brucebirdfield

Islam requires its followers to physically practice their religion every day. Meanwhile, it became possible for a Christian to practice only once a week. Is this too loose a grip? Is Islam's grip on its followers stronger because it has no Sabbath Day?

1. Questions that are advertised by being asked more than once by the same person. (I do sometimes answer such questions, but not if I notice they are repeated).

2. Questions that are advertised by being incomplete so that you have to click on them to get any idea of what is being asked. Do people not realize how impolite that is? (And no, I do not consider my present question to be that sort of question.)

3. Questions that are advertised by being framed in terms of what 'you' think, or has happened to 'you', or what 'your' experience of X has been - or almost any question that includes the words 'you' or 'your'. (An allowable exception in philosophy would be a question like "What makes you 'you'?")

I'm considering posting the following question three times in a row: "Would you answer... [click on link] ...an incomplete question that irrelevantly asked 'you' about 'your' whatever?"

Naming - I'll just call you Ishmael, shall I?

Describing - Isn't a unicorn a white, horse-like creature with a single horn on its head?

Informing - Did you hear that terrorists flew an airliner into the Statue of Liberty?

Explaining - Isn't Socrates mortal because he's a man and all men are mortal?

Reasoning - If Soctrates is a man and all men are mortal won't Socrates be mortal?

Prescribing - Why don't you drop that aspidistra and put your hands in the air?

Predicting - Won't the cradle fall if the bough breaks?

Given that all the kinds of human intelligence graph as bell-shaped curves, and given that average parents can have a genius child, what follows for the project to optimize human life?

Surely if there are moral rights then one of the most basic of those moral rights is the right to defend yourself against a physical attack.

And yet the law does not recognize such a right. If a stranger attacked you without provocation and you picked up a stick or rock or other available weapon and defended yourself with it and killed your attacker, you would be liable to a criminal charge - perhaps murder, perhaps manslaughter - or I know I would where I live.

Why have we allowed the law to rob us of our right to self-defense?

During the course of the last century, the traffic of philosophy has plunged off the endless road to Platonic perfectionism into the ravine of post-modernist self-refutation. Will the future of the discipline involved the construction of a bridge of commonsense across the ravine to the more modest and reachable destinatination of human optimization? Or will the wheels fall off and stay off?

Gentlepersons, start your engines!

We are becoming more and more dependent upon technology and upon the maintenance of civil peace in order to keep that technology up and running. How much civil disruption would it take to upset that peace and thus cripple our technology-dependent civilization?

What if external and internal terrorism combined forces to call the bluff of those who hold the key positions in the maintenance of civil peace? How long would it take to bring our cushy world down?

Given that one trend of of commerce is the merger of companies, and given that another trend of commerce is to escape the confines of the legally constituteded state, and given that another trend of commerce is to use the sciences to invade and control every aspect of life, convince me that the logical outcome of these trends is not a sophisticated form of totalitarianism.

Every day we are subject to a variety of experiences. Some human experiences are everyday, some are unusual, some are rare, some are once in a lifetime. Apart from those classifications, what are the main sorts of our experiences?

Plato's works are applauded as great philosophy and great literature. Aristotle's works are applauded as great philosophy but not as great literature (they are apparently course notes written for or by Aristotle's students).

Are 'literary' (artistic) qualities not irrelevant to philosophy? Should not the primary goal of philosophical style be to say what you have to say clearly, unequivocally, and as simply as possible? Why should the philosopher have to 'sell' his ideas by putting them in the pretty but distracting (and often confusing) clothing of 'literary style'?

When someone, say, steals something, they have broken the law against stealing. But, they have also demonstrated contempt for the law. Should that not also be a criminal offence?

In general, when someone breaks a law, should they not, in addition to being charged with the specific offence, also be charged with the general offence of breaking the law?

Please don't tell me that if hard determinism is the case then moral praise and blame don't apply because if immorality happens it must happen.

My reply to that is, by the same reasoning, if moral praise and blame happen then they too must happen - so hard determinism leaves morality untouched. Whether free-willed or determined, we can morally praise and blame, and we should.

I ask this question because it so often happens that the answer chosen as 'best answer' would not be chosen by someone who had any familiarity with the subject. When this happens it is often the simplest answer that is favored (the one that requires the least thought to evaluate). Anyone who knows philosophy knows it is rarely if ever about simple, one-liner answers.

The present question might be given either a philosophical or a factual answer, but I prefer the former :-)

1. Let justice be done though the heavens fall!

2. My country, right or wrong!

3. The greatest good for the greatest number!

Say if you agree with just one, or two, or all, or none.

Do you see any problems with agreeing with all three?

1. My theory is that all ravens are black.

2. So, I also suppose that all things that are not black are not ravens.

3. If the next raven I see is black, that will support my theory that all ravens are black.

4. And so, if the next non-black thing I see is not a raven, that too will confirm my theory.

5. I have just seen a green t-shirt.

6. So, the green t-shirt supports my theory that all ravens are black.

Feminist philosophy (philosophy applied to specifically female issues) makes sense, but how can there be a 'female' philosophy? That is, how can there be specifically female answers to the main questions of philosophy?

Please do not assume that I think there can't be a female philosophy. What I'm after is a characterization of such a philosophy. In what principal ways would a female philosophy differ from a male philiosophy?

This is a difficult question, but do your best.

... or something else, basically?

If you believe that moral right and wrong depend upon the foreseeable consequences of our choices, then there are reasons for concluding that religious belief in God is immoral. Examples:

1. If your belief is in the God of a particular religion, then it is in potential violent conflict with the beliefs of other religions.

2. If your belief is in your own personal concept of God, then it is in potential violent conflict with the beliefs of all established religions, including your own.

3. No matter what God you believe in, atheism, and perhaps also agnosticism, are standing 'insults' against your God, and thus potential sources of violent conflict.

Assuming your belief in God is a matter of your choice, do such reasons make your belief in God immoral?

The obvious reply is "the best sort" - and such a reply will *not* be chosen as best answer here. I want to know what, for you, makes an answer the best answer.