I was just doing some housekeeping of this blog, when I saw an old response to a post. David asks some very interesting questions, which I will try to address.
So much talking about thought or clear thought (mental activity), so what's the seed of "thought"? And what's "mental activity" do you mean here?
Indeed. I have an experience of "thought". The French philosopher Rene Descartes based his entire philosophy on his "clear and distinct" experience of thought. But what exactly is thought? The philosophy debate rages. The idealists (read as idea-lists) say it is a separate realm entirely from the material world; whereas the materialists (not in the sense of money-mad) say it is just some form of brain activity (electrical impulses etc.). I am not addressing that debate here. All I refer to is our subjective experience of thought -- which I analogically presume that others experience too.
When you say thought is "clear", what does it mean to you with the word clear in respect to your thought?
My use of the word "clear" is mainly to contrast it with "muddy" or "confused".
Why do human beings have thoughts?
Well, this is another fascinating question. Are thoughts merely a result of our more complex (as compared to other species) brains? Do other species also have thoughts (which they cannot communicate to us?) And again, back to the first question: are thoughts real?
Does thought(s) has/have its/their limitation?
Definitely. The limit of our thoughts is our intuitions. We cannot go further back than that.
What is TRUTH or REALITY? Are you talking about "relative truth" here? Is TRUTH within our human being language communicative expression?
Here, again the philosophy debate rages. Is there absolute truth, or are all truth relative? Platonists believe there is absolute truth (for example, in the World of Forms). Kantians believe that our access to truth is limited by our physical and mental capacities; that there is a truth (the noumemal world) that we can never know. Wittgenstein says our expression of the truth is indeed limited by our communication capacities.
What's basic nature of human being?
Here again the philosophy debate rages. Aristotle says the basic human nature is our ability to think. Confucius says basic human nature is good. Hobbes and Hsun Tsu say basic human nature is evil. I think basic human nature is laziness, both physical and mental.
Thank you, David, for your questions. I hope other readers also find such philosophical questions interesting. We can also discuss such questions at my philosophy cafe sessions.
Monday 24 August 2009
Thursday 20 August 2009
What should be done about those swimsuits?
Recently, "super" swimsuits were used in international swim meets, and world records tumbled. Many competitors and swim coaches complained about an "unfair advantage".
We posed the question "what should be done about these swimsuits?" at our philosophy cafe session on 19 August 2009. This is a brief report of our discussion.
Why are these swimsuits considered as an "unfair advantage"?
Because it enabled its wearers to obliterate the competition.
But everyone is free to wear one of these suits. It is not unfair.
Not true, some swimmers are bound by sponsorship contracts to use only their sponsors' suits -- which happen to be not "super".
Well, they entered into these sponsorship contracts of their own free will, and they are free to change sponsor once their contracts expire.
Let's approach this from the other direction: what is fair competition?
A fair competition is where the winner is the one who is physically superior to all the others; not where the winner is the one using the best equipment.
All sports use equipment, and not all equipment are equal.
Surely it is possible to standardise the equipment, so that the competition is fair.
No, specifying using only one brand of equipment is not fair to other equipment makers.
We can rotate equipment makers among the various sports meets.
This will make records set specific to those equipment makers. We will have "100m freestyle Brand A", "100m freestyle Brand B" -- which is ridiculous.
We can equalise the competition by returning to the original Olympic format, where all competitors are nude.
This is even more absurd. Competing in the nude is today a non-starter, never mind how it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, while this is physically possible in swimming, it is even conceptually impossible in sports where equipment is required eg. in archery.
We can specify the features of the equipment used. For example, in swimming, we can specify the swimsuit material, the buoyancy level, the drag, the coverage of the body etc. This will equalise the competition.
Discussion ends here. It has been a good discussion.
The next philosophy cafe session is on 16 September 2009. The venue: Nook (cafe), 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Free parking and admission. Personal expense for food and drink. Prior to the event, I will post on this blog possible topics for discussion at the philosophy cafe session. I hope to see you there.
We posed the question "what should be done about these swimsuits?" at our philosophy cafe session on 19 August 2009. This is a brief report of our discussion.
Why are these swimsuits considered as an "unfair advantage"?
Because it enabled its wearers to obliterate the competition.
But everyone is free to wear one of these suits. It is not unfair.
Not true, some swimmers are bound by sponsorship contracts to use only their sponsors' suits -- which happen to be not "super".
Well, they entered into these sponsorship contracts of their own free will, and they are free to change sponsor once their contracts expire.
Let's approach this from the other direction: what is fair competition?
A fair competition is where the winner is the one who is physically superior to all the others; not where the winner is the one using the best equipment.
All sports use equipment, and not all equipment are equal.
Surely it is possible to standardise the equipment, so that the competition is fair.
No, specifying using only one brand of equipment is not fair to other equipment makers.
We can rotate equipment makers among the various sports meets.
This will make records set specific to those equipment makers. We will have "100m freestyle Brand A", "100m freestyle Brand B" -- which is ridiculous.
We can equalise the competition by returning to the original Olympic format, where all competitors are nude.
This is even more absurd. Competing in the nude is today a non-starter, never mind how it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, while this is physically possible in swimming, it is even conceptually impossible in sports where equipment is required eg. in archery.
We can specify the features of the equipment used. For example, in swimming, we can specify the swimsuit material, the buoyancy level, the drag, the coverage of the body etc. This will equalise the competition.
Discussion ends here. It has been a good discussion.
The next philosophy cafe session is on 16 September 2009. The venue: Nook (cafe), 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Free parking and admission. Personal expense for food and drink. Prior to the event, I will post on this blog possible topics for discussion at the philosophy cafe session. I hope to see you there.
Monday 17 August 2009
Announcement to readers
Dear readers,
Thank you for visiting this blog. If you like what you read, please tell others about it.
I will soon again be teaching Critical Thinking, and also Introduction to Philosophy. These engagements will keep me very busy, and I expect that my rate of posts will drastically drop. Rest assured, however, that I fully intend to resume active posting after the teaching engagement ends. In the meantime, I will continue to post as and when I find the inspiration and time.
My philosophy cafe sessions will continue as usual. The next philosophy cafe session will be on 19 August 2009. Place: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome; just bring an open mind. [In general, we meet every third Wednesday of the month, same time and place.]
This time, I would like to try something new. I want to try fixing the topic ahead of time. So, on 19 August, I propose to address the controversy on the new-fangled swimsuits that are breaking world swim records all over the world. Should they be allowed, or banned? And why?
See you at on the 19th.
Cheers,
Singaporephilosopher.
Thank you for visiting this blog. If you like what you read, please tell others about it.
I will soon again be teaching Critical Thinking, and also Introduction to Philosophy. These engagements will keep me very busy, and I expect that my rate of posts will drastically drop. Rest assured, however, that I fully intend to resume active posting after the teaching engagement ends. In the meantime, I will continue to post as and when I find the inspiration and time.
My philosophy cafe sessions will continue as usual. The next philosophy cafe session will be on 19 August 2009. Place: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome; just bring an open mind. [In general, we meet every third Wednesday of the month, same time and place.]
This time, I would like to try something new. I want to try fixing the topic ahead of time. So, on 19 August, I propose to address the controversy on the new-fangled swimsuits that are breaking world swim records all over the world. Should they be allowed, or banned? And why?
See you at on the 19th.
Cheers,
Singaporephilosopher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)