Why did we choose these questions?
1. Define 'I'
There are ways of defining I which are not philosophical. We get answers saying that 'I' is the 9th letter of the alphabet, which is true (at least about the Roman alphabet) but not particularly illuminating. Another popular answer is that 'I' is the first-person personal pronoun, or the word used to refer to the person speaking or writing. That's also true. However, in philosophy, requests for definition are not just requests for dictionary definitions. They ask for information, not about a word but rather about a concept. The philosophical question concerns the concept of 'I', or our notion of what the term 'I' refers to. What is the 'I'? Is it a person, a self, a brain, a mind, a soul? What are the criteria for personal identity? What kind of fact is it that there is a person I call 'I' in the world, who 'exists' but might not have existed? — These are some of the deep questions raised by the simple-seeming request for a definition of 'I'.
2. The Matrix
The Matrix films are a great fund of philosophical problems and puzzles. This question can be interpreted as an invitation to reflect on whichever problem grips you the most — for example, it could be the problem of our knowledge of an external world, or the challenge of fatalism, or the possibility of artificial intelligence. A number of answers we have received refer to Descartes and his sceptical hypothesis of an 'evil demon' who deceives him into believing that he is awake when in fact he is dreaming. The Matrix hypothesis is a less extreme form of scepticism. In the Matrix there exists a real world, whereas in the imaginary world of Descartes' evil demon there is just myself and the demon. We've also had interesting answers which attempt to probe deeper into the meaning of the term 'matrix', for example, relating it to its use in science or mathematics.
3. Can a cloud have feelings?
We get a lot of answers which say, 'Of course not, how can it? and an equal number of answers which say, 'Of course it can, why not?' However, the philosophical task however is to give persuasive reasons for or against. Some point out the obvious fact that a cloud does not have a brain, and therefore can't have feelings. That assumes a materialist view of consciousness which needs to be argued for. In any case, why couldn't there be aliens whose bodies were cloud-like, whose 'brains' worked in a different way from ours? On the other side, there are historical philosophers who have argued for 'pan-psychism', or the theory that everything in the universe has a degree of feeling. It doesn't follow that they are right. What would it mean to say that a cloud, or a stone on the beach has a 'degree' of feeling?
4. 'This sentence is false.'
Many who haven't come across this paradox before — a version of the ancient 'Liar' paradox (the Cretan who said, 'All Cretans are liars') puzzle over which sentence the quoted sentence refers to. The answer is, it refers or is intended to refer to itself. The term 'this' in the sentence, 'This sentence is false' refers to the very same sentence, 'This sentence is false' and says that the sentence is false. But if it is false to say that the sentence, 'This sentence is false' is false, then it follows that it is true. Which leads to a contradiction. A number of solutions have been proposed by philosophers none of which is wholly satisfactory. So this is a chance to offer your own explanation which defuses the paradox. One popular solution which doesn't work is refusing to allow a sentence to refer to itself. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with, 'This English sentence has six words' which is true and non-paradoxical, or, 'This English sentence has five words' which is false and non-paradoxical.
5. 'Why be moral?'
Answers received range between those which claim that it is in our own self-interest to be moral (but is it always, in every possible circumstance?), those which argue that morality is a social convention which benefits all (but why should that prevent me from being immoral if I decide to make myself an exception to the rule and believe I can get away with it?), and those which claim that we should do the morally right thing because it is right (but who is to say what is 'right'?). Once again, the philosophical aspect of the question is in the reasons given for or against a particular view. This is a topic on which there is continued, deep disagreement between moral philosophers, some arguing for a subjective view of morality while others argue for an objective view. We are interested in your view; but more importantly, in the reasons which you are able to give for your view.
6. Fear of the dark
This is the most difficult of the six questions, because it is hardest to see what is philosophical about fearing the dark. Many of the answers we receive talk about our evolutionary past and the dangers that the dark brings to beings who rely on their sense of sight. However, that is just a point about human psychology. What would be a philosophical take? One might consider, for example, the way that philosophers have traditionally privileged the sense of sight, in their accounts of the nature of human knowledge. Why is that? Another angle might be the association of dark with evil and goodness with light. Why is that connection made? Then again, the idea of absence of light connects with the idea of nothingness, which raises metaphysical questions about the nature of existence and non-existence. — These are just some ideas to think about.