than your 400. At Uni, our exams were set by the lecturer who had taught the course, and often invigilated and marked by them — certainly by one of the departmental staff. They all knew who I was!! (I used to draw cartoons and write limericks about them.)

I'm sure our lecturers recognized the students who showed themselves in the department and regularly attended lectures. These students would be expected to get better grades than those who never attended. I worked hard and read a lot, but I was rewarded with a 1st. I don't think the people who used to come up to me and my friends 2 weeks before the exams and ask "What books are we studying?" did so well — although I don't think they failed, either... My only experience of cheating was when another student borrowed one of my essays 'to help him understand', and I had some difficulty getting it back.

That said, it sounds like cheating is a common and accepted fact in the US. Do you believe the statistics produced by the surveys? Do you think, from your own experience, that those figures are accurate? In England, few students would admit to cheating, even if they were doing it! Here, there is a great suspicion about the results of surveys, the accuracy of which depends on many things, including the sample size, the truthfulness of those conducting the survey and of those questioned, and the statistical analysis applied, which are often not disclosed when the survey's results are quoted.

If everyone knows about this cheating, doesn't anyone else besides you want to stop it? Do you think there's anything you could do about it? Would it be possible for you to expose people you know to be cheating? What about if a group of people formed an association or campaign against cheating? Don't your schools and Uni's want to do something about it? Is there any group you can join that works to reduce cheating? Is there any action that can be taken against those who take exams for others, or who supply essays and papers to cheats? If no-one would agree to do this, it would be much harder to cheat. These people are as much to blame for the continuance of cheating as those who pay them.

Looking at this issue from a different angle, do you really believe that cheats have the happiest lives? Would what they have make you happy? Cheats only benefit if, as you suggest, having lots of money and status are the things most to be desired in life. Are they what you most want? Our society seems to tell us that they are indeed important. Do you agree? Do you think these things are what is really valuable in life? Because I don't. But I often find it hard to remember they're not. Rich and famous people are admired, they seem to have it all.

By the way, I was interested in your comment that "...there are not very many fascinating minds to connect with." I don't think this is anything to do with cheating — there just aren't many fascinating minds, not anywhere! Statistically speaking, the majority of people are of average intelligence, and even the clever ones aren't all interesting! Like you, I wish I could meet more people I would enjoy talking to, and perhaps become friends with. But as there are not that many of them, the chances of meeting one are relatively small. I hope Pathways to Philosophy is one place where 'fascinating minds' can meet!

Katharine Hunt

There seems to be a lot of frustration in your "question". The kind of cheating you notice is inherent in a capitalist system. That indicates that not the cheaters are wrong, but possibly the system. Anyway bought knowledge helps to get titles, but not to solve problems. So it's a matter of your goals: do you want a title, or do you want to solve problems? If you want only a title, than the present system can be frustrating. However if you yourself want to attack problems, than own knowledge is inevitable.

Henk Tuten

Why do you wonder especially about Bush? Because he talks funny, and comes from Texas? As for me, I wonder how so foolish a man as Clinton got where he did.

Ken Stern

Hal asked:

I just happened upon your website and found myself enraptured by your virtual smorgasbord of ideas! A question: "Are philosophical problems, problems of linguistic clarity and interpretation, or real problems that transcend language itself, or are they an amalgamation of both linguistic and evidential difficulties?"

Hal also asked:

What constitutes a paradox and if they do exist, then why do they exist? From my perspective there seems to be a number of different kinds of paradoxes: apparent paradoxes (paradoxes which appear to be, but after deeper reflection aren't), real paradoxes (paradoxes which stand unresolved after prolonged scrutiny) and unrealized paradoxes (ones which exist but are not readily apparent). I have read many explanations for the existence of paradoxes through the years:

1) the limitation of human comprehension
2) the imposition of flawed assumptions
3) the introduction of sin into creation
4) an irreducible fact of existence
5) a problem of frame of reference
6) the cognitive dissonance of order and chaos.

1) Thanks. In answer to your question: yes. I could stop there, haha... all of those types of problems are philosophical problems, or can be. You have touched on one of the most ghastly areas of philosophy... the whole question of whether there are philosophical problems that can be addressed as more than linguistic. I'm just not going to go on about this one... it's too big. Take a look at the recent and excellent book: Wittgenstein's Poker, for an introduction to this issue, and how Wittgenstein and Popper almost came to blows (as the legend goes) over it.

Jacques asked:

Standing up at a soccer match

I'm a 16 year-old football supporter and have noticed that in all seater grounds when someone in a row in front of you stands up, out of excitement or anger, you have either to tell them to sit down, risking an argument or stand up yourself. Those behind you have to stand up etc. It seems to me this model of behaviour is common in societies. Does it have a name? Is there anywhere I could read a discussion of its philosophical implications?

Yes, this kind of behaviour does have a name, it's called being inconsiderate.

People are being inconsiderate if they stand up and block your view at football matches. They are failing to think about how their behaviour is affecting you. (If, as you say, they stand up out of excitement or anger, and not deliberately to annoy you, they are not really being selfish. To me, that would imply they had thought about you, but decided to put themselves first instead.)

People being inconsiderate is indeed a very common behaviour. In order to stop this kind of behaviour from spreading, you have to decide to be considerate yourself, even if other people are inconsiderate to you. In the case of the football match, this would mean that you should stay sitting down to avoid blocking the view of the person behind you — even if your own view has been blocked by someone standing up in front. If you stand up as well, as you observe, soon a large number of people will be on their feet.

It is interesting that, in your question,you didn't consider this to be an option available to you. You said that "...you either have to tell them to sit down, risking an argument, or stand up yourself." You then continue; "Those behind you have to stand up..." — am I right to assume you don't actually regard telling the person to sit down as a possible option either? Why do they argue when asked politely to sit down? (I trust you would ask them politely?) Should there be people at matches to enforce sitting in all-seater grounds, and eject anyone who will not sit? I don't go to football matches myself so I'm not sure how big a problem this is.

If you wanted to explore the philosophical implications of this you would need to look at theories dealing with selfishness and altruism. Ethics might have something to say about it; but then so might behavioural psychology. I don't know any specific sources, maybe someone else can suggest something?

Katharine Hunt

Shelly asked:

What is your theory on the relationship between the disabled and god? And if god created the disabled, what did he expect them to do, and why did he choose the families he did to care for them? Do the disabled and their families or carers share a special bond with god in which we don't?

The Judaeo-Christian tradition transmits various insights which could indicate that the suffering creatures seem to be close to divine milieu (Job, the Suffering Servant, etc). For the Christian religious thought this closeness is highlighted by what is known as the Passion and the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ (who, according to mainstream Christianity, has two natures, one human and one divine).

Neither the religious thought nor the philosophers who accept the hypothesis of God could answer your questions. They could only agree that the suffering people and theirs families or carers seem to share, as you put it, a special bond with God.

However, as everyone has the possibility to care for disabled or other people who need care, one could suppose that everyone could share the relationship you are describing.

Jean Nakos

Victor asked:

Pang asked:

Forgive this question from a dummy but this dummy believes some guidance from an expert is far better than none. I'm in the process of looking for a thesis title for my PhD. Could you give me some suggestions? A thinker in the frontiers of a subject should know what should be looked into!

It would help if I knew what your thesis was about, or even in what area it was in. Don't you think?

Ken Stern

This is one of the oddest questions... I assume you mean PhD in Philosophy? You've gone through undergrad and grad school and still have no idea of what you're interested in?? Well, in order to do philosophy, you have to be interested in philosophical topics and questions, think and write about them. If at this point you can't think of anything you want to write about, my very strong and sincere advice would be to go into another field. Some field where you make money, which is not philosophy. Because if you can't think of an idea now, how are you going to turn out 1—2 papers/year as a professional philosopher? I'll tell you what, do your dissertation on the very uncertainty you're experiencing... there's plenty of stuff written about that in the French literature.

Steven Ravett Brown

Pang is not expressing a personal difficulty (if he were, that would be sad) but issuing a challenge: Which thesis titles (in your opinion) might best express the frontiers of philosophical inquiry at the present time? Where has philosophy got to in 2003? What is the burning philosophical question of the day?

It is a question that an academic philosopher would relish. Speaking for myself, however, I care less for the 'state of the art' than I do for my own personal journey in philosophy. Today's burning question is tomorrow's outmoded fashion. So Pang's question does not grip me. Chacun à son gout.

Geoffrey Klempner

Muhammad asked:

Why is philosophy worth studying?

Colette asked:

I'm doing two exam assignments. The first question is "Doctors know best" Discuss the epistemological claims inherent in this claim. I have a couple of ideas, but would appreciate some guidance on what you think I should be mainly focusing on. The second question is, "Doing good for the patients is more important than respecting autonomy" Discuss. Any ideas?

You will probably need an introductory book on epistemology and then you can consider the distinctions drawn in relation to the proposition about doctors.

There are three terms here. Firstly, consider doctors. They only know more about health matters. What is it that they "know?" How does medical knowledge differ from mathematical knowledge, or the knowledge of physics? Is medicine less lawlike than mathematics? Medical knowledge is learnt from experience, but can we come to know rules of mathematics, not by being shown but through guidance (see Plato's Meno). Find out about the difference between a prior and a posteriori knowledge.

Then there is the type of knowledge. Doctors look at symptoms and are extremely prone to error. The general practitioner is especially prone because he is dealing with symptoms. The surgeon is dealing with what is physically perceived to be impaired and doesn't just possess knowledge of how the body should work but has a practical skill. The former simply has an understanding of the relationship between symptoms and named diseases and at best he might be said to have beliefs because of the possibility of error, whereas the surgeon has knowledge if knowing how and knowledge from perception constitutes knowledge.

However, there is a difference between knowing how and knowing that. The former isn't essentially connected to truth and so the question arises whether this is in fact knowledge. There is also a difference between knowledge gained from perception and inferred knowledge as that based on symptoms.

Then there is the question of whether you can know "best" rather than more. "Best" is evaluative rather than epistemological because we either recognise others as having authority, or allow them to adopt such a position. Yet there is a sense of "best" which implies that given equivalent knowledge, one person is more intelligent and in that sense he might know best in his use of the knowledge.

For the second assignment you are looking at ethics and you could consider Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. According to Kant a person should be treated with respect under all conditions and should never be lied to. The contrary view is utilitarian. This is the position that the main consideration is consequential and if it is for the maximum good (though it is slightly more complex that this), you would be allowed to operate, for instance, against a patient's wishes. You should be able to find a large amount on utilitarianism on the internet.

Rachel Browne

Nourieh asked:

I'm doing an independent study on the mind and my incisive question is, "What is the mind", so I was just wondering if you would be able to give me some info as well as some book reference that I can use.

You might not agree with it, but a very famous and influential book is:

The Concept of Mind by Gilbert Ryle

Ken Stern

This is a massive subject so I suggest you start with Paul M Churchland's book Matter and Consciousness, which is a short guide with further suggested readings.

Rachel Browne

Crystal asked:

Is the issue of Abortion actually intractable?

Is there a way to prove an ethical certainty through logical reasoning without appeal to religious sources?

Not according to the various groups who claim that a) abortion is killing a child, or b) that women should have choice in this matter... etc. They don't consider the issue intractable at all, do they. So why should we, looking at the various people with their certainties? Because we are unconvinced by their arguments... but does that mean that they are a) wrong, or b) that there are no other arguments or c) that there are no other possible positions? In other words, just because we don't think the issue easy or settled, why are we correct in that viewpoint?

So the issue is not whether the issue of abortion is intractable, but how, as you state below, do we decide between different positions. How indeed. I could give you my point of view, but what would that mean? But look at it this way. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that morality can be "naturalized" in some manner, i.e., that the "oughts" and the "is's" can be reconciled. Now, even given that this is true, where does this leave us on any particular issue? Still using inference, right? In other words, if morality could have a basis in fact, then we would be in the position of scientists doing investigations to support various moral facts, and we would still have no certainty, any more than any empirically-based study does not provide certainty, but only degrees of evidence. The only way you're going to get certainty is by making some sort of assumption and following it out logically... then everything is fine as long as your assumption is good... but what guarantees that?

So I think that the best we're going to do, in the best of situations, morally, is good evidence that some course of action is morally correct. I do not think certainty is possible.

Steven Ravett Brown

Jessica asked:

I have a grade 12 Philosophy essay to write and I decided to chose the topic "The notion of Love". I'm looking at it from the aspect of fate and love at first sight. An example what I'm talking about would be like the movie, "Serendipity". Please try and help me out here I'm having a have time finding resources for this topic but ever since I saw that movie I've wanted to try and find out answers. I figured this would be the best opportunity.

There are 2 things I like about your question: 1, that a movie you've watched has made you think; and 2, that the subject you've chosen to think about is love. You've helped yourself greatly with your essay by choosing a topic you're genuinely interested in.

Love is a subject that is rarely tackled by philosophers, because it is so difficult to be sure other people have understood exactly what we mean when we talk about our feelings. But I think love is extremely important, and therefore we shouldn't be afraid to discuss it, even if this is difficult.

I've never seen the movie you mention, but we've all heard stories about love at first sight. 2 people walk into a room, and as soon as they set eyes on each other they just know that is the person they will marry and love forever. And so it goes on to happen.

Maybe this really does happen occasionally — instant attraction leads to an enduring relationship. But I wonder if people conveniently forget all the times when they felt sure they were going to love someone they'd just met, only to be deeply disappointed when they got to know them! Isn't that one reason why many relationships break up?

Do people even remember how they felt when they first met, or are they perhaps imagining things? It's easy to say you fell in love at first sight after the relationship has proved to be a lasting one. Did any of the people who claim to have felt love at first sight keep a diary, and write down at the time what they felt when they first met their loved one? I wonder...

In fact, I don't believe that love at first sight is possible, although attraction at first sight obviously is. I think that for a relationship to last, it is extremely important for you to love the other person's character and personality. At first sight, you simply do not know what a person is like, and in that case I fail to see how you can love them.

This leads me to remind you that our word 'love' can cause problems, as it can be used to describe a huge range of different emotions, for example:

romantic love
sexual love
friendship
love of a parent, child, sibling
self-love
'love thine enemy'
love of God
love of country
love of humankind
strong liking for certain foods, TV programmes, clothes etc.
love of nature
love of a pet

I don't think anyone would be particularly confused when you talk about 'love at first sight' — we usually understand this as romantic love that proves long-lasting — but you might find it interesting to consider how this kind of love differs from other kinds. I would particularly suggest you think about how love at first sight makes people feel (in the body), and what does it make them want to do (kiss the loved person? get to know them? marry them?) Have you ever experienced this kind of love yourself, or do you know anyone who has, who could describe it to you?

Katharine Hunt

Mystified asked:

Confucianism in the past have had immense impact on not just the religious but also in issues such as politics. What elements does Confucianism possess that allows it to impact on its followers and the wider community?

Religions always had, as you put it, an "immense impact on not just the religious but also in issues such as politics".Which great religion had not an immense impact on politics and on every day life issues. Christianity had in the past such an impact. Still today in various countries Christians influence political life through Christian lobbies or political parties. In Germany, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU — today the second political party) had been for years the first and ruling party of that country. All religions seem to have similar, and sometimes stronger, influence. Imagine the influence that religion has today in some Islamic countries.

Confucianism is generally considered in the West as a religion. However,it seems to be firstly a traditional philosophy — some would say a tradition.

The Confucian Canon (comprising the Five Classics and the Four Books — not all actually written by Confucius (551-479 BC) himself) has many elements which allow to influence the ruling of a country. For instance, the "Ch un Ch' iu" (Spring and Autumn Annals — said to have been compiled by Confucius himself) are extracts from the history of the state of Lu (the Chinese state — now Shantung Province — of which Confucius it is said to have been the prime minister) from 722 to 484 BC, accompanied by commentaries (dated from before 200 BC).

The characteristic of Confucianism is that it records precise rules of conduct, regulating social relations. Thus it is not surprising that it had a great impact on the Chinese society.

Jean Nakos

Anne asked:

I am trying to understand how Locke could refuted innate ideas. I know he said that if babies don't have them, then they could not exist. But this is just the simple doctrine of innate ideas. The sophisticated doctrine says that babies don't need to have them because there is something which triggers innate ideas later on. How does he refute this? It seems to me that saying babies don't have them isn't enough.

I tend to agree with you. A lot depends on what you think the theory of innate ideas, and innate knowledge is. After all, it is clear that a person has the ability to play chess even if he does not know how to play in a way that a dog does not have the ability to play chess. The person has an unstructured ability or capacity, but the dog does not even have this. You might be interested in having a look at Steven Pinker's new book, "The Blank Slate" which talk about this matter in detail.

Ken Stern

Arthur asked:

David hume remarked that if we give an explanation for any natural phenomenon, we'll still need an explanation for the explanation itself, and there is one of two possibilities, endless (infinite) number. of explanations, or a last explanation (unexplainable explanation!).

Here's an example:

1. Water boils if put on fire.

2. Explanation: fire gives water energy, and this energy makes the molecules go far from each other till the water boils.

3. How does energy go to the water from the fire? and how does it increase the kinetic energy of the molecules?

4. When you answer, I'll ask 'how' and so on...

Well there can't be infinite number of explanations, because this will mean than an infinite number of actions happened after the water was put on fire till it boiled, and this would require an infinite time. So we are left with a last unexplainable explanation, can it exist? how?

Well there can't be infinite number of explanations, because this will mean than an infinite number of actions happened after the water was put on fire till it boiled, and this would require an infinite time. So we are left with a last unexplainable explanation, can it exist? how?

Wait. What if Hume was wrong? What if we come to an explanation which is intuitively obvious, so clear that we just can't help but understand it? That's one possibility, one which Husserl (in a sense) wanted. Second, why do explanations correspond to events? If we "explain" an event, just what are we doing? Does an explanation imply that we must invoke another, different event? What if we are just reformulating, or understanding that first event in a different way through our explanations? Third, let's say that we would require an infinite number of explanations, all of which correspond to events. Why would those events take an infinite time? What if some of them were of infinitesimal duration, or simultaneous? Fourth, let us say that we are left with a "last" event which we cannot explain. Ok, so what? We cannot explain it... and... what? So maybe after we study it for a while we will be able to explain it... or maybe not. What does that have to do with its "existence", whatever that means? Why does explanation have anything to do with existence?

These are just some of the issues and questions that might be raised here. I'm sure that you could find more at this point. My point is that before you go on and on building huge constructs from some limited set of ideas, take some time to question those ideas. The odds are that you will find alternative viewpoints.

Steven Ravett Brown

Tomomi asked:

Considering the book Cooking, Eating, Thinking by Curtin and Heldke, discuss how diet in the sense of an eating regimen (i.e., philosophical consideration of food) is related to diet in the sense of a course of life. Why should something as mundane as food be of any interest to philosophers seeking knowledge about what is true, real, and good?

Why should eating not be of philosophical interest especially as the concepts of true, real and good apply to food. There are truths about what is good for us and this is part of reality. One might say that the further away from nature we go in our eating habits and the further away from what is real and natural, the further we get from the good, or what we ought to eat given that we are members of the natural animal world. As members of the natural world of animals most of whom to my knowledge are carnivores, it appears natural that man should kill animals and eat their dead flesh. But the philosopher has to consider man's whole nature. Man differs from other animals by being highly creative and inventive with an inclination towards technology, and given that he has the ability to produce a sufficiently nutritious diet which no longer needs to include dead animal flesh, the question arises what is natural, real or good here.

The other way in which to consider the real or the good is whether eating is just a matter of consuming what tastes good rather what is good (i.e. either by virtue of man's animal nature or his creative nature). In the first sense, eating panders to the subjective appetite without regard to nutritional value or what is right for man. If you think this is all there is to eating then it is mundane, for sure.

Of course, not all philosophers find eating of philosophical interest. It is a matter of personal interest and philosophical taste. But the interest doesn't stem from current social obsession with eating regimes because the Ancient Greeks also argued whether or not man should eat meat. I recall Aristotle saying "man should eat dry food" and although I can't remember why it is clear that he was considering what man "should" do, or what is right or good for him.

Rachel Browne

Andrew asked:

The following question has created much debate in my philosophy class. I was hoping you might be able to help me convince them one way or the other. "Were the actions of Robin Hood, who robbed from the rich to give to the poor Just? Give two opposite arguments."

Robin Hood was a crucial person in Anglo-Saxon history. In the middle ages many young sons of powerful families went fighting in "the Crusades". That resulted in an enormous power vacuum by the time their fathers got old. This chance was readily taken by all kinds of people. These had in common a talent for twisting the rules, because they needed to rationalize their taking the power. The order before the Crusades disappeared. Robin Hood became a myth as one of the people, who returned after the Crusades and tried to restore the former order. So his fight was not so much a defending of rights of poor people, as well as a fight to reclaim the rights that existed before the Crusades. Those in power though accentuated the role as defender of poor people by illegal means, to distract attention to the much more dangerous side of his fight.

To answer your question this information is crucial. For those who stole power he was seen as a terrorist. In their eyes he was a criminal, who attacked power. Of course defending rights of poor people is a good course. But justice is always defined by the established power.

Argument 1: As such his methods for realizing a good course were criminal. The problem is that Robin Hood lived by the old rules, he didn't accept the power of the new leaders.

Argument 2: Fighting the establishment is in the eyes of so called 'terrorists' and their followers always just.

Henk Tuten

Corrine asked:

The study of Free Will vs. Determinism is by far the most fascinating and yet aggravating topic that I have thus far stumbled upon. I find it completely unlikely that all human action is caused by neuron firings. I have been trying to construct an argument to convey my point of view that humans do have free will and although biology does have some influence it is not responsible for all human action. If neuron firings were responsible for the complete make-up of an individual then would it not be possible to know every action an individual would commit beforehand simply based on previous experience? Do you have any thoughts regarding this issue one way or the other?

Even supposing you were right and someone could know whatever a person would do before he did it, would that imply that the person did not do those actions freely? I don't see why. I know, pretty well, that when you read this, you will not commit suicide over what I wrote. Does that mean that you did not commit suicide of your own free will? Why, I wonder, do you think that knowledge of what you will do implies that what you do is not done freely?

Ken Stern

There are not many choices, really. You might take a look at Searle's article, which is a reasonable summary: Searle, J. R. "Consciousness, Free Action and the Brain." Journal of Consciousness Studies 7, no. 10 (2000): 3-22. But a search of the references on this issue will give you only a few alternatives. The neural alternative: see Libet, B. "The Timing of Mental Events: Libet's Experimental Findings and Their Implications." Consciousness and Cognition 11 (2002): 291-299. Also, Libet, B. "Unconscious Cerebral Initiative and the Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action." The Behavioral and Brain Science 8 (1985): 529-566. The latter is probably the seminal paper in this area, and has stimulated enormous controversy. Libet's follow-up is in his second paper, and it's easy to find commentaries.

Religion: you're on your own here; I'm not a theist.

Physics: there are two ways around it, as commonly conceived, here. One; quantum theory. Check out H. Stapp on this... but I don't believe what he says. The model of the collapse of the wave-function as determined by consciousness is, in my and very many others' opinions (and theory), dead, dead, dead (for early theoretical support (and there is more): Mulhauser, G. R. "On the End of a Quantum Mechanical Romance." Psyche 2, no. 19 (1995)). Two; chaos theory (e.g., Freeman, W. J. "A Proposed Name for Aperiodic Brain Activity: Stochastic Chaos." Neural Networks 13, no. 1 (2000): 11-14.). A possible way out, but not a good one, really, since chaos theory is, or can be, completely Newtonian. You get randomness here, which I don't think helps. You can get that from quantum theory also. If you want your actions to be partially random and you think that gives you free will, good luck to you; we've certainly got that, given nothing more than thermal (and chemical) noise in the nervous system.

Metaphysics: well, here it gets sticky. What you have to argue here is that conventional notions of causation are wrong when you come to the mind. Well and good... but first, physics is enormously successful, and second, what alternative are you proposing, that takes mind (nonconventionally causal, in some sense to be argued for)/brain (conventionally causal, or so it seems) interactions into account? Whoops. I was not pleased with what I found in this literature, and lots of it comes straight from various religious dogmas. I'm afraid that since my interests are not in pure metaphysics, I cannot give you anything I consider good arguments here. You might take a look at Whitehead on process, and Taylor on metaphysics.

Now, in answer to your question. No, it would not be possible, even with complete knowledge, to know every action an individual would take, but not because of free will. Neural circuits are chaotic (in the technical sense of that term), and this implies that in some cases literally an infinitesimal initial difference will result in a large resulting difference. You just can't measure, i.e., have knowledge of, infinitesimals... which means, really, that you can't, even theoretically, have complete knowledge of someone's complete makeup. And this is aside from thermal noise, quantum uncertainty, etc. But this doesn't help the metaphysical issue of free will. The best I can do here is to remind you of the similarity (let us say, for the sake of argument) between mind and a computer program. The same substrate can run an infinite number of different programs. The counterargument is that actually, the substrate is not the same, since to run a program a particular configuration must be "loaded" into (the neural equivalent of) memory, i.e., into molecular-level configurations of neural circuits, and that loading changes the physical substrate. True enough... on the other hand, running the program, through feedback, also changes the substrate, and thus you could argue that the mind "reprograms" the brain's circuitry. Yes. But the counterargument to that is that the program feeding back is itself run on the physical substrate, i.e., it is the dynamics of the physical substrate, and thus subject to the laws of physical causality. So the best you can get out of this, I think, is that we have free will inasmuch as we have feedback capabilities, but subject to physical (and of course "mental", i.e., to follow the analogy, programming) laws. Libet's argument is somewhat the same.

Steven Ravett Brown

Adam asked:

What would Marx think of the rich and famous people of today?

Marx was more interested in capital, accumulation of capital, means of production and class struggle than in rich and famous people.

Since the means of production are today (as well as in Marx's epoch) owned by private enterprise and since there is still no classless society, one could suppose that Marx would not change his views and opinions.

Jean Nakos

The short answer — Not a lot.

Marx believed strongly in human freedom; his problem was to somehow produce a political system based on collective freedom and at the same time retaining that precious individual freedom. Within such a system a fair means of controlling production had to be found. This obviously had to be achieved without allowing the development of a class structure. The simple concept is "rule of the people by the people," a class-less society requiring legislation to prevent the separation and elevation of a ruling class founded on wealth and privilege.

The big enemies were aristocracy and capitalism, in both their social and political concepts: he found the systems repugnant. Here were systems in which the rich and the privileged made all the laws, unassailable laws which gave protection to themselves and perpetuated the system. At the time of Marx, the early and middle nineteenth century, the gap between rich and poor in western society was enormous; there was no hiding the fact that the rich looked down on the poor, oppressed them, exploited them and generally treated them with disrespect and disdain. The courts came down heavily on the poor and leniently on the rich.

What differences would Marx see today? He would note that the gap between rich and poor had probably increased, despite the fact that the working classis marginally better off. He would see that the means of production is firmly in the hands of the rich: that the tentacles of capitalism now stretch across the world, with some multinationals so rich that governments have little or no power over them, they have now proved beyond a shadow of doubt that money means power. They can now freely desecrate and pollute the planet in pursuit of profit and within the capitalist laws which protect them.

Marx would also find that his system, designed to put an end to capitalism and privilege, not only never got off the ground but had been misrepresented by dictatorships and police states, thus playing right into the hands of capitalists, enabling them to point to murderous and oppressive regimes as socialist/ communist threats to the world.

Seeing that Marx had very little regard for the rich and famous of his day, he would be very unlikely to approve of what he would see today. The rich are still being put on pedestals and decorated for making themselves lots of money. As for the famous, he would again be made aware of the influence of wealth in creating so-called famous people. He would find himself in a very artificial world confronted by so-called 'stars,' 'celebrities,' 'millionaire footballers,' ' TV newsreaders,' 'TV presenters,' and so on. He would now find that we had the famous rich and the rich famous. But he would be able to rub his hands and say, "I told you so!!"

John Brandon

Eric asked:

Imagine tomorrow evidence that proves God does not exist is broadcast around the world, and surprisingly, is accepted as truth by everyone. How would that affect societal relations?

What a fascinating question. I have no idea what the answer is. But you might like to read a novel called A Corner of the Veil by Laurence Cosse which begins with discovery of an absolutely knock-down proof of the existence of God, and how this proof affects the world.

Ken Stern

Who can say? An easy guess is that it would affect less the Western secularized societies than the traditional ones. But who can say?

Jean Nakos

Uzma asked:

Question: Smellman says: "I have more than 999 music CD's."

Mushquist replies: "No, Smellman, you have fewer than 1000 music CD's."

Crudler says: "Smellman has at least one music CD."

Only one of them is correct.

1. Who is correct?

2. How many music CD's does Smellman have?

All right... if you have fewer than 1000 (or any other positive number), then you could have 0. If you have more than 999 (or any other positive number) then you have at least 1.

So given Crudler is correct, then so is Smellman (and vice versa). So if you want only one of the above to be correct in such a way that it excludes the others, then it must be Mushquist, because then Smellman is certainly wrong, and Crudler could be wrong. Or you could just say that Smellman has 0 CDs, so Mushquist is correct. Blah, blah, blah.

Ok? Now, what's the point? Why have I answered this, except to amuse myself?

Steven Ravett Brown

This is not a philosophical problem but a simple logic puzzle. To solve the puzzle, (and puzzles like it) you simply go through all the alternatives until you find one that fits.

I'm glad to say that Steven gave the right answer. The answer is:

1. Mushquist is correct.
2. Smellman has no music CD's

Geoffrey Klempner

Mick asked:

Are there any schools of thought/ opinions in regard to soul separation or splitting associated with the holographic model of existence? If we consider the possibility of our soul/ Essence/ energy having the capability to produce constructs in relation to our physical bodies and surroundings, then is it possible that our Essence or souls are split dimensionally so that our core is cosmically aware and linked to our core in our natural place or plane of existence? I have a very hard time expressing this notion, but it somehow makes sense that if we are here attempting to learn to align our constructed personalities with our souls (in an effort to learn and evolve), then there is a possibility that our consciousness (in our Home dimension/ plane) is also working and co-ordinating path choices and directions for our Self that is in the physical world.

I'm not quite sure that I understand you completely. But I think you presume 'our essence' being capable of constructing (or changing) a multitude of energy fields that make up our soul. That way our soul could be split up in different paths. That's an interesting thought, and it even is not unimaginable. In my view 'our soul' is built by our thoughts and by our experiences. This combination makes a unique being. Possibly both thoughts and experiences can be translated in energy fields. Now comes your learning process of such constructed personalities. There is no proof yet that our consciousness by using these fields can actively influence our doings. I'm sure that experiences and former thoughts passively influence our decisions. But in paranormal happenings persons seem to be able of directing energy fields. That could be a matter of talent, but a learning process as well. Then by using the energy fields produced by either thoughts or experiences, our consciousness could partly steer our choices. This would be interesting if in this way we could direct more actively our path to the future. As a thought experiment there are no objections. But now the proof or disproof. You know how difficult it is to distinguish paranormal talents from tricks. To prove your theory one has to detect physically these energy fields making up 'the soul'. Then one must show the connection between experiences or thoughts and such fields. And last but not least one must show the way in which our consciousness can make use of the existing fields.

I don't know any schools of thought that thinks this way. But if you're really convinced of your theory, then try to find out which study can help you most in proving it. Famous thinkers in history just followed their convictions.

Henk Tuten

Adam asked:

I'm lost as to which of Plato's works Socrates says "I know I am intelligent because I know that I know nothing". This is a famous quote of Socrates that I've scene translated into various forms, but I've yet to come across the piece of work it was pulled out of.

I do not believe that Socrates ever said what you say he said. You may be thinking of what Socrates relates in Plato's dialogue The Apology where Socrates tells us that when he heard he had been called the wisest man in Greece by the Delphic Oracle he was puzzled since he believed he knew nothing. But after having questioned many people he came to the conclusion that the Oracle was right, but just in the sense that others thought they knew things when they did not, but at least he, Socrates knew this one thing, namely that he knew nothing. The others did not even know that much. So he was wiser than those who believed they knew, but did not.

Ken Stern

Sebnem asked:

Do the views expressed in Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions represent scientific realism or anti scientific realism according to Karl Popper's philosophy?

There's a very good book out that I'm recommending to people right now: Wittgenstein's Poker. It's about Wittgenstein and Popper and their origins, etc., and will give you an excellent introduction to their ideas. Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-scientific realism". The cultural relativism which is anti-scientific, usually, is not what I'd term "realism", which usually has as a basis some sort of idea that there is an independent world out there that we can meaningfully interact with. I don't know how you can be anti-scientific about such a world. Relativism's world is not an independent one. Kuhn as I recall considered himself a realist, not a relativist. His book is another matter, and it is easily interpreted to read that our knowledge of the world is purely relative. I do not think, from what I recall of Kuhn, that he intended this. Be that as it may, Popper was much more hard-headed than Kuhn, and would probably have violently disagreed with him, and indeed thought him anti-scientific. You will find, when you read about Popper (please, read WP!) that his rebellion against the Vienna Circle, although profound in one sense, did not take him near to Kuhn's hypothesis about paradigm change. I also recommend to everyone Kitcher's book: The Advancement of Science. He was Kuhn's student, and in my opinion makes much more sense. Popper would have problems with him also, but Kitcher, whatever else he is, is a pro-scientific realist.

Steven Ravett Brown

Karl asked:

I'm not sure if this is a philosophical question, but since I'm looking for wisdom in making a sound decision, I figure this is as good an option to consider as any. My question: I'm unemployed, but I am a full-time undergraduate student. My wife works full-time and pays all the bills. I have a year and a half to complete the requirements for a degree. I intend become a certified teacher. Our finances are so strained that my wife's family has urged her to persuade me to leave school and get a job. What would be the wise thing to do?

To what extent are you married to your wife's family? I assume your wife agreed to you starting college in the first place. If giving up your studies will cause regret and resentment you mustn't do so, but it is difficult to see why you can't switch to studying part-time which will allow you to earn some money. It's called compromise.

Rachel Browne

Get your degree... GET your degree... GET YOUR DEGREE!! Do NOT stop now. Speaking as someone who dropped out of a program just before getting a degree and had to postpone doing what I wanted to do for over a decade because of it, KEEP GOING. FINISH. If you absolutely have to work, do what many do, and indeed I did when I returned: work part-time and STAY IN SCHOOL. There are many people who do this. There are very few jobs or employers who care how much education you have and in what field if you do not have the official certification, the stupid piece of paper, saying you have it. I don't know about "wise", but I DO know about finishing what you started, about realizing your goals... since I was one who did not (and am finally doing it now). If teaching is what you truly love, and you give it up now you will always regret it. Yes, you are living a hard life now; yes, your wife is living a hard life now (and I hope you will support her similarly when you are finished)... but you knew what you would have to go through, and I'm sure that your wife when she married you knew also. As long as there was free agreement about this course, it is, in my opinion, a moral one, even though a hard one.

Steven Ravett Brown

My advice is ignore the pressure from your wife's family and carry on and finish your degree. You must do that. However, it might aid your case if you could find some part-time work to help with the finances.

Geoffrey Klempner

John asked:

We are often told in introductory philosophy textbooks that we can be absolutely certain of the truth of mathematical propositions For example we can be absolutely certain that 3 + 4 = 7.

My question is whether the certainty referred to is just a psychological contingency that arises because the proposition is so easy to understand and is so familiar to us.

If it more than this — for example something to do with the nature of mathematical propositions themselves being tautologies how should the following example be explained?

Consider a sum in simple arithmetic that consists of 500 numbers each 10 digits long (e.g. 7453895823). How can we ever be certain what they add up to? It would seem certain that the 500 numbers actually do have definite total but, again, the question is how can we ever know with any certainty that we have added them up correctly and therefore have the right answer to be certain about?

In practice the overwhelming likelihood is that a mistake will be made. Obviously if you're just using a pencil and paper!! — but also if your using a calculator (slips of the finger, misreading of digits or their order, etc).

I think there is a sense in which we can never be sure getting such sums right and therefore cannot be sure of the results of even simple arithmetic. What I'm not sure about is whether this lack of certainty has any significance such as showing that arithmetic is just like any other empirical science and it is a matter of experiment (i.e. doing the sum again and again and checking with other people's results) to see whether we have got it right?

I might add that this is not just an academic question but has real-life consequences for people like me who are accountants and are required to devise methods of testing (i.e. auditing) whether sometimes many hundreds of long numbers have been added up correctly (just think, you only need to be dealing with hundreds of thousands of pounds to have 8 digit numbers if the pence are included — e.g. £999,999.99p and the clerks that work in accounts departments often have to add up pages and pages of such figures!).

That's an interesting distinction, between the actual adding of a number and the theory. First, no, the addition of, say, 3+4 or any other sum (or product, or whatever) is not contingent. It is dependent on the nature or definitions of number and on the operators employed in the ring or set constrained, say, by the operation of addition. And that set can be extended to other operations as well.

Now on the other hand, is actual addition contingent? I'd say both yes and no, for a couple of reasons. First, you could break any complex operation down into simpler ones, and do them separately. Thus, you can be certain about additions, say, as they extend to higher powers of ten, because of the nature of the symbolism we use. That is, we can take 10+7 and know it's 17, right? A simple operation which we do not need to verify by counting, because we have defined the symbolism in such a way that it must be true. Thus, we put the "1" of the "10" into the second column, and the "0" into the first, since we're using base 10 numbers. And so adding 7 to it is transparent... we just put it in the column next to the 1. Then we can simply read what 10+7 is because of our notation. Thus in this sense addition is not contingent. We can, if we want to, verify any sum, but not by the methods we employ to (routinely) add that sum, but by inspecting the processes we engage in to arrive at that sum, and merely matching, process by process, to see if the processes are identical. Thus, 1000+874 is also 1000 with an "8" put into the next (hundreds) column, etc. We can do this because these processes are Markovian, i.e., not history-dependent.

But we don't add this way, and the second sense of contingent then is the one involving, as you say, the practicality of adding many numbers at high speed. Now here I'd agree; mistakes are inevitable, and adding in this sense is contingent. But that's why we have computers, right? Think of how the log tables were originally calculated, for example... yes, by hand. That's why, by the way, in statistics, we use a significance level of.01... because that's the accuracy they could be practically calculated to when statistics began. And we've enshrined that value, for no good reason, since.

So as electronic media become more ubiquitous, the likelihood of mistakes should decrease... and hopefully people will not have to read and enter numbers by hand, error correcting will be highly redundant, etc... but of course these will never eliminate this kind of error. Practical addition will always be contingent.

Now, there is yet another sense in which addition and all mathematics may be contingent. But that is a much deeper sense than you are asking, viz., is number dependent on human perception and cognition? One can argue that the nature of the way we structure the world gives rise to our abstracting number from our tendency to group and isolate objects (which one could argue is merely a human set of processes imposed on objectivity), then count them, and so forth. I actually think that this is the case, and that it is probably possible to perceive and manipulate the world without human types of differentiation. But that's another, long, discussion.

Steven Ravett Brown

Well, that we are certain of 3+7 is a psychological contingency in that it is an easy sum. It is possible that we could have brains that could be certain when we performed much more complicated calculations. However, we have not got that sort of brain, but this doesn't affect the fact that there is a correct answer to mathematical calculations and it is intrinsic to maths that this is so. Mathematics is never under dispute — we know there is a correct answer, even if there can be error on our part. The error is human and correction of error is to check again, using normal human means, although artificial intelligence isn't subject to the same sort of error as humans and with a human checking AI is functioning normally, there seems no reason to be concerned about auditing problems.

Mathematics is not an empirical science. It is necessarily true that 3+7 = 10 and the same is so for more complicated calculations and it is only because you know this to be the case that you can be concerned about error. We cannot conceive of any conditions which would create doubt about actual calculations. It is different with empirical science which tells us that water is H20. We can easily conceive that what we take to be water might have a different chemical constitution. But what would make it the case that 3+7 (or a bigger calculation) was false?

Rachel Browne

An excellent question. Immanuel Kant distinguished between "subjective certainty" or "I am certain that...." and "objective certainty" or "It is certain that...." As you correctly argue, arithmetic evades subjective certainty because of the ever present possibility of mistake, although as a practical matter of fact, this possibility is vanishing small when it comes to simple and short calculations.

But, given that the answer to an arithmetical calculation is true, that answer is certainly true. That is, it would be impossible for it to be otherwise. It is, in other words, a necessary truth, and people often use the expression "is certain" for a necessary truth. So your calculation is certain (given the answer is true) in the sense that the proposition that the earth is round is not certain since it is not a necessary truth and could be otherwise.

Ken Stern

Faisal asked:

In the statement, "The bigger the lie, the more the people believe in it," said by Hitler, what did he mean?

He meant just that. Literally. Let us read the following BBC report of 31 August 1939:

"There have been reports of an attack on a (German) radio station in Gleiwitz, which is just across the Polish border. The German News Agency reports that the attack came about 8.00 pm this evening when the Poles forced their way into the studio and began broadcasting a statement in Polish. Within quarter of an hour says reports, the Poles were overpowered by German police, who opened fire on them. Several of the Poles were reported killed, but the numbers are not yet known."

The next day, 1 September 1939, Hitler invaded Poland.

In fact the Gleiwitz event was a false, a fake attack fabricated by the German Gestapo and the special operations section of the Security Service of the SS, led by the Sturmbannfuhrer (major) SS Alfred Naujocks (1911-1960). The killed "Poles" were prisoners from a concentration camp, drugged by epidemic injections and dressed posthumously with Polish uniforms. The same day Naujokcs and his men "attacked" also a German forestry station and destroyed a German customs building. Everyone in Germany believed that Poland had attacked a German boarder town. This false attack, this big lie, gave Hitler the excuse he needed in order to invade Poland.

Hitler's big lie led to World War II, the biggest war ever.

Jean Nakos

Enkeleda asked:

Please explain to me the 'infinite regress of homunculi'.

Ok. We see colors, right? But are there colors "in the world"? We feel heat and cold, we taste sweetness, and so forth. These are qualities which we create from whatever is "out there" interacting with us. Now that I've said that, I have to tell you that this is an extremely controversial position, and one which is absolutely sneered at in many circles today. And I've expressed it in four sentences, which has simplified it a teeny bit. But with that warning, let's proceed. There is, then, a visual, let us say, internalization, an internal world, of qualities, sensations: the scenes around us, that we create. Fine. However, the problem is still to explain how we see it. We sit there, looking at the "real world", constructing this one of qualities in order to see it... but then all we've done, it seems, is create another world which is made up of qualities. Ok, who then sees that "internal" world of qualities? Someone else inside our heads, looking at those qualities? But how does that little person (the homunculus) see the qualities? Well, by constructing other qualities, or whatever, using ours as its "external world", just as we construct the first set from our "external world". Whoops... you begin to see the problem? How then does the homunculus see its qualities? It needs another homunculus inside it... and on and on.

This is one approach to what is termed the "hard problem", that of explaining consciousness itself. At this point, the problem has not been resolved. Of course to say that is to say that all the people who do think that it has been resolved are wrong. But there are enough different "answers" to this question that I do not believe it is accurate to say that it has been resolved. There is the "soul" theory; there is what might be called the "internal-external continuity" theory; there is pure idealism; there is instrumentalism; there are the deniers of qualia; there are the direct-access theorists; there are the computer modelers who claim the problem is a misunderstanding... you see my point?

Steven Ravett Brown

Lol asked:

is obedience a virtue?

Obedience according to the dictionary means, "the act or practice of doing what one is toldl the state of being obedientl willingness to obey commandsl dutifulness." It would seem from this that if the answer to your question is yes, then subservience is a virtue!Itappears to me thatthe only people likely to accept this would be the indoctrinated, the poorly educated and the uneducated. However, is this extension of the term ' obedience ' too narrow? Is there a difference between a child being obedient to his/ her parents, and a slave being obedient to his/ her master? It would surely seem so on the face of it. In the first case obedience is linked to learning about life and recognising pitfalls. In the second case it is about people being placed in a humiliating situation and being forced to obey against their will. However, in both cases disobedience has always been met by punishment of one form or another. In fact, when considering obedience as a virtue we must always be aware of what it means, in most cases, to be disobedient. Disobedient employees might suffer dismissal, threat of dismissal or docked wages. Disobedient military personnel have in the past suffered some diabolical punishments, even today some acts of disobedience are likely to incur some very harsh penalties.

I do not wish to imply that there is no such condition as a willingness to obey, but how much of this may be generated by promised rewards? Consider the commandment, "Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee," Surely, if the commandment was concernedwith exposing virtue in an individual, then it would read, "Honour thyfather and thy mother." Can we associate a virtuous act with an anticipated reward? Kant says we should obey moral laws/ rules because it is right to do so, not because there is a reward for doing so, or a punishment for not doing so. However, it is obvious that there is a difference between obeying moral laws and submitting to the will of another or others.

A separate consideration more difficult to interpret is the case of the 40,000 or more British and allied troops who were mowed down by a hail of bullets and shells as they walked towards the enemy lines on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, in the First World War. Was it just blind obedience? Was it a sense of patriotism? Was it a response to the threat of punishment intrinsic in every order disobeyed on the battlefield? In this case the punishment was death. An observer can find virtue in the obvious bravery shown by these men, but how many of those taking part felt a sense of virtue as they saw their comrades mown down like stems of corn in a matter of minutes?

The question seems simple, requiring a straightforward answer, in fact the answer depends on the type of obedience involved. To sum up, most forms of obedience are linked to a carrot or stick approach, hence the idea of a virtuous act is subjugated beneath the anticipation of reward or the threat of punishment. Most of us are subject to moral conviction and most can find virtue in carrying out moral law, simply because it is considered right to do so, whatever the consequences. A virtuous person pays no heed to either punishment or reward.

John Brandon

Amiso asked:

What is the major difference between religion and philosophy?

With a wink one could say the major difference is, that philosophy asks questions, while religion is answering them.

Viewed from a safe distance the most apparent difference between religion and philosophy is, that Religion is based on ritual, dogma and authority, while Philosophy rests upon critical thinking. "Most religions rely on authorities, as in the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rabbinical Councils and Courts, or the Imam. Philosophies do not. There is no Absolute Aristotlean Authority, or Supreme Scholasticism Senate", one of my colleagues once said quite bluntly. A bit more sensitive, one will realise, that philosophy knows at least authorities, that "all western philosophy was merely footnotes to Plato" as Whitehead coined. Or what about some postmodern thinkers, who claim there is no absolute truth, holding their very own claim as absolute truth! Isn't such an authoritative tenet quite what we would call a dogma for short?

From a more inside view, we could say that, though both, religion and philosophy are concerned with many of the same issues — the nature of reality, belief, right conduct, the mind,... — but they treat these issues quite differently, there are different "techniques of approach": while religion investigates by means of commitment, faith and emotional experiences, philosophy investigates by means of scepticism, criticism and objectivity. But wouldn't we end up in total skepticism without a trace of faith and wouldn't we fall for false prophets without a trace of skepticism?

For true religious people there is an essential difference: religion is linked to God Himself, the Creator, Upholder and Mover of the Universe. God's words are unlike those of philosophers not well-built arguments but revelations of eternal truth. Whereas it is out of question that humans can experience "revelations", I don't see why these revelations should be reserved for institutionalised religions: What about the great Mystics then?

To my mind all these distinctions are quite superficial and it's better to put your question in a bigger frame. While we have developed many tools for the many fields of physical research since the invention of philosophy as "mother of all sciences", it seems that religion and philosophy are left only for the provisional unexplicable rest. And while noone seriously would use neurophysiological equipment to investigate atoms, some still use telescopes to investigate God. The basic idea behind this is, that one day everything can be explained (or rather reduced) by physical sciences.

At this point the so-called Chain of Being comes into play, I will use this model to adjust the positions of religion and philosophy from my point of view. In terms of the modern view, largely influenced by the doctrine of evolution, this chain starts with inanimate matter and to consider man the last(!) link of the chain, as having evolved the widest range of useful qualities.

Why should men be the last possible or existing emergence with significance?

If Mineral can be written m,
Plant can be written m+a
Animal can be written m+a+b
Man can be written m+a+b+c,

then God can be written as m+a+b+c+d, or perhaps as m+x+y+z+a+..... z.

On these levels a,b and c are the significant ontological discontinuities or, more simply, each a jump in the Level of Being, and there are adaequate "significant" sciences for each of these levels, where none of these sciences can be reduced to another.

For example, if

m: physics, chemistry
m+a: biology
m+a+b: behaviour research
m+a+b+c: philosophy (as Wittgenstein said: philosophy is the investigation of thinking by means of thinking) and sciences of consciousness

then

m+a+b+c+....z, the "supermental", "supernatural", "spiritual", or "God" is the realm of true religion (it's not the simple fact that Jesus lived, but his spiritual dimension, on that religion is built). So we could conclude, if philosophy is the study beyound physical sciences, then religion is the study beyound philosophy.

Federico asked:

My question is very short: Can sport be considered a form of art?

David Best argues that even if there are aesthetic sports (gymnastics), where how one performs (the beauty of the movement) is valued and acknowledged in competition, this is not enough. Aesthetic sports do not have the fundamental trait of a form of art in which the central purpose is creativity, and leaving an artifact. Cordner also does not consider sport as art because sport, unlike art, does not possess an internal end. What do you think?

I tend to agree with the critiques, in general. My view of art is that it must not merely have an end (which some sports do, i.e., when in the Olympics one tries for a record in human achievement — surely that is "internal"?), but an end which attempts to express something. Now, what do I mean by "express something"? Whoever is doing, realizing, performing art is employing that medium as a symbolism to communicate something about themselves, as well as whatever else, if anything, they are attempting to communicate. What are the alternatives here?

First, we might consider, as did Kant, that art expresses or realizes aesthetic feelings: let us say, feelings purely of pleasure in beauty. So art might be the creation of something with no other purpose than to be beautiful. But I do not agree with this. One could, for example, reproduce something already considered beautiful. Would that be creating art? Well, it wouldn't be "creating", since it would be reproduction... would it be art in any other sense? It would be the production, at least, of something purely for its beauty. But we would not consider this art, surely... merely reproduction. So it is not enough to produce beauty.

What about creating something that is purely beautiful, but expresses nothing, merely gives one, upon seeing it, the sense that there is something beautiful and the pleasure associated with that? Is that art? Suppose someone came up with a pattern that meant nothing, but was acknowledged to be a beautiful pattern; a purely abstract pattern in a rug, let us say. I think that might be considered art... but I'm not actually sure why, because the only difference between that pattern and some other original pattern which people did not consider beautiful would be that feeling, and further, why would its uniqueness, in contrast with the reproduction above, count toward its being art? However, this is a controversial point. There are many who consider mathematicians who create abstract beauty in systems which as far as anyone knows will have no real-world applications to be artists. Similarly for chess and go players, and so forth. In this respect, one could, I believe, consider sport to be art. What if the grace of a gymnast, or indeed of a basketball player, were such that their movements were considered beautiful? Then by this criterion they might be creating art. But I just don't see this as sufficient to consider something a work of art, or a process as an art.

Let us take another alternative. Suppose we considered creation essential to art, but not aesthetics. Thus, a new theory in science could, by this criterion, be considered art. Is that the case? No, I think we would deny this. One might consider a theory in science as art, but only if it met both criteria, namely, that it was new and beautiful. But even this is controversial, just as the pure mathematical idea was. We do not usually consider science to be art. Even exhibitions of "art in science" usually consist of photography or something similar, i.e., an acknowledged art form incorporating results from science. Again, this is a debatable point, but I am unconvinced that science, per se, is ever art.

Let us consider the case of expressiveness. Suppose that one wrote a description of a scene. Would that be art? It might be a beautiful description, in which case we would probably consider it art, but what about newspaper reporting, for example? Is that art? We don't seem to normally consider that type of expression art, because although something is being communicated, there is no attempt (except, perhaps, in finding the content) at originality of expression, or at creating beauty. So creativity and aesthetic feeling enters into this also; and in cases where the content is extremely unusual and presented well, we do sometimes consider news to be art.

Let us consider another case. Suppose there was someone who created something that most people acknowledged was ugly, and that person did not do it (produce the ugliness) purposely. Would that be art? I think we would all deny this... or at best, if the creation were original, we would say it was seriously flawed art. Now, what if the ugliness was purposeful? Is it now art? I think that we would concede that it might be. Unpleasant art, but still art. So what is happening here? First, we are still employing the Kantian test of aesthetic feeling as a criterion. The creation of beauty, or its opposite, must be purposeful. So art, it would seem, does include at least an acknowledgment, however, grudging, of beauty.

We are narrowing this down, it seems. We want some acknowledgement of beauty, we want creativity of expression and/or content, and we want that content also to express something beyond its appearance. Let's just arbitrarily stop here, and I'll claim that I've identified the essentials of art. Now, do sports meet these criteria?

1) Acknowledgement of beauty: not usually, except perhaps inasmuch as being good at, say, gymnastics or ice skating implies gracefulness and beauty of movement. But this is not, on the face of it, the acknowledgement of beauty, merely coincidence.

2) Creativity in expression and/or content: perhaps at the highest level of a sport, where someone is good enough to invent a new way to score, a new move in wrestling... but we do not consider this art, but very good craft.

3) Expression beyond the appearance: not in sport, except perhaps those sports on the edge of art, like ice skating. The breaking of Olympic records is a goal beyond previous content, but expresses nothing beyond that.

So, all in all, it seems, if my analysis is at all correct, that sport is not usually art, but craft, i.e., something requiring skill that does not in any way move beyond its internal practices. The "aesthetic" sports like ice skating, gymnastics, and so forth, may become art by transcending their craft, in effect, and attempting to strive for beauty and expressiveness. This, as an aside, is why I have problems with the term "martial arts", which I think is misleading, since none of them: karate, aikido, judo, etc., meet the above criteria for art. If one incorporated movements from such crafts into, say, ballet, then we would have art... but only as ballet.

Steven Ravett Brown

Dawn asked:

Why is forlornness always a result of the human condition?

Dawn also asked:

Do you see economic competition as inherently negative?

Well, forlornness isn't always thought to be the human condition. Why should we feel forlorn? We are people together, communicating in an amazingly sensitive way, not just amongst ourselves but with animals and we live in a beautiful world. If you were religious you might think that we are forsaken, but could you not also think that we have received God-given wonders? We shouldn't worry about being forlorn, but rather worry that we can be evil and that we are destructive — which is simply human. The unacceptability of existentialism is that we have to think of the human position as one of encompassing dread and anxiety. But this simply isn't true. There are many aspects to our existence — good and bad, forlornness for some, a wondrous blessing for others. There is no one attitude to being in the world.

On economics — Well, competition is in fact in many ways negative. Economic competition is supposed to enhance the quality of goods and products, simply because of the competition. Suppliers strive to be the best or the cheapest and to grab as much of the market as possible. The biggest down-side is that the means of enhancement, in terms of best or cheapness, are ignored.

When there is a lot of demand for supplies, there isn't much need for competition because there is a market greedy for goods. This is a satisfactory state of affairs for the people who have demands on the market. The sellers have to put down their prices. When there is little demand, there is more supplier competition and then the means of supplying goods becomes less important to the supplier because his main aim is to sell. To be attractive he'll want to undercut others by selling cheaply and a good way of doing this is to exploit cheap labour in developing countries. But in fact, this is done in any case to enable companies to make a profit. You can't just suddenly exploit developing countries when there is little demand: It is easier to do this all along, making it a policy.

However, although this is in fact the case, it need not be so. If businesses were to consider ethics, they might operate differently. So competition is not "inherently" negative. The problem is to connect business with ethics.

And there is a more positive side to competition. It leads to innovation because people also compete to create new products. And while I would say that competition leads to exploitation of developing countries, others might see it as providing people with jobs which they wouldn't otherwise have.

Rachel Browne

Beccie asked:

I've just started reading Spinoza's Ethics and would like to know if I've got it right so far! He seems to be saying that i) there is this fundamental 'stuff' that is prior to everything and ii) that this 'stuff' necessarily exists because existence is part of its nature.

If I'm right here, I completely disagree. i) Where is it? What is it? Where's the proof? I'm far from convinced! ii) Existence is not a property, it can't be subsumed under nature or essence.

Please let me know what you think!

Well, what you call "this fundamental stuff" is what Spinoza calls "God or Nature". And Spinoza maintains that it is everything that exists. Since everything includes space and time, it itself is in no place and in no time. So, your question about where it is cannot be asked about it. What it is is Everything there is. His proof is that all other alternative theories of what exists, namely Dualism (that what exists is either mind or matter) or pluralism, that there are many different existents, fail to explain the existence of the world for they suppose a creation by something other than the world, and this something needs explanation too. Only what is completely independent so that it requires nothing else for its existence, and so requires no explanation could be Everything. And this must be a necessary being.

You are right to raise the objection that the notion of a necessary being seems to require that existence be a property, and this is certainly a difficulty. It may, however, be possible to explain the idea of a necessary being without that supposition.

Ken Stern

Serene asked:

Assuming there is a God, how does one know God's will from one's own?

One must be cautious. There are many who believe that their illusions — and some who believe that their hallucinations — make them know God's will. Wilhem Steinitz (1836-1900), the first official chess world champion, towards the end of his life believed that he was connected by telephone with God and, thus, he was in a position to know directly God's will. His high IQ did not preserve Steinitz from being the victim of hallucinations.

For a believer, it is safer to examine the issue within his/her religious context. As far as religions are concerned, God's will is known thanks to the scriptures and (for the biggest and some other denominations) tradition. Several denominations may acknowledge the existence and authenticity of possible private revelations, provided that the person who claims to be the beneficiary fullfils the established norms for the recognition of genuine mystical phenomena. One significant indication is the absence of inflation of this person's ego.

Jean Nakos

One knows one's own will, if one knows anything. Any attempt to know God's will is obviously a far more difficult project. Any assumption that anyone knows God's will should be soundly based. Most such assumptions are based on pre-critical, mythological thinking. Distinguishing between one's own will, and any accurateconcept of God's will, should therefore not be very difficult.The prior question is "How could God's will be known?"

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all profess to know something of God's will, but theirideas of the nature ofGod's will clearly differ. These religions all believe that God has revealed his will in some way. The idea of such "revelation" arose primarilyamong people who had mythical perspectives on the world. They arose before the general application of a critical perspectiveto the world.

There would appear to be two possibilities.One is that God, or a messenger of God, spoke to some people at some time. The other possibility is that some people perceived values, particularly moral values, as Platonic "ideal objects" at a time when such perceptions were even rarer than they are today. In a pre-critical time these perceptions of ideal objectscould well have been characterised by the perceivers as messages from heaven.

Values, including moral values, occupy a special place in the realm of ideal objects. Their mode of being is uniquein thattheir realisation, in the sense of their being made real in the world of things, is mediated only through human action. Only humans can add value to the world.

Given that it is certain that some people have the capacity to perceive and realise moral values, the application of Occam's Razor would seem to indicate that we do not have to postulate God, or a messenger of God, as having spoken to the people who are characterised as prophets.Such prophets can be more simply understood as persons who perceived moral values, when such perceptions werevery rare,and who understood and proclaimed their moral insights as the "voice of God". If that is the case it would appear that the question of the nature of God's will is still open.

The human capacity to perceive moral values is a comparatively recent development. I have argued elsewhere that morality developed among the Hebrews before it developed among the Greeks. There is a significant difference between the "morality" of Homer and that of Xenophanes. Lawrence Kohlberg has found that only a very small percentage of present-day people are capable of making principled moral decisions. The vast majority of people still get their "morality" from the accepted pattern of behaviour in their own culture. This appears to support the view that morality, as distinct from mores, is a recent human development.

Clearly the nature of God's will is an important question. Perhaps an appropriate starting point in the attempt to work out an answer to this question would be to begin with Leibniz's deduction that this is the best of all possible worlds. The question of the nature of God's would appear to be related to the question: "In what way is this world the best possible world?" I have dealt withthis latter question in the Winter 2002 edition of the on-line Philosophy Journal, "The Examined Life".

Anthony Kelly