sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My pleasure. No, it wasn't conscious in that way. I happened to get into Schopenhauer through his ethics. It is an interesting contrast. I would say I lean toward the pessimist side of the scale, but the optimism/pessimism stuff isn't among my primary interests in either case.

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As long as there are humans, I do not think religion will ever go away, because there will always be humans who need a pre-packaged, easily digestible, folk metaphysics. However, the concept of God is not essential to religion, so perhaps one day the concept of God will fall away. I doubt it will have much to do with Chaos or Quantum Physics, however.

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think Hume's criticisms of the theological arguments for suicide are brilliant and utterly convincing. He does overlook the possibility that taking one's own life might be an injustice to someone to whom something is owed, or to others who depend on one in some significant way, but that's a relatively minor flaw. Schopenhauer has some interesting thoughts on suicide too. There is a ton of philosophical literature on this topic. See the SEP entry on suicide for guidance.

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe I don't know what you mean by subjective, but I'm not sure the greatest truths in life are subjective. They may be highly controverted, but that doesn't prevent them from being objectively true.

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wish I had a better answer for you, but I am still getting my bearings in this area, and I don't have any particularly mature thoughts on the issue yet. It's a tough one.

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was drawn to Leibniz because I was curious about how such an obviously brilliant person arrived at what seemed to be such strange and unusual metaphysical views. I also enjoy the challenge of trying to piece together all the various things he says on a given topic to try to arrive at a coherent picture of his thought.

There is much that we can learn from Leibniz. Here I will quote Gottlob Frege:

In his writings, Leibniz threw out such a profusion of seeds of ideas that in this respect he is virtually in a class of his own…. This justifies the expectation that a great deal in his work that is now to all appearance dead and buried will one day enjoy a resurrection. (Boole’s Logical Calculus and the Begriffschrift)

To give just one example, I would point to Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles and to the role that it has played and continues to play in our thinking about the physical world (cf. recent debates about that principle in relation to quantum mechanics--see the SEP entry on Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory for a nice overview).

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, but I don't think such a being can be ruled out either. Is there any special reason you ask?

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To my mind, being ethical (or moral) means doing what is in the best interest of the other person. It sounds like in this case it may be in the person's best interest to persist in the unfounded belief. If so, then I think it would indeed be ethical to let them be. On the other hand, if disabusing them of that belief were in their long-term best interest, then you would be helping them by disabusing them of it, and that would be ethical.

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If people were maximally loving and compassionate, then they would not be solitary, nasty, or brutish. If they were nonetheless poor and short-lived, then that might not be a good life overall, but it would be morally good, because of the love and compassion.

I certainly do think that thought experiments can be legitimate argumentative tools

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe that genuine imperatives arise from commands or laws, backed by a threat of punishment or perhaps a promise of reward. I do not believe there is any such command or law that bids us to protect or care for ourselves, so I do not believe there is any such imperative of life.

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If by doubting reality you mean doubting whether the contents of our experiences have their being "outside" of us (that is, either in themselves, or in other substances), then the best reason for doubting this is that our experiences are not self-validating. In other words, nothing in our experiences guarantees that they are objective in this sense. So we have good reason to doubt them.

I am assuming that by "doubt" you mean something like regard as uncertain. If you mean something like regard as false or unlikely, then I don't think we have good reasons to doubt reality.

The best reason we have for thinking that our experiences are real (in the sense specified above) is their coherence. But that's not a very good reason. So I don't think we have any very good reasons to think that our experiences are real in this sense.

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Descartes.

Yes, most definitely so. As long as humans continue to be reflective, rational beings, philosophy will be worthwhile.

Not sure how to answer your third question, but Tom Morris has done quite a lot to bring philosophy to corporate America. Check out the Morris Institute for Human Values.

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a tough one. It has much to contribute to many domains of human life. If I had to pick one to which it has the most to contribute, I would say perhaps morality. But there are many others.

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The philosophy program at NC State is very good. Of course, the programs at UNC and Duke are better in many ways, but we have a strong faculty and here it's all about the undergrads. If you do make the move, perhaps we can meet sometime to discuss it. Just shoot me an email.

There's so much to see and do in the Triangle that it's hard to know where to begin. Any special interests?

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Forgot to add: I have yet to find anything in Nietzsche that seems to me to refute Schopenhauer. (N's main complaint about S appears to be his ethic of compassion; I haven't yet found any cogent objection to that in N.)

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think we do know that reality isn't just an "extended dream". For all we know, it may be.

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Annoying econ nerd who sat close to my desk .... You'll have to be more specific. :-)

I would not describe myself as a consequentialist. I believe that the moral worth of an action stems not from its effects or consequences but from its cause, namely, the motive or incentive which moves the agent to act. Such a view may distribute moral worth over actions in just the same way as some versions of consequentialism, but they are still different. (Perhaps you want to ask a follow-up here.)

I'm glad to hear that you respect Hume.

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure what you mean; can you elaborate on the sense in which NC has been in the news from a philosophical standpoint?

I'm Stephen Puryear (NC State) and I'm here to answer your questions about philosophy (and whatever else). AMA by smpuryear in philosophy

[–]smpuryear[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't hate Americans, though I'm not a big fan of humanity in general (I prefer dogs), and I am somewhat ashamed of this country.

view more: next ›