Group items tagged

A KERFUFFLE has broken out between philosophy and physics. It began earlier this spring when a philosopher (David Albert) gave a sharply negative review in this paper to a book by a physicist (Lawrence Krauss) that purported to solve, by purely scientific means, the mystery of the universe's existence. The physicist responded to the review by calling the philosopher who wrote it "moronic" and arguing that philosophy, unlike physics, makes no progress and is rather boring, if not totally useless. And then the kerfuffle was joined on both sides.

Philosopher interested in American pragmatists (James, Pierce, Dewey), Josiah Royce, and religion (including Jonathan Edwards!" "The search for truth, he argued, was an inherently social, communitarian enterprise."

Moral quandaries often pit concerns about principles against concerns about practical consequences. Should we ban assault rifles and large sodas, restricting people's liberties for the sake of physical health and safety? Should we allow drone killings or torture, if violating one person's rights could save a thousand lives? We like to believe that the principled side of the equation is rooted in deep, reasoned conviction. But a growing wealth of research shows that those values often prove to be finicky, inconsistent intuitions, swayed by ethically irrelevant factors. What you say now you might disagree with in five minutes. And such wavering has implications for both public policy and our personal lives. Philosophers and psychologists often distinguish between two ethical frameworks. A utilitarian perspective evaluates an action purely by its consequences. If it does good, it's good. A deontological approach, meanwhile, also takes into account aspects of the action itself, like whether it adheres to certain rules. Do not kill, even if killing does good. No one adheres strictly to either philosophy, and it turns out we can be nudged one way or the other for illogical reasons.... Regardless of whether you endorse following the rules or calculating benefits, knowing that our instincts are so sensitive to outside factors can prevent us from settling on our first response. Objective moral truth doesn't exist, and these studies show that even if it did, our grasp of it would be tenuous. ...But we can encourage consistency in moral reasoning by viewing issues from many angles, discussing them with other people and monitoring our emotions closely. In recognizing our psychological quirks, we just might find answers we can live with.

'Adrienne Asch, an internationally known bioethicist who opposed the use of prenatal testing and abortion to select children free of disabilities, a stance informed partly by her own experience of blindness, died on Nov. 19 at her home in Manhattan. She was 67. 'In an article in The American Journal of Public Health in 1999, Professor Asch laid out her philosophy in no uncertain terms: "If public health espouses goals of social justice and equality for people with disabilities - as it has worked to improve the status of women, gays and lesbians, and members of racial and ethnic minorities - it should reconsider whether it wishes to continue the technology of prenatal diagnosis," she wrote. 'She added: "My moral opposition to prenatal testing and selective abortion flows from the conviction that life with disability is worthwhile and the belief that a just society must appreciate and nurture the lives of all people, whatever the endowments they receive in the natural lottery." '

Philosopher advocating pragmatic, contextual reasoning - favored Montaigne over Descartes.

Says presence or absence of belief in moral absolutes tends to be philosophical argument with little influence on everyday life of an individual.

Successful theist philosopher - & book against Dawkins, et al.

Happiness is as much intellectual as emotional - it results from "flourishing" in one's interaction with life, not just from "feeling pleasure." It may even result from dealing directly and courageously with pain.

3 classic (& lousy) arguments that it's irrational to fear death - review of Simon Critchley's 'Book of Dead Philosophers'

This Australian theological student discusses the dependence of early (and contemporary) Christians on prior or current ideas that come from outside the Christian and biblical tradition.

Case for absolutes (vs. Stanley Fisher)