This is a link to my personal blog: http://berto-meister.blogspot.com/ in case you guys are interested in learning all kinds of random new things and/or sporadically amusing yourselves.
The blog is made up primarily of video files that I find online, especially some very good documentaries and presentations by world-leading intellectuals on everything ranging from philosophy, to science, to economics, to religion, to history, etc. In between the more sophisticated entries I do make it a point to regularly include humorous stuff because life just isn't quite the same without some good laughter.
Not much on politics, I'm afraid, since I'm more interested in educating and communicating ideas than with debating and fighting. My hope is that the material I post on this blog can matter today just as much as it could in ten years or twenty, and although political controversies are certainly important, I don't want to clog the historical archives with stuff to which future visitors could not relate.
If you find it worth your while, you can always subscribe to receive daily e-mails whenever new entries are posted. Feel free to share with others as well.
I don't know why I forgot to mention it, but it's been a great pleasure introducing you to some of the ideas that make moral philosophy such an interesting and important discipline. Although we were a rather small group, I really enjoyed the diversity of backgrounds and beliefs that could amiably be discussed and analyzed. I hope you guys keep in touch; you know how to find me, and if you ever come across something you think I might find interesting, I'd be very grateful if you could share that with me.
Bye!
Berto
May 14, 2007
Abortion
Since our heated debate about abortion last week, I thought I'd show you guys how professional philosophers debate ethical and philosophical issues. In the audio below, Don Marquis presents his objections against Peter Singer's views on abortion and infanticide (the latter favors these two under certain conditions), and argues that abortion is morally wrong.
Notice, first of all, that both philosophers explain what positions they have in common, and how they acknowledge the correct points their opponents make. This is critical: you have to assume some sort of common ground if you are to convince someone your point is correct, and you have to understand exactly what it is that you are arguing against.
Notice also how once they have correctly stated their opponent's arguments, they either find fault with that logic (which doesn't happen very often, since these guys are pretty smart), or they show how those arguments actually entail some logical consequences that presumably no one (including its proponent) would accept as true.
You can decide for yourself who makes the best arguments...
.
Notice, first of all, that both philosophers explain what positions they have in common, and how they acknowledge the correct points their opponents make. This is critical: you have to assume some sort of common ground if you are to convince someone your point is correct, and you have to understand exactly what it is that you are arguing against.
Notice also how once they have correctly stated their opponent's arguments, they either find fault with that logic (which doesn't happen very often, since these guys are pretty smart), or they show how those arguments actually entail some logical consequences that presumably no one (including its proponent) would accept as true.
You can decide for yourself who makes the best arguments...
.
May 12, 2007
Gay Marriage
I stumbled upon this online, and thought you guys might enjoy this, especially Maureen:
.
.
May 9, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
