Arts & Humanities: Philosophy: “Question: Why is Kuhn's definition of a paradigm too vague ?” plus 3 more |
- Question: Why is Kuhn's definition of a paradigm too vague ?
- Question: If "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," isn't the next logical step "Don't give guns to people?"?
- Question: Can someone name problems with Spinoza s idea of free will?
- Question: If you believe in the violinists analogy how do you respond to this?
| Question: Why is Kuhn's definition of a paradigm too vague ? Posted: 25 Nov 2016 01:34 PM PST Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel  |
| Posted: 25 Nov 2016 01:23 PM PST Absolutely. That's why we should give them knives. / Knives are a much better weapon. With a gun, (he demonstrates) ya have to load it, take the safety off, aim... With a knife, you just have to apply pressure! And they're dead! / They're far bloodier, much more gruesome... / and, of course, you DON'T need a license to own one. / The important thing is that mankind will always find some weapon to hurt somebody. / And I don't know about you, but THAT FACT gives me comfort knowing that it will always be around. / There's (looks up for a bit) ALMOST a profound message in here, so I'm just going to offset it. (loudly farts and raises his eyes as he does) / Now that's good waste of time. (a quick fart and eye raise)
|
| Question: Can someone name problems with Spinoza s idea of free will? Posted: 25 Nov 2016 12:15 PM PST He thinks that God and the universe are all one substance. He also seems to be deterministic as he does not believe anything is contingent. Can anyone find any issues with this belief? I found one error but I m looking for more... |
| Question: If you believe in the violinists analogy how do you respond to this? Posted: 25 Nov 2016 11:24 AM PST One of the most influential articles on abortion is Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion," written in 1971. Thomson asks the reader "to imagine" that you "wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist" who has a fatal kidney ailment. You find "the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours," making you like a kidney dialysis machine. You were kidnapped, because "you alone have the right blood type to help." To Thomson, unwanted pregnancy and the unconscious violinist are morally equivalent cases. She argues that neither the stranger nor the mother owes the needed life support; the stranger may unplug himself from the violinist, and the mother may unplug herself from her child. To help make her argument, Thomson paints unwanted prenatal children as aggressors, as trespassers. She equates them with burglars climbing into open windows, and she compares getting pregnant to being invaded in one's home by "people-seeds [that] drift about in the air like pollen." This is rubbish. Surely she knows the cause-and-effect relationship between heterosexual intercourse and pregnancy. A child's creation and presence in the womb are caused by biological forces independent of and beyond the control of the child; they are brought into play by the acts of the parents. The child did not cause the situation. In real life, the parents are the causative agents of both the pregnancy and the child's dependence. In Thomson's analogy, the stranger did nothing to cause the violinist to be sick. The stranger did nothing to cause himself to be captured and plugged in. The child is also like a captive, in the sense that she, too, is in the situation involuntarily. To conceive and then abort one's child is to turn conception into a deadly trap for the child: it is to set her up in a vulnerable position that is virtually certain to lead to her death. Of course, if the woman was raped, pregnancy is not voluntary for her, either. But abortion doesn't hinge on whether she conceived voluntarily or not. The problem in rape is whether the victimization of one person should permit the victimization of someone else. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Arts & Humanities: Philosophy. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |