Varied concepts and applications

¶ … Philosophical insights and truths are said to share three qualities of rationality, and objectivity. The author suggests that philosophical truths need not be universal, though. Why does he think this? Do you agree with him? Do you think philosophical truths should be rational and objective?

I believe that the author is correct that philosophical insights and truths must have rational and objective qualities, and that they do not need to be universal. Many philosophers, particularly the conservative ones, believe they can prove that there are absolute standards of morality/truth. However, very basic logic tells us that a statement that contradicts itself cannot be true. Therefore, a statement such as "There are no absolute truths" cannot be true, for it is an absolute statement, and essentially negates itself. From this point, philosophers will explain that "There are absolute truths" does not have this flaw, and it can be true because it does not negate itself. Relativists may attempt to escape this trap by explaining that "There is only one Absolute Truth: no other truths are absolute." Relativists are easily disputed by deists and other philosophers, though, because no good reason is given as to why there may be the one absolute truth but no others.

However, neither deists, nor relativists, nor many other philosophers take into consideration the actual nature of truth. Perhaps there are absolute truths, and perhaps there are not. Whether or not absolute truths exist, we are not able to interact with the truth without making it relative. If absolute truth does exist, which I will grant that it very well might exist, we are not able to determine what this absolute truth is.

To illustrate how this downfall may play out among philosophers, consider the infamous question: If a tree falls in a forest and no is there to hear it, does it make a sound? One who believes in absolutes might say that it is true that the tree makes a sound, while a relativist might say that the tree might or might not make a sound. However, both seem to be missing the point that a sound is defined by waves of energy hitting the eardrum, so that if no one is there to hear it, the tree would create the waves, however without the observer it would not be an actual sound.

2. What arguments can be given for and against the desirability of the existence of "interest groups" or (as Madison called them)"factions" in democracy? Which position do you think is correct?

First, let us consider some of the pros of such factions. In a democracy, people that are bonded together for a common cause are more capable of getting things accomplished. Taking the good of other people or the good of the group as a whole into consideration is a positive thing in order to help a democracy function. If each citizen in a democracy votes only for his or her own interests, and did not take into consideration what vote would most benefit the group as a whole, then nothing would ever get done because desires would be too spread apart. In this scenario, it would seem that interest groups or factions would be beneficial to society.

Second, let us consider the cons of having such factions. When people are caught up in an interest group, they tend to only consider what their group wants. People may fail to take their own individual needs into consideration, or, more likely, they may fail to consider what is beneficial for the whole, organic society.