George Lakoff has once again weighed in on a critical issue of word meaning. This time, his focus is on what it means to be "responsible": Accountability is what is called a contested concept, that is, a concept with different meanings for different people, depending on their values. What we…
Ever since I started doubting the existence of God, I have frequently encountered confusion between the numerous labels used to describe non-theistic belief systems. This is most commonly seen between the words “atheist” and “agnostic,” both of which signify the absence of definitive belief in a deity. At first glance, the distinction may seem obvious: an atheist disbelieves the existence of God or gods, while an agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God and thus refuses to commit to either belief system. However, in reality these two terms tend to overlap to the extent that two people holding exactly the same (non)belief may label it differently, one identifying as an agnostic and the other, an atheist. Further, one’s label of choice is heavily influenced by the public perception of these terms, the word “atheist” being the more pejorative of the two in the eyes of the public. This probably convinces many non-theists to describe themselves as “agnostic,” as this label seems more palatable and less presumptuous than “atheist.” If one carefully examines the definitions of these terms, however, one should become more hesitant at rejecting one label for another.
I will begin my exposition by quoting from Bertrand Russell’s 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?
…[. . .] As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a
One of Diane Rehm’s recent shows featured Marietta McCarty, who advocates teaching philosophy to children to develop critical thinking skills and to deepen their sense of empathy for others. Here’s the interview. McCarty, who has taught at both the elementary school and community college level, has written a book titled Little Big Minds.
According to her website, McCarty is:
Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Piedmont Virginia Community College in Charlottesville, Virginia. She has brought philosophy to children in rural, suburban, and city schools in the central Virginia area for over fifteen years, as well as schools around the U.S. “Her Philosophy in the Third Grade” program is nationally acclaimed and she lectures and gives demonstrations around the country on this one-of-a-kind program. While focusing on third graders, she philosophizes in kindergarten through eighth grade classrooms.
McCarty starts with the premise that children are natural philosophers. They are “the best philosophers.” Children have a natural curiosity and an innate sense of wonder. Even young children are capable of studying philosophy.
Philosophy, according to McCarty, is the art of clear thinking. Philosophers are people who “hold many ideas in their mind at once.” Philosophers “empty their minds of clutter and confusion.” She stresses that children need to exercise their minds just like they need to exercise their bodies. Philosophy can help children “gain clarity about ideas.” Underlying McCarty’s strategy is her belief that ideas have consequences. “What we think motivates all of our actions and all of our decisions. If we don’t …
You don’t know the word "palter"? I didn’t either, until I read a recent paper by Frederick Schauer and Richard J. Zeckhauser of Harvard. The paper’s abstract defines this incredibly useful term, palter: Abstract: A lie involves three elements: deceptive intent, an inaccurate message, and a harmful effect. When only…
Below is a link to a blog called 101 Reasons to Stop Writing. It is a blog about writing and actually does have a list of reasons to stop, which, when one considers the amount of verbiage being generated by the human race, might seem like an impossible challenge. Those…