Pamphilus Has the Last Word

Pamphilus concludes at the end of the Dialogues, "Philo's principles are more probable than Demea's, but those of Cleanthes approach still nearer to the truth" (89). What are we to make of this observation? Is this supposed to be the judgment of Hume? Is this supposed to be ironic in some way? Does this statement tell us anything about the arguments -- or more about Pamphilus?

Evil? No Problem

In sections X and Xi, Philo and Demea catalogue human misery and Philo uses this evidence to prove that either God does NOT exist or He is NOT benevolent. Is this argument sound? If not, where does the argument fail?

The Principle of Sufficient Reason: No Brute Facts?

You are hiking in a remote wilderness, miles from the nearest building or even cell phone tower. You come upon a clearing and see a crystal sphere hovering over you and emitting colorful light pulses in some seeming order: red, blue, green and the pattern repeats. Should there be an explanation for this odd phenomenon or is it acceptable to shrug our shoulders and mutter "Stuff happens"? Can we extrapolate from this case to a general principle of the universe? If so, can we prove that God (or a reasonable facsimile) exists?

The Relevance of the Origin of Species

One important scientific development unavailable to David Hume or any of his fictional interlocutors is the theory of evolution. For many people today, both theists and atheists, religious believers, scientists and intellectuals, the truth of evolution is bound up with the truth of theism. So what is the significance of evolution for the design argument? Does is it provide evidence for either side of the debate? On this 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's seminal Origin of Species, it is fitting to ask: where might a discussion of Darwin have fit into Hume's Dialogues?

Analogies and Disanalogies

Cleanthes argues that the universe is like a machine and hence likely designed by intelligent creator. Philo, on the other hand, proposes that it is equally probable that the universe is like an animal or vegetable and the order in the universe may be the result of generation, vegitation, or instinct. He even suggests that chance could produce our universe. Who is right? Given the order and seeming purpose to the universe, what is the most likely explanation? Or are none of them more likely than the other (and hence agnosticism the only rational position)?

Skepticism vs. Idealism: are they so different?

Idealism rejects the material existence of objects, saying everything resides in the mind, while skepticism questions existence entirely. How different is Berkeley's line of logic from that of a skeptic? Is the distinction just one of convenience?

Macbeth's Dagger and Other Illusions

Hylas objects to Philonous' idealism by claiming that on his view there is no way to distinguish between veridical appearances and illusions. In other words, idealism implies that the danger than Macbeth sees before his eyes but cannot clutch is just as real as the dagger he uses to kill Duncan. Is this a valid objection? How successful is Philonous' response?

Who Needs God?

Berkeley argues that, given the truth of idealism, God must exist. Is he correct? If so, how valuable is this argument? Does this argument give theists anything to cheer about?

Much Ado About A Mite

Berkeley argues for his idealism from the relativity of perception. He compares the size of a mite's foot as seen by the mite itself, by a human and by some smaller microorganism. What, exactly, is the argument? Is the argument successful? If not, how do we resist the sucking of all so-called primary qualities into the mind?

Are We Wired for Religion?

According to some people, there seems to be a biological imperative for we as humans to search for purpose in a world largely devoid of meaning. One such person's work is linked here http://rationalargumentator.com/issue196/telosdrive.html> Why is it that every single human culture in history had some form of religion? Is there an easy, scientific explanation to this phenomenon? Or does it go deeper than that, right into the very core of what it means to be human? Is religion essential to humanity?

A God Chasing His Tail?

Antoine Arnauld famously accuses Descartes of arguing in a circle: the principle of clear and distinct ideas requires a non-deceiving God to validate it, but the proof of a non-deceiving God requires the principle of clear and distinct ideas. Is Arnauld correct? If not, why not? If not, at what cost?

The Existence and/or Role of God

Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God not only for its own sake but also to further the goals of his foundational project. Is either argument successful? Does God actually do the metaphysical work that Descartes wants? Should an epistemological project have God play such a prominent role?

The "So What" Defense

Descartes is obsessed with the pursuit of knowledge. He devotes enormous intellectual energy to the refutation of skepticism. But is skepticism really the disaster that Descartes envisions? Is knowledge really an important goal? Or is it like immortality -- something nice if you could get it, but not a necessary component of a flourishing human life? So what if I know nothing.

When the Walls Come Down . . .

Descartes realizes that some of the beliefs he thought were true turned out to be false. In the pursuit of knowledge he seeks to tear down his previous beliefs and build them up again upon a firm foundation. In other words, he is engaged in a foundational project, searching for a class of beliefs that themselves are not in need of justification in order to justify his other beliefs. But is this quest a misguided one? Do such beliefs exist? If not, does that mean that knowledge is impossible? Or is there some other way to justify our beliefs?

Moral Consumerism

Is it morally permissible to consume as much as you can afford? If you can afford something do you have the inherent right to take resources from other people who could use the resources but are unable to purchase them. Specifically consider this in the context of American consumerism and exploration of resources.

Genuine vs. Fake Happiness

Tex Hambone, the multibillionaire oil tycoon, just married his fifth wife. She is young and beautiful, 50 years younger than his 80 years. Tex is madly in love with her. So madly in love, in fact, that he will leave her every penny when he dies.

Does it matter if she REALLY loves him or if she is just a fabulous actor waiting until he has a heart attack and keels over so she can rake in the billions? Given that the pleasure Tex enjoys is the same either way, is the happiness based on true love any better than one based on illusion? Is his happiness valuable even she hates his guts?

Is it immoral for animals to eat eachother?

What is the impact if true?

This question is my second in response to Peter Singer's argument against eating animals. In the first part I established that animals do indeed have souls (we can discuss this also).

from my analysis:
"The notion animals possess souls leads to a second interesting question: is it immoral for animals to eat other animals? According to Singer's logic it stands to reason that it is immoral for such action to be taken against another soul-possessing organism. While Singer argues specifically against human consumption of animals, his logic extends to all animal interactions. The distinction can be made that many animals must consume animal flesh for survival where people can subsist without the pleasure of consuming meat. This argument falls to the simple fact that while plants may not be part of a specific organism's diet, said organism can undoubtedly survive off plants alone. If we accept the idea that animals possessing souls act immorally by consuming each other, what is the impact?"

The Challenge of the Ring of Gyges

In Chapter 2 of the The Republic Glaucon, the brother of Plato, challenged Socrates to provide a reason to act morally even when immorality appeared more profitable. He related the story of the ring of Gyges, a ring which gives the wearer invisibility and hence preserves his (or her ) anonymity in committing the most egregious of crimes. Such a person may maintain his reputation for good while stealing, pillaging and seducing at will.

Is such a challenge too unrealistic? Must morality and virtue be its own reward, without any external benefits, to answer Glaucon's challenge? Are other reasons to act morally that don't provide a reason to eschew Gyges' ring just as valid (recall Socrates discussion in the last chapter of The Republic)?

Smackdown: Socrates vs. Homer

Plato (through the mouthpiece of Socrates) criticizes certain traits in Homer (and other poets) work. Is there any truth to his criticisms? Or are his proposals examples of unjustified censorship? Should poetry or literature ever be repressed under any circumstance to any audience?

Philosopher Kings Anyone?

Plato proposes (through the mouthpiece of Socrates) that the best form of government is one in which a philosopher is king (or at the very least a king is trained as a philosopher). Is he correct? What problem exist for this view? Even with all its flaws, is it better than all alternatives? In particular, is it an improvement over democracy?