on this page

Or send us an email

Application form

Pathways programs

Letters to my students

How-to-do-it guide

Essay archive

Ask a philosopher

Pathways e-journal

Features page

Downloads page

Pathways portal

Pathways to Philosophy

Geoffrey Klempner CV
G Klempner

International Society for Philosophers
ISFP site

1st series [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]  2nd series [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]

  View the latest questions and answers at askaphilosopher.org
pathways (ask a philosopher)

Cornucupia of Philosophical Questions

Here you will find a collection of over a thousand questions which have been submitted to Ask a Philosopher. The latest questions are posted at https://askphilosopher.blogspot.com. Answers appear regularly at https://askaphilosopher.org.

If you would like to become a member of the Ask a Philosopher panel of authors at Wordpress, please email your CV to klempner@fastmail.net.

All questions submitted to Ask a Philosopher are moderated. If you provide your email address when submitting your question, you will be informed when your question has been given an answer.

Ask a question

Eli asked:

Can a person with solipsism syndrome actually recover and lead a normal life?

wendile asked:

How is Descartes' module of dualism duplicated in the matrix in Morpheus' view?

abiathar asked:

Platos discussion of the Form of the Good in the Republic arguably entails a religious view of the world. To what extent, if any, does Platos philosophical perspective in the Allegory of the Cave and/or the Metaphor of the Sun entail a religious or theological perspective? Is Platos vision of the Good compatible with your own religious (or nonreligious) point of view? Why or why not?

Adam asked:

Where is the legal info for Ask a Philosopher?

If not, what is it?

I am planning to write a book about my theories that I have posted here and elsewhere and have never mentioned.

chaquntela asked:

identify the hypothesis and and conclusion of each statement. Then write each statement in ifthen form. Colin watched televison when he doesn not have homework

Linda asked:

Do you believe that, in addressing the Problem of the One and the Many, the PreSocratics also addressed Heideggers problem, or did they merely sidestep it?

vipin asked:

is it true that philosophy is indeed the love of wisdom

Alex asked:

In Plato's Apology how does Socrates exhibit his wisdom and his lack of knowledge? He doesn't simply list what he knows, so how is the reader able to tell?

Mike asked:

Do you agree or disagree with freud's contention that personality is "fixed" by a relatively early age?

ugly persons dilemma asked:

If you are the ugliest 25 year old virgin male in the world

and you would not settle for an ugly girl,

and you would rather die being the kissless virgin you are instead of settling for an ugly girl,

Is it right (logically and ethically) for you to approach a beautiful girl romantically ?

minati asked:

who,according to plato, are fit to govern the ideal republic and why?

minati asked:

what does aristotle mean by Anagnorisis?

MARIAM asked:

Is Nigeria passing through a state of nature as posited by THOMAS HOBBES?. Examine your view with relevant examples

Aurora asked:

Hey! Im reading a treatise of the human nature by David hume and was wondering what his toughts about the Soul and body are?

Lauren asked:

I have a question in my textbook that I was wondering if you could help. The question is:

How would Heraclitus have responded to the following statement? "Heraclitus' theory is wrong because the objects we see around us continue to endure throughout time;alhtough a person, an animal or plant may change its superficial qualities, it still remains essentially the same person, animal or plant throughout these changes. In fact, we recognize change only by contrasting it to the underlying permanence of things. So permanence, not change, is the essential to reality"

anoop asked:

what does descarte's mean by saying that "human mind is better known than the body"?how does gilbert ryle challange descarte's mind body dualism?

maggie asked:

1.Who are we

2.Where did we came from?

3.Where are we going?

4.How should we live?

Jessie asked:


I'm currently trying to write a paper on my topic of choice with in philosophy. I came across the topic of Friendship that Aristotle wrote on. I was wondering what branch of philosophy this topic falls on? I'm trying to write something different. I'm hoping this is a topic I can find a lot on. I would also like to know, if it is an branch of philosophy, if you have any reads that would help me with different sides for example Utilitarians view. Id like at least three or four different views. I tried searching and its been tough. Please Help. Thank you

Tiffany asked:

Kant's theory is categorized as one that focuses on and evaluates "intent" rather than consequences because consequences of our actions cannot always be controlled by us. Consequently, if someone dies as a result of one of our actions and it wasn't our intent to kill the deed is still morally wrong because. Circumstances and contingencies do not provide excuses when following Kant's categorical imperative

Greg asked:

Does intelligence imply obligation? That is, does greater insight into problems, capacity to foresee longterm consequences, or effectiveness in clarifying values, imply a social or moral duty? Are we obligated to use our capacities to any particular end?

I'm curious both as to the answer, and as to which philosophers have addressed these sorts of issues.

Christopher asked:

This is a response to a question answered by Shaun Williamson that I asked about "intelligence/consciousness and evolution." In this answer, it was stated that "Being conscious means having sensory awareness of the world and to have sensory awareness of the world you need sense organs and a nervous system." My question regarding this is does this mean that if you are blind you are only 4/5, or 80, conscious? Given that we have 5 senses and your assertion that sensory awareness of the world is needed in order to be conscious. It follows from this that there are levels of consciousness. Therefore, someone with 5 working senses would be have a higher level of consciousness than someone with lt;5. If this is so, then wouldn't that also end the discussion about AI and other natural organisms having consciousness?

Lisa asked:

"That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow." What knowledge questions regarding sensory perception, language, emotion and reason can be extracted? How does this relate to the natural and human sciences?

bean asked:

what is a powerful objection to the phrase "Nothing Can Be Known"

Terry asked:

In Plato's Allegory of the Cave, the shadows represented

the fact that truth is elusive and cannot be found.

our doubts and lack of confidence in our own worth.

imperfect and confused representations of a higher reality.

the gods.

Shiresse asked:

which branch of metaphysics cosmology or ontology seem to you the shorter route to understanding of what is real? why do you choose it? use real life example to justify your claim.

David asked:

I have a question about the implications of John Rawls' two 'principles of justice' namely:

1. Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all.

2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions. First, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity, and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

My question concerns the second part of principle 2. Suppose there is a social or economic inequality which, if allowed, would reduce the wellbeing of the worstoff 1 of society by (say) 1, but would increase the wellbeing of everyone else by (say) 10. Suppose this inequality has not much to do with the principle 1. Would it be disallowed under Rawls' theory?

David asked:

I have a question about the implications of John Rawls' two 'principles of justice' namely:

1. Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all.

2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions. First, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity, and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

My question concerns the second part of principle 2. Suppose there is a social or economic inequality which, if allowed, would reduce the wellbeing of the worst off 1 percent of society by (say) 1 percent, but would increase the wellbeing of everyone else by (say) 10 percent. Suppose this inequality has not much to do with the principle 1. Would it be disallowed under Rawls' theory?

(Apologies for submitting this question twice; some symbols weren't displayed properly in the first submission.)

Amal asked:

Is philosophy essential in theology? if yes or no or why?

zam asked:

What position or thought of the philosophers struck you?

Mehdi asked:

What is the best way to resolve a moral dilemma?

I am facing the greatest moral dilemma of my life; both sides of the dilemma have great material and emotional implications.

At one side there is chasing my lifelong dream of living independently in a free country and having the chance of being financially successful by emigrating and starting my own business there but at the cost of leaving my parents alone at their old age which gives me a massive crisis of conscience.

my dreams but avoiding the bad conscience and having a boring but easy and wellpaid job in a oppressive and not so civilised middle eastern society. My parents are quite welloff so by leaving them I will not be troubling them financially but emotionally. My only sibling left the country eight years ago and they really only have me.

all the best and thank you.

Byeongcheon asked:

Hi, glad to meet you.

I'm college student in South Korea.

Since I realized that all that I'd thought were actually what other says, I've been wondering who I am or what I am.

I'd spent my school days under the extreme competition. Futhermore much more competition is waiting in front me.

I'm afraid of fading away.

Fortunately there was one thing that have comforted me, that is literature. But my range of literature is so narrow that favorite writer are just a few like Hesse, Tolstoy, Hugo.

But for me, they are not just mere writer but man with his thought. Religion also gave me some insight to look inside me. Even though I hadn't read Marx, his view on history sympathize me.

I think all the questions goes down to "What is human?"

Also, it can be reformed into "What is meaningful life?"

I know there could be right answer on it; but I can not let go and give up thinking about it.

This question could be one of many categories in Philosophy but also connected to other parts. Will you recommend some books on this question (I think books can be categorized and listed in order of history) and a general philosophy book somewhat readable?

Thank you for your help.

amber asked:

Is there something logically funny about the claim that all values are relative?

anam ali asked:

1) Does John Stuart Mill think philosopher come to an agreement about the criterion of right and wrong?

3) Is one of the objections that Mill responds to that the doctrine of utility is one only worthy of pigs?

4.) Does Mill believe that right and wrong are a matter of personal preference?

5) Does Mill believe that what makes an action right is the intentions of the agent?

Lisa asked:

Is competition bad for science? Should there be more cooperation amongst scientists? Does the monetization of activities lead to more successful results?

Were accustomed to thinking of competition as leading to discoveries and advancements in all walks of life. However, this article looks at how competition can sometimes lead to scientists being less than honest about the results of their research in order to secure funding for future projects.


Brad asked:

What is the difference between Plato's and Aristotle's view of the Forms?

Per asked:

Dear experts

I have veen wondering for quite some time now: if I was co ceived say a day or just an hour later than I actually was, what wojld have become of "me"??

Curt asked:

I have a question that I have always wondered about. If an archaeological discovery or a nonbiblical historical account

confirmed that certain portions of the Bible were historically accurate, would this mean that the findings of archaeology or extrabiblical historical accounts have more authority than the Bible? In other words, if A confirms that B is historically accurate, would this mean that A has more authority than B?

chris asked:

How does the Allegory of the Cave explain Socrates actions in the Apology and the Crito?

Martin asked:

Trace the notion of opposites from the thought of Anaximander through the thought of the atomists

Martin asked:

Give two versions of Pythagoras' metaphysical views.Why is Pythagoras important for later metaphsicians like Plato.

Martin asked:

How does ancient atomist Democritus differ from the theory of Empodocles and Anaxagoras?what important ideas does atomisism contain?

Dasia asked:

What are the normative moral principles of autonomy, beneficence and utility, and how are the developed in each of the following: a.Utilitarianism (distinguish between act and rule utilitarianism); b. Kantian Deontology. Give reasons why you find one of these theories more acceptable than the other. Your reasons need to contain criticisms of the rejected theory.

Tim asked:

In psychology, a psychological identity relates to selfimage (a person's mental model of him or herself), selfesteem, and individuation. An important part of identity in psychology is gender identity, as this dictates to a significant degree how an individual views him or herself both as a person and in relation to other people. In cognitive psychology, the term "identity" refers to the capacity for selfreflection and the awareness of self (Leary amp; Tangney 2003, p. 3).

Sociology places some explanatory weight on the concept of rolebehavior. The notion of identity negotiation may arise from the learning of social roles through personal experience. Identity negotiation is a process in which a person negotiates with society at large regarding the meaning of his or her identity.

julie asked:

what is subjective idealism?

Momo asked:

ontological argument given by descartes to prove the existence of god

ben asked:

if you could look at the start of the universe in infinite detail could you predict every event in the future?

Paris asked:

Who went to the oracle

jed asked:

Have you ever determined that something was wrong because, as described in Kant's ethics, it wasn't universalizable? (Of course, you didn't have to know Kant's ethics when this happened. I'm only asking if you happened to reason along with Kant, even though you didn't know about his view.)

If you have, describe the situation and why it isn't universalizable.

Raquel asked:

Explain the views of JeanPaul Sartre regarding God, human nature, and freedom. What does Sartre mean by 'existence precedes essence'? What might Sartre say to the claim that human beings do have a definite nature, and that part of this nature is freedom?

Patty asked:

I work for a philanthropic foundation that's connected to a financial firm. A month ago the founder of the firm was arrested for an indiscretion (personal and not work related) and because of this, 96 of his investors withdrew, essentially crippling the business and the foundation. I found out from a financial coworker that all the financial employees being laid off are being given a very generous severance package. The foundation consists of only me and my supervisor. My supervisor called another company to encourage them to hire me. He feels that because he has done this, he has no intention of offering any severance package for me. He said he would only ask for a severance package for me if the other company doesn't hire me. If I get this job it pays considerably less, and I will have to move and incur moving expenses and the cost of preparing my current house to sell or rent. I am not supposed to know what other employees are getting for severance. What is the ethical thing to do? Should I just grin and bear it, and say nothing about the unfairness; or do I have any right to say anything? Thanks!

bill asked:

many philosopher, and others talk about Redemption or man justifying himself. why do philosopher or church people think that this is needed? why?

bill asked:

many philosopher, and others talk about Redemption or man justifying himself. why do philosopher or church people think that this is needed? why?

robin asked:

what is the common sense reply to descartes method of doubt

lisa asked:

Explain and evaluate Hume's argument that we have no justification for believing in cause and effect except for a reference to custom. Be sure and include in your answer an explanation of what Hume means by his term custom.

Sarah asked:

How do we know whether a true belief of a person counts as knowledge?

What exactly is Nozick's account of knowledge?

Rachel asked:

I'm taking a Bioethics PHL 215 Health care ethics class, and I took a test and received 0 on the explanation on the test/ he stated he want me to pick the right answer and then explain why you picked the answer and is more interested in the argument not just the answer. What does this mean? Not sure, I know I'm answering the answers right but he wants us to argue why we picked that answer, like example what is euthanasia mean answer means god death, then why it is so. Could you please help me of what he expects on my explanation?

CLS asked:

What is Plato's Theory of Forms? How does Plato's Theory of Forms illustrate the influence of both Parmenides and Heraclitus?

tim asked:

what is continental philosophy as compared to analytic

best regards

nader asked:

How is knowledge different from belief? In answering the question, say something about the relationships between knowledge and truth, on the one hand, and belief and truth, on the other hand. Also try to say something about the different criteria for judging something to be knowledge as opposed to belief.

Elias asked:

A question similar to this one has already been asked by someone else, however it was in my opinion not answered in the original spirit of the question.

Gdels incompleteness theorems as far as I understood them showed that no system of human logic can prove its own consistency.

This is also obvious to common sense because every logic accessable to manking requires a reason for everything it postulates. Therefore it also needs a reason for its own laws to be true, which cannot be given based on those laws, since those laws have to be established, i.e. reasoned to be true and existing, first.

So it seems to me that when one tries to explain reality by human logic one must conclude that there is at least one "Something" (in the broadest sense of the word) which is illogical in the sense that it is not bound by the laws of human logic and therefore does not require a cause or a reason for it to be. Since this "Something" is illogical and humans have only logic and empirical observation to describe reality (or guess on reality) no describtion of this "Something" is possible for us (unless we observe it empirically).

This would show that human logic can never explain reality, i.e. answer the question "Why is there Something?" and that either (A)we conclude that there is "Something" trancending logic, which would not be far away from the concept of god or (B) that human logic is initially flawed (since it is not consistent) and we therefore can not know anything. Is this reasoning correct?

Best Wishes,


Sara asked:

Please explain the simile of the line/analogy of the divided line.

charity asked:

are all philosophers wise people

charity asked:

are all questions philosophical

Tomaj asked:

How am I to perform what Husserl calls "Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction?" I understand it involves suspension of the natural thesis of "things as existing out there," but how am I to actually perform this suspension? And what happens as a result of performing it? My understanding of Husserl is that suspension of this thesis should open up the field of transcendental experience. But so far suspension has been for me an intellectual effort to refrain from belief in the existence of the world; it is not like I was opened up to a new sphere of experiencing, especially experiencing the transcendental ego. What am I missing here? Thanks

Tobias asked:

What is the "examined ethicalpolitical way of life" for which Socrates is taken to trial by Meletus and which he defends in the Apology?

Tomaj asked:

I read in Kant's preface to CPR that, "All our knowledge must conform to objects." What does this mean exactly? And what does Kant refer to by objects?


steve asked:

2. Descartes ball of wax example is intended to show that:

Raymond asked:

Hi! I'm Raymond, a college student. I would like to ask some stuff about free will since it's really confusing. I hope you can ponder on this with me.

Can quantum theory in our decisionmaking be represented by our indecision? I am just not that satisfied by the philosophy that randomness is why free will exists. They argue that if the latter were the case, our wholedecision making will be random and chaotic. Something like that OTL

For another, regarding Benjamin Libet's experiments and Ted Honderich's criticism on it, can it be true that our conscious free will is not the fact that we can veto the agreement, but rather the awareness that there exists the urges that can lead to the following action? I don't know I am really confused.

Related to the question above, what if free will is a concept made by our brain? Since free will involves emotions and morals to factor in our decisions, what if free will is actually a set of reactions which comprise these morals that factor? What if morals are just ideas made of a complex bunch of neurons that can either inhibit or activate another bunch of neurons which activates our decisions? Doesn't that help determinism a lot more?

I hope you can shed some light in this really puzzling topic. I just can't grasp it's understanding. Thank you if ever!

mellisa asked:

discuss "the problem of other mind". how do you know that the person sitting next to you in class is not a robot?

mellisa asked:

discuss "the problem of other mind". how do you know that

the person sitting next to you in class is not a robot.

Tatiana asked:

According to ST Thomas, the difficulty in performing an act is

a. a measure of the goodness of the act

b. a measure of the goodness of the one performing it

c. a measure of gods delight in the act

d. one of the above

alex asked:

How does Russell's position on sensedata differ from Protagoras's position?

alex asked:

please describe the difference between Platos Allegory of the Cave and Simile of the Line

Craig asked:

Who is the greatest twentiethcentury philosopher and why ?

brandy asked:

In what ways does Platos Allegory/Myth of the Cave relate to ethics? Do you think Platos ideas successfully refute ethical relativism? Explain.

keyvan asked:

what is postmodernism?

Tiberius Meridius asked:

I have developed a point system for philosophers where I give them points for insight varying from 100 to 5000. It is subjective and arbitrary, but it has produced a top ten philosopher list. Confucious, Democratus, Nietzsche, Tzu and Aristotle have all scored well. My highest point getter is Jean Jacques Rousseau by far. I would like Mr.Lawrenz's opinion of this great man. This request must pass the 'moderator' who throws away 95 of my work. Aristotle said older minds become envious and 'contemptuous of opinons'. A tottering pride can set in as well. Wrinkles on the face also end up on the mind. The mind reaches it's prime at 49 according to Aristotle. I am 50 now. Please let this through.

Francisco asked:

What is the difference between subjective idealism and objective idealism?

moira asked:

what is the Kantian critique of Quinns strong empiricism ?

gorga asked:

Is morality the good life?

Tommy asked:

Hello. In regard to Nietzshe's theory of eternal recurrence, is it more of a philosophy to stimulate people to live differently, regardless of whether it is valid, or is the theory an actual valid explanation of reality? Thanks very much.

juan abed mora asked:

necesito evaluar una teora (la teora de la realidad) por una sociedad (autoridad)cientfica,la teora en si es de dos linas probada en 7 paginas aproximadamente.gracias

Emma asked:

Hiya, I'm Emma

Well basically at school, we're doing about philosophy, and I've got to study some people views on the world?

I was wondering if someone could give me their response in awnser to the question, 'Is this world all there is?'

I just want your opinion, thats all.

If you could help me it would be great

Thanks, Emma

rj asked:

What is the highest good of a man?

khanyisile asked:

what is eudomonia and how can one achieve it.

Akila buddhika asked:

Does innate ideas are ideas that are in born ?

Akila buddhika asked:

If we determined, the we lack the freedom necessary to be responsible' is that true ? please I need an answer soon .. thank you...

Brian asked:

When I challenged the usefulness of the idea of a priori knowledge, a fellowstudent came up with this:

" I think what Kant has in mind in the essay on enlightenment is probably something like moral or ethical knowledge knowledge about how to live, about right and wrong. If this is what "wisdom" means, then you might think that wisdom doesn't come from the evidence of the senses we don't use sense perception, either on its own, or supplemented with reasoning, to figure out what's right and wrong. Kant, for his part, would have held that view. He would have said that moral knowledge is "a priori" knowledge knowledge that can be had independent of experience. In particular, his famous "categorical imperative" which says you shouldn't perform an action if you couldn't coherently choose that everyone perform the same kind of action is something he thinks you can know by reflection, without any help from sense perception."

But I would suggest that ethical propositions can't really be described as "knowledge". They are more like directions or criteria. Furthermore, if they are to be germane to the purpose of living a human life well, they must surely be derived from observation of human behaviour at least that's what a modern positive psychologist like Jonathan Haidt would say. If they are generated a priori, and not from the appropriate experiences/studies, then their value is a matter of luck.

Could their be some connection between this and the bachelor status of so many philosophers?

Did Kant need to "get a life"?

What's more, I'm still confused by the apparent double meaning of a priori.

When applied to reasoning it seems to mean much the same as inference or deduction: going from what is known to something which logically follows the opposite of a posteriori or induction.

But when applied to knowledge it means not derived from experience,not going from what's "before", almost the opposite of the first meaning.


ashley asked:

why is it difficult to show that a person has acted from duty?

Gideon asked:

Would you like to be given the ability to remember clearly everything that has happened to you or that you have experienced in your life?

Why? or why not?

Gideon asked:

What is the value of chess to philosophy?

Gideon asked:

Do we see things as they are?

Gideon asked:

Is there any moral principle that applies to all selfconscious beings at all places and at all times?

Alyssa asked:

Devise an ethical scenario and apply the 1st and 2nd formulations of the Categorical Imperative. Do they both come to the same moral conclusion about the right course of action? Explain in 150 words

Jessica asked:

Why does Nietzsche say that there is something 'unhealthy' in priestly aristocracies'?

Imen asked:

which is more important, human or stars ?

Please explain what the quote from Socrates means, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

In what way does Nietzsche think that the priestly form of life has contributed to mans becoming of an interesting animal?

JESSE asked:

Is there such thing as a selfless act and if so, can you give me an example?

Gideon asked:

What conclusions, if any, can one draw from the inverted spectrum thought experiment?

Dan asked:


I saw the question 'is the world all there is?', and I have a related question. Does it seem utterly plausible to suppose, that given our current way of understanding, our current mode of inquiry, our current notions of reality, we can continually 'go beyond' these? I mean, out of a wish to become ever more intimate with reality. Or, alternatively, put it this way: Is there any assumption about reality, or at least any idea of what "knowledge" means, to which we seem limited?

kristen asked:

Are there any outside forces that can act on us to limit our free will? In the absence of these, does free will exist?

Mike asked:

Provide one example of moral judgment and analyze it in terms of utilitarianism. How would a utilitarian evaluate it? Do you agree or disagree explain why?

Mags asked:

What is the difference between Ontology and Metaphysics? The reason I ask, in case this information is helpful, is because Enrique Dussel in "Philosophy of Liberation" claims that his philosophy of liberation is a metaphysics, not an ontology. It was my understanding that they were the same thing (or at least very close in meaning), therefore I was wondering if I could have your thoughts on why he might have made this distinction.

Chris Reeves asked:

We would be doing a tutorial on introductory philosophy in a school in New Jersey next week, and my professor gave these as good starter questions for the students there. I would like to explain them in the simplest way possible so as to not complicate things as they are. (take someone who doesn't have any background in philosophy.) Please help me. Thanks! Chris

1. Why or when is something GOOD?

2. Why or when is something A WORK OF ART?

3. Why or when is something POSTMODERN?

4. Compare and contrast Authentic and Inauthentic Existence.

5. Is the Union of EGOISTS really possible?

6. Evaluate the CRITERIA of PERSONHOOD.

7. Aren't FEMINISTS marginalizing themselves?

Andrew asked:

What do you think? Is Plato/Socrates right, in that universals are real? Or is Hume right, and there really is no such thing as Red (but there are plenty of things that are colored red)?

Everton asked:


Emilia asked:

Which philosophers inspired Isaiah Berlin and had similar views on the concept of freedom as him?

Renz asked:

Explain "WHY" in the philosophy the questions are more important than answers? Also... Explain..Philosophy both personal and communal?

renz asked:

In what sense is philosophy a rebellious activity?

Jones asked:

What is meant by a 'disjunctivist' account of perception? What is the case for disjunctivism?

Smith asked:

Is the question whether or not a particular true belief counts as 'knowledge' merely vague or a matter of degree? If you think it is, what problem does that solve?

Velvel asked:

How intelligent do you need to be to study philosophy?

Gershon asked:

Why isn't there a Philosophers Party? (I mean in the political sense.)

Gideon asked:

What do you think of Nietzsche's theory of the eternal recurrence?

Jones asked:

What is your favourite paradox and why?

Emma asked:


I recently came upon your blog and had two questions that I thought would be interesting to ask since I think it can be very difficult to thoroughly answer:

What exactly is Relation R and how does is contribute to the philosophy of happiness? Also, what is the difference between free will and freedom and how do both play a role in the philosophy of love?

Kevin asked:

How would Kant and Aristotle differ on the topic of retributivism and punishment?

Kevin asked:

How do relativists and objectivists differ according to their approach with respect to the problem of evil?

hubertus asked:

What do you call "real"? What do call "objective"? How do you check the one and the other? Are collective concepts like "God" or "justice" or "progress" in any way "real"? In what way?

alex asked:

a definition of subjective turn in relation to karl marx

Jos asked:

Hi my name is Jos and my question is the following:

A rally during an election campaign, a spokesman said: In our country, there have been many robberies. Do you want to continue with this insecurity? Or do you prefer to be able to go out at night in peace ? So vote for the party X.". In my point of view the fallacy we are facing here is a the argumentum ad baculum because, in spite of being subtle, the spokesman is threatening the audience to vote for his party. If they do not do that they will feel unsafe.

joseph asked:

A friend believes that the five human senses -- seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and feeling -- are independent from one another and from our judgments of people and the world around us. Explain what is wrong with your friend's belief.

DORIAN asked:

Given our discussions in class and your readings, take a position on the mind-body problem; namely, do you think that there is a problem? B) Present an argument for your position. C) Explain and discuss your argument and position. Here, I am asking you to be little philosophers and to present a position and argue for it. You may draw from any material you like. But I want you to develop your own position! Be careful to avoid doing the following: A) do not beg the question regarding mind (dont just assume that mind exists or does not exist), B) don't plagiarize.

Dimitris asked:

For everyone it may concern,

I am Postgraduate student in Philosophy and I am writing an essay about the essential characteristics of agency. Actually I'm criticizing Korsgaard's notion that the characteristics that constitute a person's agency are autonomy and efficacy as she mentions at her book, Self Constitution. I believe that only autonomy is a constitutive factor of agency for two reasons: a)because in specific cases the Hypothetical Imperative is a consequentialistic principle that maximizes the goodness of a person's actions and b) because it can also undermine a person's autonomy as it only dictates his reason to follow a principle of his own causality.

Any possible responses about my theories are really welcome because I'm on a small dead end to oppose Korsgaard's possib;e responses to them.



lisa asked:

What was Kant's position regarding free will? was he a libertarian or a soft determinist?

Gideon asked:

What is a vacuum?

lucy asked:

How can you solve the Third Man Argument? (IN EASY TERMS PLEASE)

justin asked:

What do you think of Augustines view that history is not random, but follows a pattern? Do you agree with his emphasis on history as a moral struggle between good and evil?

Daesha asked:

What would the philosopher Aristotle say about lying to a friend to prevent an issue, or lying in general?

Example: Two of your friends are in a conflict because one was overheard talking about the other. You know that friend A did talk about Friend B, but it was in a private setting. Friend B comes to you and asks you if friend A talked about him/her. Do you lie to prevent a potential confrontation or tell the truth to Friend B?

Smith asked:

How many possible worlds are there?

hayfaa asked:

what does lactation conceive as the natural condition of human beings?

Bella asked:

Did Marx think that the Polynesians living on islands in the Pacific were part of history?

Why was Marx convinced that capitalism would fail? Why did Marxism fail instead?

Jones asked:

If a lion could speak, could we understand him?

Gershon asked:

Herman Hesse in 'The Glass Bead Game' describes a game which is played only by individuals of the very highest intellectual attainment. There is no point or purpose to the game other than the game itself and its aesthetic beauty.

What is the difference between philosophy and the Glass Bead Game? Is there any difference, ultimately?

Smith asked:

If we knew, for certain, that the future held the prospect of overwhelming misery for the human race, according to utilitarianism should we all commit suicide?

Jasmine asked:

What does one do when he has lose his self identity, by conforming to society's ideals ?

derek asked:

Is the idea of 'properly basic beliefs' one upon which most philosophers are agreed? What restricts the addition of any belief to the basic set of PBB'S?


Mckenzie asked:

Does Aristotle's doctrine of virtue as a mean relative to us imply that he really is an ethical relativist? Why?/Why not?

Mckenzie asked:

Does Aristotle's doctrine of virtue as a mean between extremes imply that he believes in moderation in all things? Why?/Why not?

simran asked:

How did feudalism bring an organized political system to Europe? How did feudalism contribute to social order?

don asked:

suppose you are cruising toward a planet somewhere else in the galaxy. from 100,000 miles out the place is spectacular. lots of green, blue and white. a lot like earth. maybe there is life.

a cloaking device allows you to land and move around undetected.

And there is life! the highest form looks much like an elk.

you see one 'elk' help strap a bomb around another elk. that elk then walks over, stands next to other elk, and blows itself up.

immediately compassion arises because you now what else to expect.

many elk are at war. millions are in prisons. the elk like tv! favorite shows concern watching other elk die. and parades are popular.

question: why do these 'elk' behave like man?

don asked:

your opinion of this concept:

existence cannot be conceptualized because it is prior to thought. if existence cannot be conceptualized, it is not an object. if not object, then not subject to time.

what appears as reality (object) is the unreal. like a cartoon. flip the pages, the characters change positions, but nothing actually happens. no 'thing' is doing anything. action but no actor.

conceptualization has no author. thinking but no thinker. ask this: what's the next thought? what's the next thought? there is no response. the mind is quiet. quiet because an idea asks the question. I am not the thinker! the mind is in the painting. how could 'it' ever identify the painter?

buddha called thought the 6th sense. I do nothing to see, hear, taste, smell, feel, or think. I am powerless. the powerless witnessing of manifestation. that's why jesus said: 'forgive them for they know not what they do' there is no doer of deeds. thought, like any other object, appears spontaneously.

i am either the body/mind writing this or I am prior for it is being experienced. I cannot be an object and prior to it. like an apple cannot taste itself. therefore, I must be prior to any idea. jesus also said: 'i am not god but of god.' and nissargadatta: 'i take my stand prior to all. I am the primal ground.

consider all that appears to occur an accident. there must be a witness to testify to the accident. like standing on the corner waiting for the car wreck. but there is no one there, only witnessing.

what am i? what am i? inquire until it is seen that no one is inquiring. when man sees that man is an idea, peace on earth. for if no thought, identify the enemy.

a young boy asked socrates: 'if I am not thinker, what should i do?' the reply: 'just go on thinking that you think.'

rest easy. whatever the station in life, it could be no other way.

Jaffa asked:

How would you rate Heidegger as a philosopher?

Vivian asked:

According to physics, objects like a table are mostly empty space. Does that mean that we are all under an illusion that the familiar things around us are solid and real?

Plum asked:

Someone once gave me a book called 'The Philosopher in the Kitchen' ('La physiologie du gout') by Jean Anthelme BrillatSavarin which I enjoyed reading. But I was wondering, Is there a philosophy of food or cooking? (or eating?). Would it be part of aesthetics? Anyone have any ideas?!

Stephen asked:

First of all, I want to apologize for my bad english.

My Question is about free will.

I want to belive in free will, I think the assumption of free will is very important for ethical concepts like responsibility and I think it's very important for the concept of human dignity that humans are able to decide about their fate and that they are not helpless bound into a strict causal chain.

But on the other hand, hard determinism seems logicaly true. Physics works with determinism, and I don't want to get into contradiction with natural science.

I am worried that I have no good, rational arguments for libertarian free will, If I want to hold on to the concept of libertarian free will.

Summarized, I want to hold on to the concept of free will, but determinism seems logically better to me.

What should I do? Should I accept determinism, or belive in some sort of compatibilist sort of free will? (besides, i find the compatibilistic free will not satisfying)

Ralph asked:

According to the ancient Greek philosophers what is Love (Eros) and Sex?

Marc asked:

Alright, I have a small problem. I am applying to graduate schools for my ph.d. My application is OK, decent grades, great writing sample, but there's this one credential that I definitely want to include but can't put on the online application. These days, the applications are all online, and for a lot of schools what you can't upload to the application, you can't mail in either, because they simply won't accept it. I wrote a book on skepticism and philosophical naturalism, and I am getting it published by an academic publisher, and I desperately want to include what I think is an important credential with my application. I don't just want to mention the book on my resume and in my personal statement, I actually want to send it. I can send it to a couple of places, but other places (that I want to get into) don't accept supplemental materials. I'm definitely not bragging or anything, because my book has a lot of flaws, but I think that if the admissions committee sees the actual book that will definitely have a psychological impact, and I want them to see it. How do I get around the problem with a few schools that they "won't accept supplemental materials" and (politely) get the actual physical book to the admissions committee?

P.S. This is for admissions committees in the United States.

simran asked:

during the middle ages in europe, most people never travelled more than 10 kilometres from their place of birth. what methods of transportation were available to villagers? how does this help explain why manors were isolated, selfsufficient organizations?

Phil asked:


My name is Phil and I've been very recently wondering about very disturbing stuff (including death anxiety) and I think I'm past the worst of it, but I have some lingering questions. Here's the background for one:

It seems when we examine real objects close enough, they become illusory (for example, at the quantum level)

Also, the self seems to be an illusion in the strictest sense, if by illusion we mean something that has no correspondence in reality (for example a mirage caused by a heated surface, when viewed from the correct perspective, seems to be a body of water. But there's never any actual body of water there corresponding to it in reality, its just a hot surface. In the strictest sense, then, the illusion is generated by the brain, and doesn't exist "out there".)

In a very trivial sense, this property of being "only generated by the brain" also applies to the self, therefore seemingly making it an illusion. And yet, the self is also real since it actually exists, for example I think, therefore I am... (I hope the self survives physical death, but I can't imagine how since all we know about self is that it is generated by the physical brain. But I'm comfortable with the possibility that it does.)

So, in light of all of the above, what do you think is the difference between reality and illusion?



Rachel asked:

What is logical space?

Rachel asked:

What is a spacetime worm?

Matthew asked:

In simple terms, could you explain the point that Strawson makes in his article 'On Referring' against Russell's theory of descriptions? Who's right, Strawson or Russell?

Shane asked:

This is about the possible world interpretation of modal logic.

Why do we need modal logic?

And why are possible worlds needed for modal logic?

What ARE possible worlds, anyway?

Shane asked:

How does Aristotle's understanding of 'the virtues' differ from the Christian view? And how does this affect Aristotle's conception of the nature of happiness?

Matthew asked:

Is truth a property? If so, what kind? If not, then what does it mean to say that a statement is true?

Matthew asked:

Can a counterfactual analysis of causal statements be successfully defended?

Matthew asked:

What is the meaning of a proper name?

Nate asked:

According to P.F. Strawson, facts are 'what true statements state'. What does he mean by that? How does this undermine the correspondence theory?

Alex asked:

It is held to be a criticism of utilitarianism that it 'has no room' for moral dilemmas? What does that mean and why is that a problem?

rogel asked:

Discuss briefly some advantages and disadvantages of using pictures that are low quality and pictures that are high quality.

rogel asked:

Do you think that sometime in the future computers will cease to exist?

Ibby asked:

Can you please give me 3 philosophical questions and answers about beauty?

JOHN asked:

PLEASE...formulate me a theory in understanding man's existence based on the philisophies of the 3 oriental sages and greek triumvirate.

Daphn asked:


would it be possible to say that Ricoeur's christian belief guided him into rebuilding Nietzsches deconstructed subject in reference to the Other, making it the very constituent of the self's meaning?

Many thanks!

Kindly yours,

David asked:

When one incorporates passion to create and striving of spirit, then it seems that deterministic functioning would not be psychologically acceptable and it would cripple a human being's ability to excel in all its abilities. Humans need free will in order to function optimally and humans certainly walk about as if free will does exist. Therefore, it seems superiorly more logical to believe that it exists and so it would be categorized as a true mystery of reality. What do you think of that argument?

Alistair asked:

Has Chalmers given sufficient reason for believing that the hypothesis of a twin zombie Earth is conceivable? Does it follow from its being conceivable that it is metaphysically possible?

Graham asked:

In the science fiction bodyswap scenario, what would it rational to believe about the experiences one will have afterwards? or can one believe whatever one wants to believe? Does it make any difference?

Pieter asked:

What's the difference (if any?) between ethical, metaphysical, epistemological or methodological solipsism? Are any of these variations a real challenge?

Max asked:

Zeus inspired reference and awe in millions of people. But he was not God. Or was he? Did those millions 'believe in God' in the sense we would understand this, even though they didn't realize that fact? Under what circumstances would it be true to say that a true belief about Zeus (e.g. that he lived on Mount Olympus) IS in fact a false belief about God?

Jackie (anon) asked:

what do you know about life.

siera asked:

What does Noam Chomsky mean when he says: Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune.

saru asked:

Good evening,

I am doing a school project on ship of theseus I was wondering if you could tell me how to incorporate aristotle's theory of substance and form in it.

Awaiting your reply,



Lizzy asked:

Was Kant a naturalist or a non naturalist what is the best way of explaining Kant in relation to meta ethics?



what is beauty and morality?

Natasha asked:

I used to have a metal wire puzzle/symbol what was shaped like a planet, a sphere with a wire ring around it. When you manipulated the wire, it would turn shape, like a cylinder and many other shapes and then return into a planet shape. I used to have this object as it has been passed down the family however it has been lost. My philosophy teacher once said it had something to do with infinity, but I'm no longer in contact with him.

What is this symbol/puzzle called? I would love to be able to replace it.

Thank you.

Amanda asked:

Ayn Rand says that every moral theory must answer two questions:

a) what things count as good?

b) how should the good things be distributed?

According to Mill, how does utilitarianism answer each of these questions?

Amanda asked:

One objection to utilitarianism is that it places too much emphasis on pleasure. After all, if we lived for pleasure we would just spend all of our time eating and getting massages. Such a life, according to these objectors is fit only for swine. John Stuart Mill says that it is not utilitarianism but these objectors who represent human nature in a degraded light. Explain Mill's point here.

john asked:

what is public administration

Mur asked:

Is the goal of an argument to abuse the audience?

noelia asked:

Are you familiar with James Rachels argument about Passive and Active Euthanasia?

I need help about finding if the premises are stated or unstated.

Vera asked:

in philosophy, why are questions more important than answers?

Jsan sked:

How can I prove to myself that I exist? Experience requires one who experiences. Therefore, the one who experiences must exist, as experience is observable. Where I hit a wall is the problem of presupposing the "I" in my answer: "I must exist." How do I know if I am the "I" in question? All I have so far is that to ask the question "do I exist" somewhat negates the premise of the question, because it implies subjective understanding of the concept of "I", which something that does not exist cannot have. But it still doesn't necessarily prove that I am the "I" in question. Now, don't get me wrong, in my heart of hearts, aside from all of this, I know I exist. It's just maddening because I can't get outside of my own perceptions to prove it (which I supposed is proof in and of itself, as no person who exists can).

Doaa asked:

what is the answer about this question?

* The Prophet: you have to know the philosophy of Gibran Khalil Gibran about unity and explain the marriage episode from the book and explain it in details to illustrate his philosophy and what are the factors that have made The Prophet a word literature?

Derek asked:

It it possible that there is no cause-and-effect, but only causes and effects?

Paul asked:

What is the power to the claim?

Can we say only what God is not?

Julia asked:

I need to compare and contrast Plato, Confucius, Locke and Rousseau based on the ONE MOST important GOAL of education in philosophy.

Charmaine asked:

Last night, a friend of mine referred to something as a: "True fact." My response was: "Isn't it redundant to say something is a true fact?" And aren't facts true? Are there false facts? As you might imagine, some people argued that facts can be lies or false. I remain resolved that a fact is true. To be factual is to be true. Facts can not be false. Am I wrong?

Bea asked:

What's a specific example that vindicates Berkeley's view that reality is only in the mind and not outside the mind.

Alex asked:

What exactly is a moral dilemma? Is it just a difficult moral decision? What is it about dilemmas that prevents them from being resolved by appeal to a moral theory like utilitarianism?

Eric asked:

Pierre is unable to decide whether to join the Free French Army or stay at home and look after his widowed mother. Can he be helped by appeal to an ethical principle or theory?

Joao asked:

How does the theory of fatalism relate to the theory of determinism? Could there be a world where fatalism was true and determinism was false? or a world where fatalism was false but determinism was true?

Andy asked:

What EXACTLY did Anaxagoras mean when he said that 'all things have a portion of everything'? Does this even make sense?

Jovain asked:

The knowledge of the truth, does it necessarily entails the dispersion of illusion?

Arvind asked:

Are reason and imagination two separate,antithetical entities? Are there some

situations or contexts in which they get interrelated?

Jasmine asked:

In the Apology by Plato what does the reference to the horse trainer means.

Socrates: Then every Athenian improves and elevates them i.e. the Athenian youth; all with the exception of myself; and I alone am their corrupter? Is that what you affirm . . . I am very unfortunate if that is true. But suppose I ask you a question: Would you say that this also holds true in the case of horses? Does one man do them harm and all the world good? Is not the exact opposite of this true? One man is able to do them good, or at least not many the trainer of horses, that is to say, does them good, and others who have to do with them rather injure them? Is not that true, Meletus, of horses, or any other animals . . . happy indeed would be the condition of youth if they had one corrupter only, and all the rest of the world were their improvers. And you, Meletus, have sufficiently shown that you never had a thought about the young: your carelessness is seen in your not caring about matters spoken of in this very indictment.

Maja asked:

Can you please explain Denis Diderot's philosophy?

Nicholas asked:

Is one of the reasons there are no time travellers visiting us (the general public) in the past because time travel is never seriously researched, given the stigma attached to the subject, and thus is never invented? Could there be other reasons, such as future government regulation/monitoring or limited use as another reason for no time travelling tourists in the past or present so to speak? Thank you for your time.

Kimberly asked:

Hello! My name is Kimberly and I am currently conducting a research project on Plato. If you could please answer some of these interview questions I have prepared, that would be superb.

1. What are some major works that Plato engendered?

2. How did Plato's works shape/contribute to modern society?

3. What are some shocking/vaguely known facts about Plato?

4. What are some philosophies/beliefs that Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates share in common?

Thank you for your time and patience, it is greatly beneficial!



james asked:

Believing that the mind was somehow separate from the body allowed people to believe... what?

Elaine asked:

so.... I'm a regular high school student who has run across the problem of not knowing what a monad is I try so hard to understand what Leibniz what trying to explain but it seems like monads are just a substance of everything. They're described as if they are alive yet they don't exist and at the same time they already know what they're suppose to do yet still nonexistent..*sigh* i'm trying to understand it all but in a way I can't please help!

Luis asked:

What similarities and/or differences do YOU see between Taylor's "Meaning of Life" and Plato's Apology ("Defence of Socrates")?

annC asked:

Hey there, I'm A2 philosophy student and I'm currently struggling with the substance dualism essay. So I thought you could help me by stating the basic principles of the theory, strengths and weaknesses and alternative theories. Also I'm not sure how to structure the essay (this seems to be my main problem). I'm currently using this structure: P1 strength + weakness + rebuttal and so on. Thank you so much for your time.

POUYA asked:

i want to know about holes fallacy

actually I want to know a hole of donuts are for donuts or they are separate from them

marissa asked:

How can you know you have a body if you can't know anything evidential about the external world

Kayliegh asked:

Why do we feel the need to do something

Peter asked:

When a person given unselfishly for the welfare of others, it is called altruistic. A person also gives to someone because it makes them feel good, but this is selfish; For if a person gives for another persons welfare, and the recipient does not make use, or appreciate the gift, which would positively affect their own welfare, then the giver will not feel good; in fact they will surely feel frustrated or worse, angry. These feelings are created because the desired outcome of the giver was not fulfilled. Therefore, with an expectation of the desired outcome, the person is not giving altruistically. Why then, should people give?

If a man is starving and I give him food, to feed his hunger, yet the man throws the food in the garbage, should I be frustrated?; for if I am, then the act of giving was not altruistic. In other words, I did not give the man food without any concern for myself; I gave him food on the condition that I would not be frustrated. Was my giving an act of altruism?

Nate asked:

The fundamental objection to materialism is that sense perception is unreliable, so our empirical knowledge of the world is faulty. true or false?

Katie asked:

If you try to fail and you succeed which have you done?

Katie asked:

Why are stair called 'stairs' inside but 'steps' outside?

Katie asked:

Could someone die as a result of suffering a great amount of pain?

Katie asked:

If a tree falls in the forest but nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Johan asked:

I refer to a previous question about artificial intelligence.

My question is : Is artificial intelligence possible to advance without the help and interference of a human pro(read intelligent) programmer?

( refer also to the major controversy in Pasteur's and Darwin's age ( the abiogenic generation of life).

The question put in a different way: Only intelligence can create intelligence ? True or false?

Erica asked:

Who determines whether a society is civilized or not?

Reaam asked:

I would like to ask what the main contradiction is in Plotinus' Enneads, mainly his concept of beauty. I want a solid contradiction towards one main point in Plotinus' Enneads.

Thank You

Jamie asked:

In what ways does Platos Allegory/Myth of the Cave relate to ethics? Do you think Platos ideas successfully refute ethical relativism? Explain

KELSEY asked:

The wind blew a leaf off of the tree.

Part 1: Plato and Aristotle held different philosophical positions. Using the example quoted above, present both of their metaphysical and epistemological positions. (Note: this requires four positions to be explicated.)

Part 2: Defend Plato against the following objection: Platos metaphysical position inadequately accounts for the leaf blown off of the tree.

Part 3: Defend Aristotle against the following objection: Aristotles metaphysical position is inadequate, because that which is most real is the Form Leaf.

Part 4: Finally, if you agree with Aristotle, reply to the answer you wrote in Part 2 by exploring and arguing a creative and new solution to one aspect of the problem. On the other hand, if you agree with Plato, reply to the answer you wrote in Part 3 by exploring and arguing a creative and new solution to one aspect of the problem.

I have no idea on this wind blowing the leaf off of a tree any advice would help

Christian asked:

David Hume and other empiricists make the assertion that if knowledge claims are limited to things we already know with logical certainty, we will never be able to know anything about the nature of mind independent world because:?

A) The actual existence of things in the world is known only through experience.

B) Simply by thinking or reasoning we can know specifically which things exist

C) Things in the world cannot be known to exist unless they previously existed in some mind

D)The existence of things depends on their having been created by some prior cause, God

Andre asked:

What is the underlying motivation for doing anything, what matters in human life, besides instinct what reason is there to do anything. They are all the same question, I thought life had no point so all that mattered was being happy and enjoying your existence, but I don't know why being happy matters. This question is asked to get the ultimate underlying reason for any action in life.

Reason, not an instinct.

Matthew asked:

Is J.S. Mill right to claim that the only thing we desire ultimately is happiness?

Tina asked:

What would Berkeley make of descartes reasoning concerning not trusting your senses and the wax example?

Darius asked:

If the human brain runs a program, what would happen if you upgraded the operating system?

Any ideas how one might do it?

Could the study of philosophy be considered an 'upgrade'?

sidra asked:

Hobbes thought that the state of nature is the way it is because human beings are essentially bad, untrustworthy creatures?

The second principle that Rawls thought would be articulated from the original position, the difference principle, encourages us to disseminate opportunities to those who dont deserve them on the basis that they were rendered unequal due to circumstances beyond their control?

Rawls original position forces us to consider whether or not we are unduly privileging one group over another when we articulate social policy, and in so doing helps to achieve Rawls vision of justice as fairness?

Julius asked:

What's the average time of completion, of your program; all the way through to the BA degree?



john asked:

People play games, especially in romantic relationships. Is game playing defined as lying, leading on, assumimg person as a defense mechanism, a sign of psychpathology or, even, possibly unconscious and not even realized by the game player?

Andrew asked:

What is Plato's theory of knowledge concerning the Good in his Simile of the Line?

tim asked:

if a person says they would feel like a criminal if they were to do some sort of action, is it right for me to assume that they feel like I am a criminal for doing that action or just that they feel I should also feel like a criminal for doing that saaction? If the action is not a criminal act under the law is it an act of slander for them to make such statements? in your answer , can you refer to any analogy in order to demonstrate what I'm trying to get at? here's one of my own : an artist says in a magazine: I would feel like a con artist and a cheat to the public if I were to paint using photographs as a reference.is it right for me to assume anything from that statement?


which of the following is purely logical relations and which are real?Giving reasons in each case.


2.our future life





7.A metaphor




Tom asked:

What kind of knowledge (a priori or a posteriori) did Descartes discover in the cogito argument, and how much help is it in defeating skepticism? What more is required in order to have knowledge of the real world?

Tina asked:

What would Berkeley's argument be against Descartes wax argument? Would he say the sensory properties are not different in the solid wax and the melted wax? How would his continuity theory come into the argument?

Daca asked:

Discuss the meaning of the Socratic maxim "Know Thyself" as a moral imperative. What is the nature and significance of the debate over the ontological status of the Good in Plato's Euthyphro?

Margaret asked:

what are the negative part of questioning government, society and traditions.

Thank you.

Valerie asked:

Hello everyone,

I had the following philosophy questions concerning patriotism versus "cosmopolitanism" or internationalism

(1) When is it ethically right for individuals and governments alike to show more concern for foreigners or people in other countries than for fellow compatriots, country men / country women / country people / citizens?

(2) When is it ethically right for individuals and governments alike to show more concern for our fellow compatriots / country men / country women / country people / citizens than for foreigners or people in other countries?

(3) Do utilitarians and cosmopolitans really believe that governments and countries should refrain from helping their citizens who experienced any sort of political or legal injustice obtain redress if it meant that it would help many more foreigners obtain redress for the graver political or legal injustices they have experienced?

(4) Could you view yourself as a cosmopolitan, an "internationalist," or a "citizen of the world or of Planet Earth" and still embrace the "positive" aspects of nationalism or how countries / governments see it as both their legal and ethical obligation and prerogative to look out for their citizens who were both within and outside the territory over which they hold jurisdiction?

Cole asked:

In what respects do the ethical theories of Plato and Aristotle stand in sharp contrast and in what respect are they alike? In what way does each Philosopher offer ethical or sensible guidelines for determining which beliefs and actions are proper or practical? How St. Augustine's Christian moral philosophy shows the influence of Plato? How St. Aquina's Christian moral philosophy shows the influence of Aristotle?

Hui Fei asked:

Hi, I'm Hui Fei, and I'm just wondering,

Is it possible to create a computer that recognizes similarities and links those information together?

I still have a few questions to ask regarding AI, if you don't mind helping


Thank you!

Valerie asked:

Here are some further philosophical questions concerning "cosmopolitanism"

or internationalism and patriotism:

(1) Is it all right to be patriotic as long as one's patriotism didn't get in the way of one's concern for people in other countries and pressing international issues? (i.e. human rights, terrorism, war and peace, environmental and animal welfare issues, international poverty and development.).

(2) Should people think it would be okay for countries to "watch the backs" of their citizens within and outside of the territory over which they had jurisdiction as long as they did it by DIPLOMATIC means ? ( i.e. by means of embassies and consulates.).

Valerie asked:

Here are some further philosophical questions concerning "cosmopolitanism" or internationalism and patriotism:

(1) Did you think diplomatic / consular support to so called "internationals" or foreign nationals is unfair (particularly in particularly "repressive" countries) since the "nationals" or citizens of those countries had no one in their corner to call on for assistance and they were more apt to languish in prison for years facing possible torture, or did you think support from foreign embassies / consulates "evened things out" for the foreign nationals since they may be at an "unfair disadvantage" by virtue of their being in a country that was not their own?

(2) Did you think it was all right for individuals and governments to show particular special concern for fellow compatriots/ county men / country women / country people / citizens who experienced political / legal injustices overseas along the lines of being arbitrarily detained / falsely imprisoned as "quasi" or "virtual hostages?"

(3) Should people be okay with being patriotic but have more of an issue with "extreme nationalism?"

Alan asked:

What is your philosophy of computer games?

Valerie asked:

Hello everyone,

I presume this is everyone's 00.2 on this or how if "identifiable fellow compatriots" or "identifiable fellow almost compatriots" (who would actually be the "internationals" or the foreigners) and either the identifiable or statistical people in other countries ( who would be the citizens of the countries with the "human rights issues" ) were enduring human rights abuses and civil liberties breaches overseas or in other words, legal and political injustices, e.g. arbitrary detainment, being held as "political hostages", that individuals and governments could show concern for both groups. I presume everyone would also find that showing special concern for "identifiable fellow compatriots" and "internationals" on the part of individuals and governments, governments in particular would be justifiable in this sense or jurisdictional issues would get in the way of greater action on behalf of the "nationals" or the citizens of the countries with the "human rights issues."

Thanks again. Valerie Nemeth

Valerie asked:

Hello again everyone,

I was looking for everyone's 0.02 worth with respect to the obligations of individuals in and governments of relatively "free and democratic" countries had towards people in "politically oppressive dictatorships." I presume that in addition to protecting and looking out for the citizens of those "free and democratic" countries who are abroad in the "politically oppressive dictatorships," the governments of the relatively "free and democratic countries" were ethically compelled to promote and encourage greater progress in human rights, civil liberties, and democratization. I presume the governments of the Western democracies are also ethically obligated to support prodemocracy resistance movements. As far as the citizens of the relatively "free and democratic" countries are concerned, I presume they have an ethical obligation to support groups like Amnesty International.

Thanks again. Valerie Nemeth

James asked:

Can we defend the notion of the present?

Maria asked:

I would like to criticize or reflect over the phenomenon or concept that a exam is. To be assessed by another human being must surely have philosophical implications. Even though teachers have certain criteria to follow still onces perception can be deceptive. Also I find that a graded exam presupposes something about the nature of man one which apparently is right; that one need incentive to strive forward, and in this lies the risk that one only becomes good at getting good grades which requeres a certain logic, and not so much on the studied field, and is left in a somewhat demoralised position afterward, having learned succes in a instrumentel way. So I guess I am asking several questions here:

is there a philosopher who is dealing with assessment not in taste and morals, but in general?

Is there a philosopher who can see how a situation like an exam can corrupt a youth, making them care less about knowledge and more about the game of winning having learned a strategic way of life?

Something about pretending, performing and being motivated by the wrong things, and maybe not as an individual as much as a member of a collective

Thank you on beforehand

Sorry about the spelling


Anthony asked:

Why does life suck so much? Not just my life, but everybody else's lives as well. No matter what we may do, we'll occasionally ask why we're doing what we're currently doing. We answer with a chain reasons that leads to some goal that we made before, but have forgotten why we made that goal or why it is we want that goal. Perhaps we do remember, but then aren't sure what we'd do once we get there. All the while, you realize you've wasted time setting and breaking goals and accomplishing some that now seem meaningless. That wasted time, you realize, withers away your youth and brings you closer to death's door.

Knicky Thompson asked:

Does ethical relativism follow from culutural relativism ? If so how ?

Stein asked:

I was wondering if someone has read Michael Dummett's "Bringing About the Past" and actually understood his arguments. I am not a newbie to philosophy, but I thought this article was quite hard to grasp. I was first presented to this article 5 years ago, when attending a course in epistemology/philosophy of science at the University of Oslo, Norway (a bachelor course). Since then I've been attempting to undertand it without success. And I don't know where to look for a nottootechnical explanation of his article either a (long enough) summary, or a stepwise explanation. Every response to the article "Bringing About the Past" either is way too technical or picks out some specific feature. And that, I feel, is of no help.

I "understand" the beginning of the article what he means by our predjudice when it comes to the future and the past, that it's only because the asymmetry idea is too deeply ingrained in us, that we have to (or better, for argument's sake, try to) free ourselves of our predjudice about asymmetry. But from here and on I get COMPLETELY lost I cannot reproduce his argument(s). Don't know if my lack of understanding hinges on my interpretation of the phrase "bring about", which I take to mean "cause to take place" (implying replacing whatever event/circumstance was already present in the past) I can see no other good interpretation of the phrase "bring about." You, of course, have the special case where no event/circumstance already was in the past, in which case "bring about" would imply replacing nothing, i.e. replacing/filling up some empty time/space stretch with some event/circumstance.

Taking "bring about" to mean just what I did above implies quite strange results (but actually not more strange than ridding oneself of the conception of asymmetry between future/past). One could ask (a natural question for any rational person) : how can one generalise this ? If this is not a special case of prayer and this particular tribe that Michael uses, then it must apply to everything ? We could pick literally any example and play with it. For instance, I could (in principle) cause myself not to be born in the past, which would yield the strange (but not more strange than annulling the conecpt of asymmetry between past/present) result of me dissappearing right now in the present (or perhaps like in "Back to the Future", where the body dissappears in a stepwise fashion right before the protagonist's (Michael J. Fox's) eyes).

Or I could kill Michel Dummet when he was alive before he produced this article, which in turn would remove the CAUSE for me sitting here and wandering what the hell Michael (Dummett) was saying.

Since this conclusion seems TOO absurd to me, I am inclined to think that I made the wrong assumption somewhere along the line, or that my reasoning just went astray (or it seems that this is how philosophers argue if a conclusion disagrees with intuition, then the conclusion goes over board, not the intuition). But I still maintain the importance of understanding this article as it must have caused a lot of havoc when it was published. And if it caused havoc (I know there exists many responses to this article), it must be because the article made an impression by bringing up something profound.

Anyways, I have attempted to explain to the best of my ability what I wonder about and hope that someone could throw some light on the issue.


Eboni asked:

Can you think of any way for Locke to defend his claim that substances exist but that we do not know what they are? How would Locke respond to Berkeley's conclusion that we can know only ideas?

Eboni asked:

Rene Descartes, the father of the western canon of philosophy, reestablishes his system of beliefs because of his famed statement corgito ergo sum. Where is the place of the thing that thinks in Locke's system? Explain the standard form and how it applies to systems of Descartes and Locke.

Hank asked:


Is it true that you only become a real philosopher when you accept your own suffering? If you don't weep with your heart how can one even dare to call oneself a philosopher?

Becoming a philosopher is the greatest catharsis ever, isn't it?

Valerie asked:

I hoped you wouldn't mind giving me your "take" or 00.2 worth on these matters concerning impartiality and whether or not one ought to show special consideration for one's fellow compatriots or for foreigners read : people in other countries especially as far as situations involving human rights are concerned. I find I was still interested in matters such as whether or not the embassies / consular offices and those of democratic countries in particular could still justifiably look out for just their nationals in cases of countries that were either "politically repressive" or "semi democratic" when the nationals of those countries may be at the mercy of the governments of their countries and also have no one to look out for their rights and interests and whether or not governments and countries could even justifiably look out for their nationals abroad in situations where "considerations of humanity and humanitarianism" ought to trump "considerations of nationality and citizenship."

Valerie asked:

Here is another one for the "Ask The Philosopher" page: I couldn't help but wonder if a consequentialist would no doubt feel that countries should refrain from letting their overseas embassies / consulates / consular offices and diplomatic missions defend and advocate for their overseas nationals and citizens and their lives, rights and interests, if it meant that those overseas embassies / consulates / consular offices and diplomatic missions could defend and advocate for a larger number of foreigners whose lives, rights and interests were at greater risk and peril.

Tish asked:

I am having a hard time understanding Augustine's three refutations to skepticism. what exactly are they?

peter asked:

I heard a statement that if ought cannot be derived from an is, it is not wrong to hurt someone? Any idea lol Thanks

Michael asked:

I am asking if you believe the following two arguments are logically valid.


P1: A position which leaves you with only two incorrect options cannot be correct.

P2:(q) is a position which leaves you with only two incorrect options

C: (q) cannot be correct


P1: Both (r) and (n) are incorrect

P2: If you deny or disbelieve in (q), then your only two options are (r) and (n).

P3: (position a) denies or disbelieves in (q).

T: (position a) is incorrect

lexi asked:

who claims that claims the body and mind, which are made up of different substances, interact both harmoniously and competitively in a living person. Which philosophers work is this?

Valerie asked:

This is my take on "when a person who sees him or herself as a "cosmopolitan" could justifiably not "disregard his or her patriotic concern for his or her fellow compatriots / co nationals / country men / country women / country people / citizens "for the greater benefit of the world,"" or when those people unexpectedly took seriously ill, became accidentally injured, wound up *unjustifiably* "locked up abroad," or otherwise met with some other* undeserved *misadventure overseas and they needed their fellow citizens and compatriots to clamor for their country's consular office or embassy to come to their assistance, though the world may have had "more pressing" human rights issues and other concerns that needed to be addressed. I suspected that in theory at least, most foreign service officials would feel "duty bound and compelled" to intercede for their "fellow nationals and citizens in dire straits abroad," though their involvement in their country's foreign service may have given them an outlook that was more "cosmopolitan."

Kamil asked:

Explain Hobbes justification for a government with absolute authority. Do you think that his call for an absolute government is merited? Relate your arguments with present day examples.

Kamil asked:

Elaborate Lockes idea of toleration. Critically analyse how the society from which you come from can draw lessons from Lockes arguments on toleration.

jason asked:

There is a question I promise...

I have noticed, at least in my corner of the universe, that we like to throw around a lot of ideas about the way of things as it is, was or should be. Yet it seems people feel compelled to float in a land of intentional error or omission.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND: As much as I have studied and tried to eliminate bias in my personal thought patterns dont think that I dont fear this about every one of my own conclusions every day.

I truly feel that the majority of all problems are caused either by ourselves or other humans usually through a misinterpretation of information, deliberate omission or distraction. And the majority of all problems and questions (regarding humans) have answers that are simple and obvious if we choose for them to be. Communication, language specifically, is the vector for ideas to spread through the vast human neural network. I believe that what we contribute is important.

I strive, when I communicate to avoid lying (anything untruthful) as much as I feel possible, to be accurate and (because of a mental defect that causes my lips to flap too much) thorough. I have found, however, that the majorityish of the time people respond to (trying to make) truthful, accurate and thorough statements anywhere on a continuum from anger and pain to indifference.

I enjoy (need really) the pleasure of mingling amongst humanity. This is not that easy for me given my above stance. My culture, and it seems to hold in the others I have studied, has such a convoluted way of solving problems and uptaking/reuptaking information it seems rude usually to convey the direct truth as one sees it (unless their truth is a close match to the one the hearer is listening for). Even indirect truth can be upsetting if its veil is thin enough to be seen though. Why then would one even speak it?

Because our upbringing and supposed social values tell us to be truthful but social convention tells us not to. So we make silly middle ground statements which create no cognitive dissonance for ourselves or others because they are mostly bland and useless.

This brings up (what for me) looks to be a pivotal question regarding my path:

1.Morally it seems right to me to communicate in a way that is at least a good effort at addressing that which is going on or being queried in said truthful and accurate manner.

2.Morally, as I dont believe in souls, it seems right to me that I should (as wisely and decently as possible) snap up as much pleasure in life before I cease to exist.

3.Much of the pleasure in my world comes from human interaction.

4.Point 1 leads to significantly less positive human interaction than I would like.

What Say You?

Your thoughts are most appreciated and will be well considered.

P.S. (another aspect)

It seems that we grade wisdom from others based on how emotionally confident they seem about what they are saying. This makes sense on a cursory level, yet I think what it eventually promotes is many statements, due to social pressures, that are made with false confidence. When trying to give an accurate answer, attacking the problem from many angles and leaving food for their thought, I think that I am often perceived as less emotionally confident and thus less wise (or perhaps just less emotional and thus seem less convicted).

Should one act confident falsely to please the person even at the expense of giving the best advice they can?

Jon asked:

How does Jerry Fodor argue for functionalism in The Mind-Body Problem?

Valerie asked:

I found I was interested in this philosophical matter of whether or not countries could justifiably look after purely and exclusively just their citizens overseas and the related matter of whether or not they should devote their diplomatic resources to looking out for their citizens overseas or encouraging greater democratization and progress on human rights.

Christopher asked:

I have this idea about Ethics, and I want to know if it is original, or if other philosophers have discussed ethics in this way. Also, any critique would be appreciated.

The underlying assumption is that all actions can be described in moral terms (good/bad). This is much similar to Aristotle's view that "all actions aim at some good," except I replace "good" with "goal" or "purpose." So, if this is the case, then whether or not an action is good/bad could be determined by whether or not that action achieves it's "goal," or fulfills its "purpose," would be another way of putting it (similar to Consequentialism I suppose). And if this is the case, then couldn't (at least in theory) a universal morality be established? For example, we could explain actions in the way that they relate to a purpose/goal, and then make more generalized moral judgements about those actions. So, for instance, we could say that "all actions that are beneficial to one's health are good." And likewise continue to do the same thing with other purposes. Now, I understand that other things would be involved, such as motivations, intentions, etc., and that things would get complicated with more complex behaviors because some behaviors have more than one consequence (many of which are unforeseen), and because many behaviors may serve more than one purpose/cause, but I still think it's at least possible theoretically.

My way of looking at this is that morality can be defined on universal terms (at least some universal moral statements are possible) and that morality itself is subjective. There just happens to be some overlap that all of us would have in common. So in essence, each individual person's morality could be validated by whether or not the action achieves the desired consequence. This could also be done on a bigger, global scale in more generalized terms. For example, it may be possible to say that "killing an innocent person is wrong" (universal), but whether or not a person is innocent is subjective. So one person may feel justified in killing someone, because he/she doesn't view that person as being innocent, but another person may believe that that person is innocent and therefore believe that killing that person is wrong.

Reaam asked:

Schopenhauer in the world as a will suggests that the fear of death is completely equal to the will to live. What is more, he believes that the fear of death or the will to live is irrational and it is even irrational to justify it because animals and all orginac matter obtains a will to live, and animals and trees cannot think rationally therefore its irrational.

I want to refute the notion that it is irrational to justify the will to live merely because animals have it. Can you please help me with and argument to refute this claim.

Much appreciated! Thank you

Paul asked:

Can existence not be?

Yvonne asked:

Good afternoon. I have some questions about history I hope it's no inconvinience. I want to understand the nature of human history, if such a thing is possible. 1st what does/ should it study, human action or human ideas through time, power and politics or the works of people in time. Human nature or the evolution of man(socially). How does interpretation of history affect people's vision of the future. How can it support universal indoctrination or ideology or lead to a socially constructed moral scale. And if revolutions can be a bridge from one era to another eg french revolution can one argue that the Arab spring is drawing that part of the world to the West. I hope my questions are not to many.


Jo asked:

I agree with Hume that extreme scepticism about the outside world isn't practical. ARE there any good arguments against solipsism when not being practical?

Cassie asked:

what exactly are descartes' cosmological and ontological arguments?

Valerie asked:

Though it is standard procedure to value human lives according to citizenship and nationality, I wondered if you also believe in most respects that it seemed ethically unjustifiable to do so and that people should give all people equal ethical and other consideration regardless of what citizenship and nationality they happened to have. I wondered in what cases it was morally and ethically justifiable to value human lives according to citizenship and nationality.

Carlos asked:

Which of the following problems affects our understanding of justice? Whom we include and exclude in our communities.

Whether we focus on the community or the individual.

How we distribute the benefits of society.

All of the above

Bob asked:

What is life?

Jess asked:

Is it possible for anything to matter? My drama teacher says if you make a mistake in a scene, don't worry about it because no one will even remember it in a week. But can't that apply to everything? If I jump off a bridge, sure my whole family and friends would be devastated, but eventually they'll die as well, and no one will even remember I existed in the first place. If I cure cancer, almost everyone on the planet would be affected, but it's only a matter of time before the human race completely dies out, and nobody will be alive to remember cancer at all, let alone who cured it. And with time, even the Earth will die and the whole impact the human species made on Earth will be entirely irrelevant. Even the Galaxy will die some day! How can I feel like anything I do matters? Does this justify suicide? Global warming? Am I thinking about this totally wrong?

Please help!!!

(I should probably add that I don't believe in life after death)

Dermot asked:

Hi , I'm very curious about the way modern society uses the word abuse .

I made a claim that children who were obese through overeating were being abused , this statement caused outrage . If we starve a child it's abuse , if we stuff a child with junk it's not seen this way , why is this so ?

SUNITA asked:

"LOGIC IS A SCIENCE OF SCIENCE " explain in brief

Eric asked:

In my Modern Philosophy class we have touched on Leibniz and Descartes, from the readings I have a few questions.

the contradiction found in Descartes' Meditations II and III. In Meditations II Descartes says that he cannot doubt that he is a thinking thing. However in Meditations III, it appears that he does doubt it because he believes that God may be tricking him. How is it possible for him to believe both of these things?

What for Leibniz, is the status for the Principle for the Identity of Indiscernibles? Is it a Necessary Truth? a contingent truth? a truth about any world God might create?

joseph asked:

what would be a good way to use Confucianism as an example of Susanne Langer's analysis of horizons in her book Philosophy in a new key?

nikki asked:

Hello, can you please explain what role Newton and Copernicus' Theory played in the demise of classical beauty in art?

My second question, I hope this is allowed is: "Is all art sacred?"

Thanks so much in advance great site :)

Rachel asked:

Does God believe in himself?

Josh asked:

I had a few questions for you over the book I just read "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche:

What position does does Nietzsche take on the value of egoism and what position does he take on the value of pity?

Is Nietzsche's perspectival method effective?

What is the least appealing thing, in your opinion, to the freespirited thinker Nietzsche talked about?

Joe asked:

What is an element that Quine, Ranciere, And Jacob Burckhardt all share?

Roberto asked:

I am preparing a paper on Kant, and have read and reviewed some of his moral writings. It is well known that the Categorical Imperative (CI) is one of the central elements of his moral theory, even though it may lead to conflicting instances, given its "rigidity" (like the famous example of the person who lies to protect the lives of those hiding at his house). I would like to write my paper on whether there should be exceptions to the CI. Could you please suggest a paper by a professional philosopher that focuses on this aspect, so I can refer to him, and then provide my personal perspective?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Roberto Garrido

david connery asked:

If the universe was created in a big bang .before light ,matter,and time .if there was no time how can there be a before.if there is no matter how can any reactions chemical or physical or other occur .it is impossible to make something with nothing .is our universe just one of many .in a cycle created out of the death of another.Do you think the big bang was part of another cosmic event .ie creation or death of other unknown universe(s)

Alyssa asked:

According to Kant, what are the three types of judgement and what did Hume overlook?

Josh asked:

I had a few questions for you over the book I just read "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche:

What position does does Nietzsche take on the value of egoism and what position does he take on the value of pity?

Is Nietzsche's perspectival method effective?

What is the least appealing thing, in your opinion, to the freespirited thinker Nietzsche talked about?

zuleika asked:

In Section I of the Groundwork, Kant draws a distinction between actions that are "in conformity with duty" and actions that are "done from duty". In Book II, chapter 4, of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle draws a distinction between actions that are merely virtuous ("having some quality of their own") and actions done "in accordance with virtue". In what respects are Aristotle and Kant drawing the same distinction? In what respects do their distinctions differ?

Stefanie asked:

Overall, what does socrates mean by wisdom in the oracle of delphi?

danielle asked:

im writing a philosophical essay, and I dont know what to write about

Wil asked:

Please tell me, are objectivity, rationality and universality necessary requirements for all philosophical truths? Are they even possible?

Sid asked:

Could you please let people who are interested know where (in which library/museum/monastery)the first known copy of Plato's writings that are the origin of subsequent "versions"/translations are kept?

I don't know why I could not find this information in, for example, the "introduction" of any old/new editions of Plato's writings !

Angel asked:

I have three questions

1) What is Confucius' role in the modern Chinese culture?

2) What is Plato's role in the modern education culture?

3) And if both of them have difference towards each other on both of those cultures, how do you explain them?

kate asked:

what is relevant data that supports the inferences about "Do we use 10 per cent of our brain?" Step by step explanation of how data relates to topic.

Ryan asked:

What are the various ways in which one could go about trying to demarcate science from pseudoscience?

Jeffrey asked:

how does Locke solve the problem with personal identity?

Piers asked:

What is the answer to the old Greek riddle: "How do you know that you're not dreaming right now?" Someone told me the answer once, but I've forgotten it! Thanks

William asked:

I have a question on the truth functionality of counterfactual conditionals.

In his book, Methods of Logic, W. V. Quine states that,

Whatever the proper analysis of the contrafactual conditional may be, we may be sure in advance that it cannot be truthfunctional; for, obviously ordinary usage demands that some contrafactual conditionals with false antecedents and false consequents be true and that other contrafactual conditionals with false antecedents and false consequents be false.

(Quine uses the term contrafactual; current modal logicians substitute this for counterfactual, which I will use for this question).

However, Quine does not provide an explicit analysis of this lack of truth functionality of counterfactual conditionals, and the examples that I can conjure up seem to similarly apply to material conditionals so that they no longer seem to be truth functional either. (Of course, by truth functional, I simply mean that the truth value of the whole statement is determined by the truth values of the constituent parts. In the material conditional, X gt; Y, the truth value of this conditional is determined by the truth values of X and Y).

For example, suppose that Chris is currently in England. In this case, the following two counterfactual conditionals both have a false antecedent and a false consequent.

1. If Chris were in Toronto, then he would be in Algeria.

2. If Chris were in Toronto, then he would be in Canada.

Since Chris is in Mexico, then he cannot be in Toronto, Algeria, or Canada. If counterfactual conditionals were truth functional, then (1) and (2) would both be true (since a false antecedent and a false consequent result in a true conditional). However, it is obvious that (1) cannot be true, while (2) is true (Toronto is a city in Canada, so that, if Chris were in Toronto, then he would indeed be in Canada).

However, suppose that the same situation obtains in which Chris is in England, but we simply change the tense of these conditionals from the subjunctive into the present.

3. If Chris is in Toronto, then he is in Algeria.

4. If Chris is in Toronto, then he is in Canada.

But we have the exact same problem: Chris is in England, not Toronto, Algeria, or Canada, so both (3) and (4) have a false antecedent and a false consequent, meaning that both (3) and (4) should be true material conditionals. However, once again, (3) is clearly false, whereas (4) is clearly true.

I am certainly not one to contest against Quine, so I think I have clearly gone wrong somewhere, but Im not sure where my reasoning is flawed (and Im sure Ill be smacking myself afterwards at how simple of a mistake I made). Any help would be much appreciated!

menachem asked:

are there different types of answers for answering the question "why"?

Alternatively stated, can the question "why" be subdivided into different goal or answer seeking questions?

Philip asked:

Is there a possibility of Metaphysics?

Reuben asked:

Do you know a good anticonsequentialist argument for the proposition that it is wrong to tell a lie?

Jeff asked:

What is holism?

Benjamin asked:

How does JS Mill's notion of utility relate to Aristotle's eudaimonia?

William asked:

What is 'the fallacy of irrelevance'?

larry asked:

was kant an empiricist

BILL asked:

What is the philosophy that teaches:

"Do what you like without impacting others"?

I heard of this theory recently but I would like to learn more about it. It seems like a better version of the biblical "Do unto others"

Nick asked:

Do penguins have knees? More importantly, should the average person wear sunscreen (not literal sunscreen, but metaphorical) or is this for successful people only? Also, is it possible to have success and not be successful?

Ki asked:

According to Patanjali, is it the Lord is the God who created you?

Eugene asked:

Is the Trees and Leaves Paradox an example of an a priori or an a posteriori statement?

Roberto asked:

Could you please suggest two philosophers, preferably from different periods, who have explored the role of the religious mystic individual on influencing justice order of their time?

Thank you.

Jed asked:

Can anyone here explain process philosophy?

Darius asked:

Evaluate the contribution of Hilary Putnam to philosophy in the 20th century.

Gershon asked:

Do philosophers still believe in the analytic-synthetic distinction? Did Quine in his attack on the analytic-synthetic distiction go too far or did he get it about right?

Smith asked:

This is a question about ethical consequentialism and in particular the views of Peter Singer. In your opinion, how many mature orang utangs are worth the life of one newborn human infant?

Gideon asked:

What is an impossible world? What use, if any, does the notion of an impossible world have in modal logic?

Kevin asked:

What is beautiful (aesthetics)

Christine asked:

If a tree falls in the forest when nobody is around, does it make a sound?

Jenny asked:

Will you please explain the importance and process of keeping a personal philosophical journal/notebook?

Neonx asked:

Hi, I was wondering, do possibilities even exist? I was thinking about the concept of choices, but I found that (rather obviously) only one outcome can be presented. Does that mean we exercise no choice of free will or that chance does not exist as the outcome is only limited to one? By the above theory, can I say that every moment of time is existent as the future is already preset before us?

p.s. I'm 14 and my concepts may be seriously flawed....

CASI asked:

Could one be selfish and a good Confucian at the same time?

Nancy asked:

Kant says actions have their moral worth in duty, one of our deities is volition , or better known as what?

Andre Jose asked:

While no ideal persona has established for philosophers to aspire to ... what ideal persona should a student of philosophy aspire to if he or she wishes to become a "respectable ..." philosopher?

Dean asked:

I had a question about one of Nietzsche's sayings in "Human, All Too Human". in "The Religious Life" Section 123 He says, "There is not even religion enough in the world to destroy its religions." I searched and thought a lot about this quotation but I couldn't find the true meaning behind it. I wanted to see if it's possible for you to give me a brief meaning in a simple way.

Appreciate your help and consideration.

Abdull asked:

For the early Wittgenstein of the Tractatus, religious statements are ...?

a nonsense, because they do not 'picture' facts.

b meaningful in the clearly confined context of faith.

c are simply false, but not nonsense.

d meaningful, but neither true nor false.

Mike asked:

In Famine, Affluence and Morality, Singer gives an argument for the conclusion that "our moral conceptual scheme.. needs to be altered" Formalise singers argument so that its a deductively valid argument for this conclusion. Include missing premises, sub conclusions, and conclusions (if there are any). Your formalization should be 715 lines, where a line is a premise, sub conclusion or conclusion.

Formalization needn't be formally valid, in the way propositional logic is formally valid. However it still must be valid.

Article link here:


Please help me structure this?? I have no idea!

Otavio asked:

What exactly is metaphysical naturalism and what do you think are the best arguments for and against it?

Calvin asked:

does morality or ethics cover up all phases of human life?

Pstros asked:

Who am I?

What is the truth?

What is reality?

What is imagination?

Why do we evolve?

Am I an ostrich?

Sara asked:

How do Socrates and Nietzsche approach the topic of Truth; how do they address it, how do their approaches relate and differ (Significant similarities and differences), and how are the two approaches incorporated into the life of today; that is, what thoughts and questions does each approach raise? What previous opinions do they confirm, help express better or differently, or raise questions about? What issues do they cause focus on? What difference, in thought, feeling, or action, might each approach engage humans in making?

Andreina asked:

Why does Sober think that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism ?

Beth asked:

What is skeptical of if anything of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume's theory of knowledge

Varghese asked:

I would like to get clarity on the concept of other in the philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre

JEFFRY asked:


luvy asked:

I am trying to study logic, but I find it a little hard. can you tell me where to start.

HARVEY asked:


imandhi asked:

How can we prove that socrates lived his philosophy according to apology by plato

Kyle asked:

How is philosophy related to justice?

Mars asked:

How is philosophy related to justice?

Cassie asked:

Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality?

abigirl asked:

what can we make of existentialism and the fact that it was one of the dominant philosophies of recent times? Are we to conclude, with Sartre, that we live in a world without objective values a world with no meaning in which we must take responsibility for "creating our own essence"? What are the implications, both positive and negative, of such a philosophy?

Shawn asked:

Hi. I am having trouble understanding the procedure of Kant's categorical imperative. My professor gave all of us the following map.

Imperative=formula=relates universal law to imperfect human will=determines necessary action=action not motivated by selflove or desire for a particular result=based on form and principle from which action follows=allows preservation and cultivation of good will=obligation=practical unconditional necessity for all rational being

I understand the imperative but what is the formula? I have been listening to lectures on the internet and reading blogs for two days and am still confused! Please help me.

Thank you,


matthew asked:

If one choose to accept randomness as reality, how can one determine order? In other words, if we are to begin to define randomness do we also create order in the process. May a definitive ever arise out of randomness.

Referencing to how scientists define laws and theories that govern our reality, but how their understanding of the universe is still a perplexing guess.

ERICA asked:

Kant was one of the first thinkers to realize the consequences of Hume's relentless attack on the scope of reason" (Soccio 319). What is meant by Hume's attack on reason? What did Kant do to counter this attack?

3.Compose an analysis of Kant's categorical imperative. Is it is a useful moral rule? Why or why not? Detail at least one pro and one con of the theory

shubbie asked:

human life is a never ending questioning and ansdering .

SHUBBIE asked:

questions open many possibilities? explain.

shubbie asked:

to take of one's own body is to take of one's self? Explain.

Lawrence asked:

Can fundamental questions (of any subject) have several answers? If so, can ideas built upon these answers diverge into many different ways of interpreting the subject?

allan asked:

Why didnt Noah swat those two mosquitoes?

Wayne asked:

How do you compare and contrast the concepts of determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these positions?

Dan asked:

In what way is Plato's theory of the blending of Forms in his later dialogue The Sophist an advance on his earlier view about the nature of the Forms, or the nature of 'dialectic'?

Sara asked:

Is Baudrillard a philosopher?

Mikee asked:

Tommy Ramone, the last surviving member of the seminal punk band The Ramones died last week. I would love to see a philosophical appreciation of the contribution of the Ramones to popular music.

Nelson asked:

Do meanings exist? If so, where are they (in the head? in the world? in Platonic heaven?). If not, how do we succeed in communicating with one another?

Joyce asked:

Give three examples of how academic philosophy is useful in the contemporary world.

Nigel asked:

Is it wrong to love money?

Tori asked:

Why? (This is our Philosophical assignment and nothing more than that)

Anna asked:

People speak of God dwelling within us. Suppose that was literally true and God was at the core of all our individual identities. Would that change the way you viewed the world and religious practices?

Daniel Galarza asked:

2.Well as a problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience there, is it possible to speak of demarcation between philosophy and pseudophilosophy?

Daniel Galarza asked:

Starting from the idea that there is no human activity that does not contain problems and philosophical background assumptions, and considering as true that popular science is a human activity It may be conceivable "Philosophy of Scientific Disclosure" as a new branch of Epistemology?

Daniel Galarza asked:

Considered valid How Mario Bunge's contributions to the philosophy of science, especially in the study of the problem of demarcation?

anon asked:

posed by Kretzmann among others. In essence, if God is immutable then then how can he know today is Friday and tomorrow know that today is Saturday as this would mean that he's subject to change to know one thing to day and another thing tomorrow etc. I am puzzled by few things:

1. Why must God's experience of time equate to ours? As corporeal temporal beings our experience is in the context of change and time is something that we use in order to make sense of our experience. But given that God is neither corporeal or temporal why should his experience of time be the same?

2.Does this dilemma rest on an assumption that in order to know something, one must have experience of it? There are many things that God as a perfect immutable being would not be able to experience such as regret or shame yet this doesn't seem to pose a problem I have in mind Kenny's comment here.

Thanks for your help with this

Jade asked:

Be able to compare and contrast Louis Pojmans article, The Case Against Affirmative Action, and Luke Charles Harris, and Uma Narayans article, Affirmative Action as Equalizing Opportunity: Challenging the Myth of Preferential Treatment.

Compare and contrast James Rachels article, Punishment and Desert, and, John Paul Wright, Francis T. Cullen, and, Kevin M. Beavers article, Does Punishment Work? What is the main argument in each article? How do they differ? Are there any similarities? What are their conclusions? How do they get to their conclusions (read as: what premises are used to make a conclusion)?

Know what Marilyn Frye means by sex identification and how it is present in sex marking, and sex announcement. Be able to explain her main argument. What do those aforementioned things lead?

Lynnette asked:

Based on Phil Washburn's Internalist or Perceiver?, what arguments does he give that we cannot know the external world?

Lynnette asked:

Based on Phil Washburn's No: Internalist, what are some of the arguments that he gives why we can know the external world?



Lucy asked:

Hello,my name lucy and I was wondering what is beauty. One of my friends is a camera man. And he use photoshop to make a fat woman look skinny. I study logic and I know that there is something morally wrong with this. The human race keeps changing the rules of what is what in the world. So in this generation is there something as beauty. I know I don't follow the rules of society.

Lucy asked:

What is true beauty. I am studying logic, and I know the human mind, as well as society keeps changing what beauty is. So in the generation beauty is being skinny, big breast, flat bottom, and ect. Many young girls are affected by this. But know this is not right. Why, because if the idea of beauty keeps changing. That means this idea of beauty is not a fact. But in my opinion physical beauty is about keeping your body healthy. And not to mention, what I find ugly, someone else might find the beauty in it.

Amanda asked:

I'm struggling with Bernard Williams 'The Idea of Equality'. Can anybody help?!

Nigel asked:

What, if anything, is added to our understanding of the concept of truth by the observation that truth is the 'aim' of a statement or assertion?

Phillip asked:

Sometimes when I wake up in the morning I have the answer to a question about philosophy that was puzzling me. Does that we are capable of philosophical thinking while asleep?

Pica asked:

If I was annihilated and a mentally/ physically perfect copy of me instantaneously came into existence on the other side of the world, would that be a case of travel faster than the speed of light?

Judy asked:

What does it mean to say, 'Philosophy takes the roof off'?

Fred asked:

Does the argument from illusion show that there are no differences between the visual experiences involved in veridical perception, illusion, and hallucination?

Jonathan asked:

Am I here??

TEBOGO asked:




Edwar arango asked:

What are the differences between neurophilosophy and philosophy of mind?

sam asked:

What is right and what is wrong?

Charles asked:

Alan Turing in his 1950 paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence (Mind 49: 433460) posited that to verify the proposition Machines can think one must use an The Imitation Game, instead of trying to (philosophically) define the terms machine or think, since this would only lead one to, reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words.. and that therefore this, attitude is dangerous, given that there is a certain amount of semantic alteration in any term over time and therefore no definitive verification or answer to our question Can machines think?. However, can one make a philosophical case that such statements as x can y are statements of ability, and that therefore the Turing test is not a substitute for philosophical investigation, since this can must be decided in and for itself? Therefore the question to which I would like some advice is, Can statements of known ability, i.e. x can do y, be verified using an imitation test which may confuse like with identical with?

erma asked:

Pinder & Bourgeois (1982, p. 650) recommend that "the goals of an applied administrative science, like the goals of any applied science, should include (but not be limited to) the provision of advice to practitioners that is useful, precise, and predicated on scientific grounds." To what extent does this recommendation apply to postmodernist, poststructuralist, and hermeneutical approaches to the social sciences?

seveNd0 asked:

I killed myself today. Did I inspire you yesterday or the day before,or will I inspire you tomorrow?

Jake asked:

Why is today TODAY and not TOMORROW?

Sebastien asked:

What point was Hume trying to make with the missing shade of blue in the Treatise of Human Nature?

David asked:

Do we live in a language prison? Is there no escape?

Jean asked:

Are there any philosophical problems which are insoluble in principle? or maybe just not by human beings?

Scott asked:

How do you rate Max Stirner?

Elisabeth asked:

Should we care what the state of the planet will be after all animal and human life has gone? why? or why not?

Douglas asked:

If I try to kill someone and only injure them is that worse or not as bad as trying to injure them and accidentally ending up killing them?

sondra asked:

Is it acceptable in today's postpostmodern society to lack a passion; to not be passionate?

Joe asked:

What is the difference between a conclusion that is "necessarily true, but not false" vs. "necessarily false, but not true"? They seem the same to me or is the answer based on probability?

In the same light, what is the difference between "probably not necessarily false" and "probably but not necessarily true"? Thank you, Joe

Gussie asked:

This question is related to argument identifcation by finding the conclusion and premises. The conclusion for this argument is that 'we should move to the most convenient and most practical time system of all a single Earth Time for all of humanity.' (as opposed to time zones). From the article about this, I have identified what I think are the appropriate premises below. However, I am unsure as to whether disproving or discrediting time zones counts as a premise/support for the conclusion that we should move to a single time? i.e. do statements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 count as premises for the conclusion? Also, should statements 8 and 9 be merged to something like 'Time zones will allow us to communicate unambiguously with each other about when we are doing things.' effectively deleting statement 8? Lastly, are there any hidden/implicit premises that I have missed? Thanks.

The argument:

(1) Time zones cause more trouble than they are worth. (2) It's time to do away with this barbarous relic of the past. (3) It is difficult for people to collaborate across time zone boundaries. (4) It is genuinely annoying to schedule meetings, calls, and other arrangements across time zones. (5) The need to constantly specify which time zone you're talking about is a drag. (6) Commuting across time zones would be more annoying still. (7) One time to rule them all will not force California office workers to show up at the wee hours of the dawn. (8) Within a given time zone, the point of a common time is not to force everyone to do everything at the same time. (9) It's to allow us to communicate unambiguously with each other about when we are doing things. (10) Today, however, we are very accustomed to the idea that time zone boundaries should be bent for the sake of convenience and practicality. (11) That means we should move to the most convenient and most practical time system of all a single Earth Time for all of humanity. (12) Its a simple, practical and logical extension of why we created time zones in the first place.

Bob Sadino asked:

Suppose Dualism is true. Does it mean God must exist? If not why?

Emyleen asked:

How do I distinguish between key philosophical terms

Ellis asked:

Do you know of anyone in the history of philosophy who maintained the position that there were no " senseless questions " such as " What time is it on the sun "? (Wittgenstein)

Matthew asked:

Well I am realizing I can't write out how I feel. But there is the basis for my thoughts:

It is not a question of why we exist, but rather what is the purpose of our existence?

If you are confused by this question... I guess I am asking for the end game. what are we working towards, if anything at all?

Nathan asked:

When we carry out a thought experiment, we can't test the underlying philosophical hypothesis with any empirical data. So, besides logical flaws, what are the criteria for evaluating a philosophical hypothesis? And how can we benefit from thought experiments in our daily lives?

Bernd asked:

Is philosophy still relevant? I have been considering to major in philosophy at uni since it's the discipline which I feel I am best at , but everyone I talk to seems to think that philosophy is completely useless and it would be much better for me to do something STEMrelated.

Does it still make sense to major in philosophy? Does it still make sense to ask the same questions people were asking thousands of years ago while scientists are making new discoveries everyday?

I love philosophy, but the way people talk about it makes me feel like it's just puzzles with no relevance, and I feel like I would probably be a useless member of society if I were to become a philosopher... Is this correct?

Anonymous asked:

Discuss the episode at Delphi, examining in detail the significance of the Oracle for Greeks during Socrates' time as well as how Socrates himself understands the pronouncements of the oracle.

Anonymous asked:

1. What is Socrates final interpretation of the oracles pronouncement ?

2. How does Socrates understands his mission to the citizens of Athens. How does his discovery about the meaning of wisdom inform his mission ?

Alex asked:

Who are you or who Am I

Jurgis asked:

Hi I wanted to ask. Can you do philosophy in all languages you know? Because my native is Latvian, second language is Russian, it isnt my mother tongue, but I feel thousand times more confident thinking about Philosophy in Russian. And if I was philosopher I would call myself Russian one. I believe that language in which you think, shows what kind philosopher you are. Russian philosophy is more, intuitive has more flair, English is more logical like mathematics. So what is your opinion on this?

Harry asked:

Neuroscience knowledge and computing power continues to grow exponentially to the point where we can now examine a single neuron and its synaptic response.

If we continue apace and then "map" the trillion brain synapses and identify each and every signal transmitted and the respondent activity. Will we then understand the human condition? If not why not?

Ed asked:

My question raises a paradigm in human thinking where belief is more important than truth. I refer to the 1.6 billion Christians who are unwittingly following a cult developed by the Catholic Church.

There is empirical data which supports the proposal that Christianity is a false religion and a cult. Christians believe in the 10 commandments.

1. The first commandment "I am the Lord..." (without caveat)

2. In 325 CE the Catholic Church, at Nicaea promulgated their Trinity.

3. The Church also chose the scripture that would become the bible.


Did the Catholic Church have authority to break the first commandment and create their own god, Christ?

Do Christians break the first commandment when they join a Christian church, where God the father is not given prominence?

I believe the empirical data and think the Church created a cult. The truth is ignored and belief supersedes fact. Putting God first would require a paradigm change in religious thought.

ladara asked:

what is the allegory of the cave? What happens when a prisoner is forced to see the shadows are actually produced? What happens is a prisoner is dragged into sunshine? What happens when a prisoner goes back into the cave to persuade other of the true nature of reality? What does this part of the allegory represent?

Jennifer asked:

the role of rational, objective considerations with respect to the meaning of life is that they should?

T asked:

Are clones unique?

Nina asked:

In my Philosophy class we were asked to answer this question...

If you can't prove that anything exists outside your mind, is it all right to go on believing in the external world anyway?

I am so confused with this whole external world concept!

Gabriela asked:

Why did Socrates think pursuing the truth was more important than saving his own life?

Nicole asked:

how do I explain moderation and human excellence as it relates to the homeric tradition and the ancient greek virtues? How does the concept of hubris relate to the difference between humans and the gods.

James asked:

Can the order of the spheres of existence be manipulated? As in, can the order in which kierkegaard says they should be, be changed? We've been talking about this in class and I'd like to hear another person's opinion on the matter.

Gem asked:

What are examples of concepts and words? How do they differ from each other?

Don asked:

The meaning of live after you are gone?

SAL asked:

A ___ term is used to indicate a response to a possible objection

Sam asked:

Hi, I'm struggling to understand what Heidegger means by "Dasein" and it's (our) relationship to nothing. What does Heidegger mean by "nothing" in this context?

Keenan asked:

Define and explain ethical relativism according to Thrasymachus position

Keenan asked:

Define and explain moral absolutism from Socrates and plato's perpective

sara asked:

how many religions are there in the whole wide world.

becker morgen asked:

who was the most known philosopher

Pieter asked:

How many beans make five? Discuss in relation to Frege's 'Foundations of Arithmetic'.

Megan asked:

Is war necessary?

Nigel asked:

This is a puzzle about the way human memory works. If I'm listening to a tune, how is it that I can hear it as a tune without replaying it over and over in my head every second? How does memory keep alive the sequence of notes and the time gaps in between?

Sandra asked:

Every moment time passes, trillions of insignificant facts are lost to all possible knowledge like the number of cars that went past my window yesterday or leaves on a tree before they blow off in the wind. Where ARE these facts? Do they still exist (somewhere?). Or is the world full of gaps and holes?

Morgan asked:

Today, we think that slavery is wrong and barbaric although once it was considered perfectly acceptable. Is it possible that in the future something we think is OK now will be judged in the same way? any examples you can think of??

Andy Sanchez asked:


I wanna read the best of the best, could you please recommend your top 10 books of all time? I know this could be much of a personal question but if it impacted your life it may as well impact mine and everyone who I can speak with,

look forward to exchange information!


William asked:

Is e = mc2 a priori knowledge?

JO asked:

Do you agree that the excellent functioning (virtue) of something or someone aims at the intermediate (mean) between excess and deficiency or are there virtues that only improve with excess? Why or why not?

Melissa asked:

In order to answer the question, "What is the difference between good and evil in a person", what would I need to know to answer this correctly?

Twinkle asked:

Is it possible to doubt the use of reasoning itself? If reasoning can be doubted, how else can we answer philosophical questions?

Claire asked:

What is Aristotle's views on duty?

frania asked:

What are sex?

Tembile Yako asked:

Please explain teleology and how can one use it to analyse a government policy

Eleanor asked:

Who am I?

maya asked:

Do you have free will?

Taela asked:

We have to writ an essay from this scenario:

A talented neurosurgeon removes Andreas brain and puts it into Beths body, and removes Beths brain and puts it into Andreas body. We end up with two living humans. Which of them is Andrea? Or is neither of them Andrea? Or are they both Andrea? Or is there no answer to the question? Or do you need more information about the case before you can answer? Explain.

I'm very confused as to what to write. I have talked about dualism and Descartes idea of a thinking thing, but this is not enough, and I am not sure if I am on the right track?

Chun Lok Anson asked:

Descartes' argument for God's existence in the 5th Meditation

Lay out the structure of Descartes argument for God's existence in Meditation 5. What is the crucial premise in the argument, and what evidence does Descartes provide for it? How might we object to the argument?

saniya asked:

what is most real, the thing that you are sitting on, the molecules it is made up off, or the sensation and images you have in your mind?

Sieze asked:

what does it mean to be alive ?

Carolyn asked:

Describe how the pluralists, anaxagoras and Emedocles synthesized the flux of heraclitus and the permance of parmenides

camille asked:

What are your latest realization(s) about life?

VIVIAN asked:

What are histories?

Cristian Cordova asked:

Were the sophists wrong to teach the Greeks how to use speaking skills to achieve success? Should philosophy be used only for higher things, or are practical users appropriate as well?

Drago asked:

If you didn't have anyone close to you (you know what I mean, family members, friends, etc.), would you kill yourself?

This question isn't about the sorrow of being alone (which for some isn't even sorrow). Most humans don't commit suicide because they don't want people close to them to feel bad after they go through with "IT". But if you were a lonely person and wouldn't experience this feeling, would you kill yourself?

Elisabeth asked:

What is the definition of evil?

Where do you think it originated from?

Why do you think it continues?

Tamara asked:

Do laws of nature actually exist or are they just rules that human beings use to describe the world and the things we observe?

Pete asked:

Every moment occurs once and then is gone. Time is just a succession of moments. If that is true, then nothing that we do or that happens has any lasting significance.

Comment on that argument.

Maurice asked:

What is love?

Have philosophers anything useful to add to Plato's discussion of this question in the 'Symposium'?

Brenda asked:

If I had not submitted this question today, then I would have submitted it tomorrow. Can this be true? What kind of fact could make it true?

Phillip asked:

What is war good for?

beth asked:

How does the term "question at issue" relate to philosophy?

Tammy asked:

Is this argument valid or invalid?

If laws could stop crime,there would be no crime.

But there is crime.

Therefore, laws cannot stop crime.

And what is the argument pattern?

Vanessa asked:

What is the difference between an action that is done merely in accordance with duty and one that is done from duty?

Dakota asked:

Does anything matter if nothing's real?

lior asked:

what is language? and does it constitute or wxplaines the connection betwin thinking and action?

sam asked:

what could be the explanation of epistemology using plato's allegory of the cave

jessi asked:

can we achieve reliable knowledge? how would sophists, plato and descartes think of that?

Isabell asked:

Will I have a good harvest?

Josh asked:

A contradictory pair of sentences are nonequivalent

LUCY asked:

According to Descartes, before Neo is freed from the Matrix (i.e. when his body and brain are still imprisoned by the machines), can he properly claim to know anything at all? If so, give an example of something he can know and explain why it counts as knowledge.

Imran asked:

What did the Oracle of Delphi tell Socrates and how did he respond to what he was told?

Etienne asked:

Is there a straightforward criterion (beyond subjective interpretation) by which to establish the "reality" of social phenomena? (e.g. gender norms, patriarchy)

Jessica asked:

What are three of the "aims" of Francis Bacon?

Francis asked:

how do I give a philosophical account of the mind and the body without falling into a false dichotomy? I am convinced that the best way to account for personhood is to fuse the mind and the body but how do I do it philosophically? I am trying to avoid the rationalists extreme view of on the mind (soul) and doubting the body, as well as avoiding the materialists extreme view of the body (matter). Can give a good philosophical account account without bringing the mind and brain in as seen in contemporary times?

phil asked:

I intend to give myself a systematic classic liberal education for the next 5-10 years. I realize one could spend a lifetime with one philosopher such as Nietzsche, Aristotle, Plato, and many others. Having said that, I want to read the texts of about 25 or so of the greatest political and moral philosophers and determine for myself what they say. I have read many of them for school or pleasure already along with a lot of criticism but I want to start fresh. My questions on how to proceed are manifold. I am equally interested in theology, and understand Aquinas and Augustine as well as others in the Christian tradition wrote on politics and morals so should I include them in my study? Or should I do a separate study on Christian philosophy? Should I narrow my focus to something specific like "what is the best form of government?" or "what kind of person should governor" "or "how should children be educated?" I really am most interested in political philosophy and how it can be used for today's problems. The next question is, after reading Plato and analyzing it myself should I start on criticism of him to compare with my analysis or proceed to the next philosopher, who would most likely be Aristotle? Should I include novels and fiction like The Iliad, Don Quixote, Gulliver's Travels, etc? And if I do, should I read them during the period of philosophy in which they were written or just as supplemental not in any particular order? Another idea I am considering is to just start with Homer, work through some histories and then begin Plato and see where that leads? There is just an overwhelming amount of work in the Western Tradition and I need guidance on where to begin and how to proceed.

Joshua asked:

Could a bread have a theme?

Nigel asked:

How can a pile of bricks be art?

Stefan asked:

Can heaven make up for suffering in this life?

In heaven by God's side, I remember how I was tortured to death. But what makes the individual in heaven by God's side the same as the one who was tortured? So what if they are not the 'same' but merely 'similar'?

Moose asked:

I forgot my umbrella this morning so I travelled back in time to fetch it. And here it is. Do you have a problem with that??

Sisella asked:

Existentialism and stoicism are two wellknown philosophies of life. Are there any others you can think of? What makes a philosophy 'practical'?

Beatrice asked:

I don't want to have children, and I think that I have a right to make that decision. I am doing nothing wrong in remaining childless by my own choice. But I believe in Kant's categorical imperative. It follows that it would be 'right' if all women decided not to have children. Where's the flaw in that reasoning?

Peter asked:

It is widely accepted that there is a high probability of intelligent life on other planets. Given that there is so much we don't know about how life began, that seems a sensible judgement.

But suppose we discovered evidence that made it extremely likely that the human race is alone. Intelligent life has just one shot to get things right, and if we screw up then there are no more chances, ever.

Would that make a difference to how we live? (I'm thinking of global warming, nuclear proliferation, etc.)

Ray asked:

Dave's car's fuel gauge, which has always been reliable, says he will run out of gas soon. But Dave is convinced that there is no necessary connection between causes and effects, and no guarantee that the future will resemble the past. So Dave doesn't buy any gas. Dave runs out of gas in Gilroy and calls you to come and rescue him. Should you be annoyed at Dave for being irrational? To what philosopher(s) does Dave owe these views? How does that philosopher support these views? What philosopher(s) have opposed these views, and why?

John Martin asked:

5. In The Apology, Socrates claims that he is not a Sophist because

A. He is not interested in cosmology

B. He does not charge for teaching

C. He avoids young people

D. He does not believe in relativism

E. All of the above

Jameze Massey asked:

6. Socrates was inspired to pursue philosophical questioning by

A. Plato

B. Aristotle

C. The oracle at Delphi

D. Athena

E. All of the above

kim asked:

What does Socrates do to test the claim of the oracle? What conclusion does Socrates reach?

kim asked:

What does Socrates do to test the claim of the oracle? What conclusion does Socrates reach? Hoes does this determine Socrates' continued course of action in Athens?

Ray asked:

John Arthur argues that without a moral standard provided by God through divine commands, there is no reliable means to distinguish between right and wrong behavior.

Tamoghna asked:

How ethical for parents it is to bring a new life to this world in spite of the parents' knowledge that there is high possibility of baby's being paralysed due to some genetic disorder or the genetic myopathy may pass over to future generations? Please answer with reference to certain ethical theories.

cassidy asked:

You come across ants in a desert. As you observe them, it seems that they have written "go away" in the sand with their feet.

What would you have to attribute to them in the terms of agency? How would you have to View the connection between what they had done and the presuppositions underlying Language use?

John asked:

Why isn't Descartes argument for the existence of god sound in third Meditations? "Anything we perceive with the same level of clearity as our own mind can be considered knowledge."

Ciara asked:

Are your own ideas about reality most in agreement with the thinking of Locke, Berkeley, Hume, or Kant? Explain your answer. Briefly discuss a film you have seen that deals with the notion of reality.

Tammy asked:

I need help understanding how to diagram an argument

Barbara asked:

Are corporate experiences evidence for the existence of God?

Pearl asked:

I am a 17 year old college student doing a paper on Rene Descartes first meditation. I am totally lost here. I am confused about what question he is asking. I submitted my first draft and the professor said it was not right. I thought Descartes was asking the question"Were all his beliefs which were based on his senses" true and right. Please help me!

Sue asked:

If the primary goal of utilitarianism is to generate the greatest good for the greatest number, a secondary goal is to minimize suffering. Using at least one quote from one of the required readings, discuss the ways in which these two principles are consistent or inconsistent with each other

Rayson asked:


I have a question for "ask a philosopher!":)

My question is on how will Aristotle view the ethics of the energy trading system or Kyoto Protocol as a eudaimonia or how will he see it as unethical.

Uncial asked:

I have a question about Craig Skinner's recent reply to a question about teleportation. I noticed the repeated use of the idea of an exact molecular copy of my body.

Thinking about how this might work, it occurred to me that (a) there are so many different velocities going on simultaneously, wouldnt it cause problems with a half, a third, a quarter, an eighth etc. motion being recorded? (b) if on the other hand the time slice is so small as to include them all, the result would surely be a motionless image? (c) but if this is true, how can the copy restart the motion without some information on the direction of every molecule? (d) how could the copy be alive?

It seems to me that at the instant of taking the scan, a lot of the information needed to make another living body is just not there. Or have I missed something?

Bill asked:

Suppose Nietzsche's theory of the Eternal Recurrence is true.

Does that mean I will BE the Bill who writes this question next time around and every succeeding time, or will the other Bills just be 'like' me? What's the difference, in this case?

Monica asked:

Could we be wrong about the direction of time?

Natalie asked:

What is the number one?

Mark asked:

"A philosopher's words are empty if they do not heal the suffering of mankind. For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul." (Epicurus). Agree, or disagree?

Malcolm asked:

Who is your favourite Wittgenstein (early or late) and why?

Gail asked:

Are there any limits (logical, metaphysical) to how different the laws of nature might have been?

John asked:

Is it conceivable that science could discover that Cartesian dualism is true?

Valerie asked:

I wanted your take on this matter of ethics and human rights or whether or not countries should still look out for their citizens and nationals overseas by means of consular offices, non immigration consular divisions at embassies and even ambassadors performing consular functions, but yet give greater attention to and put greater focus on arbitrary detainment and human rights abuse victims for whom clamoring an embassy, usually that of a Western country for assistance is not an option since those people and groups had the misfortune of having citizenship and nationality in either a politically repressive or war torn country.

Jenny asked:

I have been asked to provide a "borderline case" for how the words "mustache," "husband," "toy" and "table" are vague words. I cannot seem to come with a case for some of them. I think that a borderline case for a toy would be something that both a child and an adult could play with or use, or something like a family board game. For husband, I am taking a shot in the dark by saying that a transgender person is a borderline case. I cannot think of borderline cases for the other words. Could I have some help?

Zhuravlik asked:

Regarding Valid/Invalid deductive Arguments.

Ex. 1

P1. Grass is green

P2. Paris is the capital of France.

C. Poodles are dogs.

How is this "deductively" valid (or invalid) since no claim of inference is being made? Or for that matter, how can it be considered an "argument" at all if what is meant by argument is an attempt at persuasion? A series of unrelated but true statements placed together in "argument form" do not make a deductive argument even if that is the intent. It isn't a bad argument either, a bicycle isn't a car even if the speaker wants it to be. No one in the real world would seek to persuade by forming such an "argument." Please give an example of invalid argument with true premises and true conclusion that is not nonsense.

And whatever example you give, let that argument fail on logic not knowledge.

Ex. 2

P1. Atoms are tiny.

P2. The smallest particles of hydrogen gas are tiny.

C. Therefore, the smallest particles of hydrogen are atoms.

That is invalid?based on the counterexample of oxygen gas in place of hydrogen gas. But the difference between the two is that we have knowledge of oxygen gas as a molecule, not that the logical form is wrong. (?)

We use knowledge as the basis to make true statements to form valid arguments, but the knowledge may be flawed, does that mean the logic is?

tammy moore asked:

For the philosopher, "because God said so" is an unsatisfactory answer to the question "why is act X moral (or immoral)?" Why?

Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 18:44:21 Lape asked:

Can any element in the platonic notion of the good be preserved in the Aristotelian moral universe?

Chun Lok Anson asked:

In Lockes Second Treatise of Government, he outlines his overall political philosophy. Explain Lockes view as to what a just and legitimate government is.

WAYNE asked:

Would you agree with JeanPaul Sartre that sex is a futile passion, because it tries to possess the freedom of the other; but possession of the freedom of the other, would destroy what we want (to possess), and we cannot want to possess, that which we already possess?

Donald asked:

Do you agree with Professor Roger Scruton that "there are no 'central questions' of philosophy"? (Modern Philosophy, p. ix).

Sil asked:

what kind of fallacy is when someone says "we are only human"

Sam asked:

I've been told this is a tough question, and I suppose that's why I'm here asking; What is postmodernism (in terms of postmodern philosophy)? What are it's chief concerns and preoccupations? Simply put, how would you define postmodern philosophy?

P.S. I realize there is much hostility towards postmodernism in general, and so if you intend on making a critical assessment please don't; I'm really only interested in pinning down what postmodernism actually is at this point.

Cheese asked:

What constitutes the discovery of form?

Zoheb asked:

What is the purpose of my life?

KELWIN asked:

Where is time?

Imogen asked:

I was told today that everything has free will and that this is the reason that evil exists, that it is not an act of God but an act of free will, if this is true and everything is its own being then what does God do, what purpose does he serve in the modern world? I asked my teacher this and she said that his purpose is to answer prayers however if he does answer prayers that does that not mean that he takes away free will from the thing/ being that he answers the prayer through? please can you explain this concept.

giulia asked:

Does Aristotle think that having a virtuous character is voluntary or not?

Iris asked:

Hi my name is Iris and I have a question concerning human rights.

It was discussed as a group work but I need a different opinion.

"Should the respect for human rights apply in all situations in all times?".

Brice asked:

What do you think 'equivalent exchange' really means?

Marcos asked:

I recently read Ortega y Gassets The Revolt of the Masses and out of all the interesting arguments he comes up with, one caught my attention: his critique against disciplinary specialism. This got me thinking, is it ultimately desirable or not that all members of a society be very specialized in a disciplinary field?

benjie asked:

how do you prove that the word"knowledges " is acceptable?

MASANA asked:

Educational questions are ultimately philosophical questions. Discuss, with vivid examples.

Cassie asked:

Who we really are?

And how to find or purpose in life?

What's love?

Marco asked:

Have you read Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe? Whats your thoughts on it?

Martin asked:

What do you think the horse episode before Nietzsches mental breakdown means if we consider it within the context of his philosophy as a whole? His reaction of pity towards an innocent suffering is indeed very surprising after reading his work and it really contradicts the kind of ideal man he wished to be?

TONY asked:

How are Emmanuel Levinas' and Jean P. Sartre's phenomenology of intersubjectivity alike and different?

Brendan asked:

Space and time are named by Kant as the structures of our mind which shape sense data into perceptions, from which we formulate our ideas about the world. If you wouldn't mind, could you tell me how Kant figures that space and time specifically are the mental structures by which we perceive the world? Through what order of propositions does Kant arrives at these specific structures? Why does he not simply conclude that the mind shapes perceptions, thus suspending judgment about why this is so?

I hope I am making myself clear. My understanding so far is that the human being is not a passive observer of objective reality; our knowledge of the world, from experience, is necessarily molded by the mind. We do not perceive the noumenal realm, because the noumenal realm is that which transcends perception. But that further step which posits "categories" is what escapes me. Thanks!

Jen asked:

True or false:

1) For Frankfurt, wanton good is the condition in which a being does not, for whatever reason, adopt a caring perspective from which it views the structure of its will.

2) Thomas Nagel's approach is one which asserts the adequacy of the reductionist account of consciousness.

3) One can conclude from Nagel's account of consciousness that he is a modern dualist.

4) Thomas Hobbes' contribution to the solution of the mindbody problem is one in which he embraces the idea that mental states are understood as indefinable and, thus, impossible to understand.

5) According to Socrates, knowing oneself is predicated upon some kind of adoption of the very beliefs and ideas one inherits from their culture or society.

Alex asked:

Some humans are human's best friends which means humans often are life sense giving source to each other. Just imagine you where the last human in the world...

Some other humans are the worst human's enemies, beeing the only serious life threatening source, assuming an average life. No animal, no technology, no anything else is so much a great threat to one's life, as an another hostile human group.

So wgich fundamental variables cause this vast differences?

Joe Sullivan asked:

How do I overcomes nervousness ?

Graeme Black asked:

In Deontology how are the 'rules' or 'duties' developed? Outside of religion how do we come up with a list of rules which we should adhere to?

Erica Geritano asked:

I have to write a paper for my philosophy class. My argument is: there are people who seem to enjoy what we normally call pain. Utilitarians can respond by saying that by 'pain' all they ever meant was something like 'negative pleasure', that pleasure really is just desire satisfaction (this is the most important bit I think), and that this tracks across masochists well now (we can maximize desire satisfaction by giving the masochists what they want, which to us looks like pain). How about something like the following instead: desire satisfaction is rather messy, and part of the original appeal of utilitarianism was that it grounds ethics in a type of experience that seems obviously and inherently good or bad (pleasure and pain). But elaborate on why it is messy (hint: think about how well our desires track e.g. healthy lifestyle).

Felix asked:

Can I ask more than one questions? If I cant, please answer only number one

1. What is a woman?

2. What is wrong with racism?

Thank you very much

Paloma asked:

Ever since I was about 8 or 9 years old I was always scared of dying. I would come in tears to my mother crying because I didn't not want to die. She told me not to worry and I didn't for a while. By the time I hit middle school I would have an episode so call it where I would just freak out at night and cry. The time it was my last two years of high school till now I have episodes almost every week and I just freak out and cry. I am a Christian and that knowing for me where I'm going isn't so much my problem. I'm just so scared of the idea of it. I don't understand it my self. I need your opinion should I see someone about this? Is this more of a insecure problem about my self?

Tony asked:

What is the reason for existence if life is temporary, has no true purpose, and can be erased so easily?

Dahlia asked:

by nature equal?

Dahlia asked:

In what ways is the philosophy of Socrates present in Kierkegaard's view of subjective truth?

Jasmine asked:

Give Bertrand Russells argument for the value of philosophy. Use the Euthyphro and the Apology to demonstrate what Russell means when he argues that the value of philosophy lies in the confusion that philosophical questioning creates.

brian asked:


Kindly let me know what does Mao mean by saying "It is only when there is class struggle that there can be philosophy."?Can it be understood as an expression of unity of theory and practice that Marxists persist on it?


brian asked:

Please shed some light on the term "empiriocriticism" and that why Lenin called it an idealist philosophy?

Robert asked:

I'm developing a rebuttal to Biblical literalists and I'd like to know whether the following is a recognized/named type of syllogism or other type of argument (and if so, what it's called):

Verse X prophesied that lt;whatevergt; would happen

lt;whatevergt; happened in verse Y

Therefore, the prophecy was fulfilled

(If this is not a recognized/named type of syllogism or other type of argument, could it be made so by adding one or two lines?)

Anuj asked:

Applying his ethical principle of the golden mean, how would Aristotle have advised Socrates to defend himself at his trial?

Tyler asked:

How does Humes extreme skepticism influence the thinking of Immanuel Kant? How does Kant resolve the perceived dilemma introduced by Humes skepticism?

Max asked:

Hypothetical: You are a voice of authority in some educational capacity and have a large audience who respects your opinion. You can either; a) surreptitiously direct your audience into believing in and subscribing to a cause or philosophical view which you sincerely believe to be right, with the outcome being serious political change, or; b) help provide the means of thinking critically about the issue in question, with the possibility that your audience will disagree with you and that the outcome will be politically inexpedient.

Which would you choose?

Ella asked:

If all our actions are predetermined, can we say that we are free?

loan asked:

Is the ideal of a violencefree society realistic/desirable according to you?

may asked:

Would it be legitimate to give a private entreprise the right to enforce the law? (as precrime in Minority Report)

Monica asked:

Why are you here and not somewhere else?

Gustavo asked:

Is justice more or less important than family loyalty? are there grey areas?

Smith asked:

Imagine that just before you were about to fall asleep, a devil whispered in your ear that you will live the life of every human being who has ever lived or will ever live, experience their joy and their suffering. Thinking about all the pain you would endure, would the joy be worth it? Would you not consider it preferable if you did not wake up at all? In that case, is it not true, from your valuational perspective, that it would be better if the human race had never existed?

Gershon asked:

Wittgenstein: 'The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man' (Tractatus 6.43). Relate this to what Heidegger says about mood.

Vivian asked:

Did God weep bitter tears (metaphorically) at something He was powerless to prevent, when Hitler sent Jews to the gas chambers, or when Hutus massacred Tutsis in Rwanda, or when the Twin Towers fell? If so (and only in that case, I am not considering alternatives) what conception of God should a true believer hold?

Jaffa asked:

I have a question, but I am unable to put it into words. It isn't a question about Why, or What, or How. It is more like sheer astonishment confounding my powers of speech.

Can there be an answer to such a question?

Becker asked:

The ___ stage on life's way is where Kierkegaard thinks most of us spend most of our lives

OLA asked:

Kindly explain the concept of duty claarifying the meaning of the concept of goodwill

Stephen asked:

In a world in which everyone always did the right thing, would genuine free will exist?

Stephen :

What is time?

McKinley asked:

How does the categorical imperative conflict with utility?

McKinley asked:

What is the significance of this conflict to sen's discussion of hunger?

lindsay asked:

For Nietzsche to be alive is to have a will to power. How does or could a society work against an individuals will to power?

Ed asked:

How does the "via negativa" (negative theology, apophaticism) differ in its approach from, say, the methodology of eliminative induction?

rick asked:

Strauss in the final paragraph of the third wave says that "above all, liberal democracy, in contradistinction to communism and fascism, derives powerful supper from a way of thinking which cannot be called modern at all: the premodern thought of our western tradition. Is he correct in his judgement in this sentence?

Alyssa asked:

What are the similarities and differences between Kant's moral theory and Aristotle's views on ethics and politics?

zach asked:

How do you think Descartes would respond to the cosmic question? Spinoza? Hume? Explain your answers and relate each to a broad type of response identified by Nagel.

Kai asked:

a.Would a Turing test that tested aesthetic experience be possible? Why or why not?

b.Would this kind of Turing test be a more accurate way to assess human intelligence (or human consciousness) or less accurate or as accurate as the standard Turing test? Why or why not?

Jessica asked:

What is humanity according to Kant and why does he claim that it deserves respect?

Jennifer Garcia asked:

What is Descartes three arguments that prove God exist. Please explain how he proves his argument.

Tyler asked:

what is the term for the phenomena when a whole society becomes fascinated with death?

mary asked:

Critically examine whether social reality and some of its manifestations are a social construct and its based on the disease as a manifestation any help on counter arguments.

Nick asked:

What was Simone Weil's and Nietzsche's interpretation of the Iliad and what were the differences between the two interpretations?

michael asked:

Me: hi, my professor aked me a question and I want to know if this is the correct answer. QUESTION:Tolerance is certainly a very important and underrepresented virtue. What is its excess and what is its deficiency? ANSWER:Tolerance is the ability to not allow shortcomings or inability to cause one to take a negative offense, prejudice position, or negative reaction to those shortcoming or inabilities, and offer ways to combat those socalled shortcomings or inabilities. The deficiency of tolerance is the incapability of empathy and patience with shortcoming or incapabilitys. Excess of tolerance would be becoming submissive to the acceptance of shortcomings or incapabilitys.

Rachel asked:

What do we really know about the world?

James asked:

The Tao (Way) is salient in both Confucianism and Taoism. However, some scholars, including Hori and myself, have argued that while Confucianism is "yang oriented" and the latter tradition, Taoism, is "oriented towards yin." How credible is this interpretation?

Vivian asked:

Is Putinism a philosophy?

Darius asked:

How different might the laws of nature have been (in some other logically possible but nomologically impossible world)? Are there any limits?

Jones asked:

Is it a priori true that we know what we like? (Obviously, you can't always know whether you like/ dislike something until you've tried it, but I'm not considering that possibility.)

Jeff asked:

Should pot be legalized?

Vygintas asked:

Please email me the answer since I actually want to know this.

If a video game character was conscious, how would he know that he is played by someone outside of the video game system?

If the character was as smart as human, he would deny that somebody is controlling him and the environment both at the same time, but that wouldn't matter since the creator would know what's true and what is not.

The question I want to ask how do I and the world know what to do, if we are free will and everything works on it's own like in a video game? For example GTA5.

And if the character realized he was in a system, could he hack the system from the inside of the system?

Or is his consciousness and experience and intelligence and knowledge limited just to that system he lives in and there is no way he can get out, just to wonder why is he in the system at first?

I never was a god believer, but these kind of questions made me think otherwise. I'm not atheist, nor religious I'm just curious.

The second question arises from asking these is:

Why don't people realize that they are ant like creatures and everyone pretends to be self sufficient individual, when it's not that way? By saying ant like I mean living in the human system, within the god system.

And if this is true, then it means that there is no human without purpose to humanity, every one is made with a predetermined goal.

If I had free will, I could do whatever, but I can't because it feels wrong.

I'm working on these answers and I have some, but I want something out of my head to help me out, so it would be fun and great if you could help me out. :)


Lucy asked:

I was asked the questions, 'What goes up and never comes down?" and "What comes down and never goes up?"I was told it was a philosophical question.

Hasibe asked:

Would Aristotle think that anyone could be called a citizen without participating in decisionmaking? Why?

Vivian asked:

In what sense, exactly, can a dog be said to be intelligent?

Nigel asked:

I realy need your help....its a life and death situation, and im so lost in terms of plato and his theory of forms....so i have to find two critiques against his theory of forms...thats easy! that tough part is I really dont know how to defend plato against the critiques...for example thomas hobbes...his materialist view...or buddha/hume and their no self view would be ciritues but I can't seem to find a defense...can you help me find two good critiques and defenses as im not really sure i understand the context, therfore I dont know how to create/begin this assignment...plz help me!

maha asked:

Time is composed of moments. Moments have no duration. Therefore time has no duration. This rather surprising fact is further supported by the following considerations. Time is illusory because time seems real but isn't real. Furthermore down through the ages the best and brightest people have always thought time was illusory. whats the fallacy? I am confusing if its composition or not? but even if its composition, i can't explain why, because of the second part of the argument! looking forward to receiving from you!

Mark asked:

What is the difference/similarity between determinism and the principle of sufficient reason?


shosh asked:

What is more important to you success and wealth OR knowledge and wisdom , and how do I write a philosophical dialogue ?

aeron asked:

based on your own principles, how far will you go to depend your faith in god, if he put you in a test between faith and logical reassoning?

Tay asked:

Chloe read an essay that claims the body and mind, which are made up of different substances, interact both harmoniously and competitively in a living person. Which philosophers work is she most likely reading?

Emily asked:

Can a deductively invalid argument have a conclusion that is logically true?

Bailey asked:

For this fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of knowing the unknown; since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. Is there not here conceit of knowledge, which is a disgraceful sort of ignorance?

Premises and conclusion?

Vigil asked:

I want to present a hypothetical question. (hear me trolls!)

In a world where the need for manual labour is almost completely unnecessary (besides for things like public court duty or government jobs. Those still would require a moral standpoint.)

In this world materials can be created in mass without pollution or other harmful processes. (we have found an unlimited energy source and applied e=mc square)

Each person is allocated enough credits (cash) per month to live a very comfortable life by todays standards.

The world has united into one central government (no more war)

People are allowed to apply for jobs that can still be preformed with relative efficiency. These jobs are mostly done as leisure activites with a very small credit bonus for participation.

Technology is slightly stagnant because of every non material object being free but there are enough precreated algorithoms for people to toy around with simple to apply programming (let's say a kid in their late teens can build things that would be amazing in the current day (random example, a flying follow you around laptop (remember practically unlimited energy). This could pose danger aswell as weaponry with this kind of technology would not be impossible to obtain (but still very difficult (computer automated "big brother" system keeping tabs on materials moving around))

This is in many ways a quasi perfect world.

My question for the comments section is what do you think people would do with their lives. With the majority of the population being jobless, happy and content.

This is a big question and so I'm open to all answers (on second thought even the troll ones) on the subject.

Thanks :)

Keila asked:

At the beginning of chapter 2, Aristotle states his purpose in writing about virtue. Is he hoping his readers (and students) acquire theoretical understanding, or is his hope to help form the activity of soul of his readers and students so they can live good lives?

Gennady asked:

How to start studying philosophy? My interest seems to be more in Metaphysics. It would be nice to have a guideline or program to follow. Is college a way to go?

Thank you

breann asked:

which position, Mill's or Dworkin's, is better? Explain.

Christina asked:

I am taking an introduction to eastern philosophy course and I was asked to read Katha Upanishad Book two. I do not understand however, what is being compared in the first two verses. Also, why is Naciketas a seeker of wisdom? What doesnt the foolish see?

bill asked:

who stated that the further you go in one direction the easier it is to continue in that direction and the harder it it to change direction?

Cheyenne asked:

How did the universe begin?

Cheyenne asked:

Is the philosophers stone real? if so why haven't anyone found it?

Ravneet asked:

Explain the Lockean proviso in depth using examples. Explain how money and capital circumvents the Lockean proviso. As such, do you think family inheritances should be legal or heavily taxed?

VICTOR asked:

"If philosophy is indeed a well estblished subject but its issues are so riddled with controversy that there is hardly a single question to which there can be said to be an established answer. Discuss".

Julie asked:

In regards to deontology we need to treat others as though we want to be treated. However, what happens when someone have a different idea of how they wish to be treated?

oasis asked:

what is the point in living ?

Joshu asked:

Human Life is never ending questioning and answering

atron asked:

How do you put this following argument BELOW in standard form?

One thing we can all agree on is that a statement like 17 is prime is true, and that we know it to be true. But this simple fact gives rise to an irresolvable puzzle. If its a normal subject/ predicate sentence, we can't explain how we know it to be true. For if its that sort of sentence, then there must be some object, the one we call 17, and it has to have the property of primeness. But if there is such an object, it is outside space and time, and so a mystery how we come to know anything about it. Could it be some other sort of claim, then, besides a normal subject/predicate sentence? I suppose, but then we have a different mystery. Its utterly mysterious what other sorts of sentences there are.

Gale asked:

Hi, my name is Adam. I live in Dasmarias Village in Makati city. I live in a big house. I can't describe it to you, but just imagine a 50 hectare lot with a garden and a threefloor house. Thats me. I also drive the latest Ford Mustang, while having a Porsche as a spare in my garage. No, I am not a thief nor a bad person. Lets just say that I am able to have all of these things because I own a business that employs over 10,000 individuals all over the country. Although it didnt start this way, I was born in a middleclass family; my father earned a little over the minimum wage while my mother stayed at home. Our familys overall income was just enough to feed all of us and send me and my two siblings in a decent enough school, through which I fought and clawed my way out of to get to where I am now. *I believe that I am entitled to everything I have right now because I suffered and bled for this.* And none of your Marxist arguments can sway me otherwise.

Your job is to prove that Adam is wrong in his belief (the italicized sentence) using any of the things that we discussed in the topic of equality through Karl Marx.

Jacques asked:

You pretend to push a ball, what happens?

A. The ball moves towards you

B. The ball moves away from you

C. The ball does not move

D. The ball zig zags

Jon asked:

Please feel free to nswer any of these -

1.What is the aim of philosophy?

2.What is philosophical method?

3.What are the divisions of philosophy?

4.What are some of the benefits of philosophy that Vaughn discusses?

5.Know when conjunctions, disjunctions, and conditionals are true/false.

6.What are the parts of an argument?

7.How is argument different from persuasion?

8.What is validity?

9.What is soundness?

10.Know the two valid argument forms that we discussed.

11.Know the two invalid argument forms (formal fallacies) that we discussed.

12.What does it mean for an inductive argument to be strong? For it to be cogent?

13.What is enumerative induction? Analogical induction/argument by analogy? Inference to the best explanation?

14.What does Russell claim are the benefits of philosophy?

15.Where does the value of philosophy lie according to Russell?

16.Why does Descartes want to establish a new foundation for his beliefs?

17.How does Descartes first try to cast all of his beliefs into doubt? Why isnt this enough to cast all of his beliefs into doubt?

18.What scenario does he consider that he thinks does cast all of his beliefs into doubt?

19.Why does Grau claim that evil demon/brains in a vat/Matrix scenarios are stronger forms of skepticism than the dreaming hypothesis?

20.What is Putnams semantic externalism response to skepticism that Grau discusses?

21.What are the two arguments that we said could be formulated from Descartes skeptical scenarios?

22.How does Descartes try to argue that skepticism is mistaken?

23.What is the Cartesian circle? How is it thought that his argument against skepticism faces this problem?

24.How does accepting fallibilism allow one to reply to one of the arguments for skepticism?

25.What is fallibilism?

26. What is the explanationist response to skepticism? How does it work?

27.What is the traditional account of knowledge?

28.What are Gettiers counterexamples to the traditional account of knowledge? How do they work?

29.How does the infallibilism response to the Gettier problem work? What is the drawback of this response?

30.How does the no false evidence response to the Gettier problem work? What are the drawbacks of this response?

31.How does the Fake Barn case go?

32.Unhelpful catchall: Know everything covered in the assigned readings. Know everything covered in class.


what are the fundamental questions thales asked

Mark asked:

I am having trouble deciphering Aristophanes' clouds. He seems to be ridiculing Socrates for his radical beliefs, is this true? How far apart are these two men?

Trevor asked:

Bearing in mind the suffering that it has caused throughout the ages should religion be banned?

Muna asked:

I am happy about the size of my nose. Could it still be possible that my nose is too big?

Vivian asked:

Is truth just a logical property?

Gershon asked:

Are time and consciousness two things, or (ultimately?) just one?

Sara asked:

Is Facebook an illusion?

Eric asked:

Do you agree with Anscombe's denial of the widely accepted view that causal relations are instances of exceptionless universal generalisations? What is a 'cause' in that case?

thekingxv asked:

Discuss the political implications of Plato's parable of the allegory of the cave.

Amrot asked:

1. Compare and contrast the idea of Thales and Anaximander?

2. Compare and contrast the idea of Thales and Anaximenes?

3. Compare and contrast the idea of Thales and Heraclitus?

4. Compare and contrast the idea of Thales and Pythagorean society?

lola asked:

what are you thoughts on the roots of evil by John Kekes.

Olti asked:

What would be counterexamples to the following statements (so even if some are truewhat would it take to prove them false)? To do this, first figure out what they actually say.

1.Some classes are held in Kitson

2.No classes are held in Kitson

3.Some classes are not held in Kitson

4. All classes are held in Kitson

5.Not all classes are held in Kitson

benedict asked:

I was asked this philosophical question,and I got no clue of the answer, please I need you to help me answer this "how sure are you that you know that you are a human being? "

Abigail asked:

I am writing a paper on the difference between Decartes cartesian theatre and wittensteins beetle in the box. I have write about how decartes would respond to wittensteins argument. I am having a hard time figuring out how he would respond. Any ideas?

Jeffery asked:

Is it possible that if the Big Bang Theory created us that they created other live else where?

Deborah asked:

Am I My Brother's Keeper?

Deborah asked:

How is it that one mortal can rule with fear and persuasion over so many other mortals. What makes human beings follow another human being in committing such atrocious acts against humanity?

Kai asked:

how does platos republic relate to euripides medea

Shawnna asked:

What are the pros and cons of this way of thinking? (Hellenistic thought).

Max asked:

Is the universe endless?

Max asked:

do aliens exist?

Sandip asked:

Why do we fall in love?

Bon Quee Quee asked:

How do you even so philosophy. I Kant do this !!! (That's what she said)

Humor me. How do you philosophy.

eric asked:

hello my name is eric. I have recently started a group on facebook of asking philosophical questions. I have actually managed to get my fellow high schoolers to think! but, as all things must come to an end, I would like some questions to ask them. thank you.

Gerard asked:

Allow me to introduce myself) my name is Gerard and am originally from South Africa, currently residing in Belfast. I am really interested in philosophy, I thoroughly love the way the subject requires one to think very hard about what they are investigating or analysing. Alas I am an amateur, here goes my question: Does the human body posses a soul?

I personally think that humans do not posses a soul and here are my amateur) thoughts. If humans are borne with a soul then is that soul equally an infant? I would assume so and if so then as the human being grows and experiences the external world and thus memories then it follows so to does its soul. And if this continues to the end of life then the soul would know who it is, that is it/he or she would still have thier memories and thus thier ID. However how then do memories transfer from the biological human being, a state that is within science that is quantifiable, to the soul which is purportedly spiritual which is a non quantifiable state, a state that has no physical substance. The two states then are impossible to unite thus the transfer of memories which is fundamentally the manner of ones ID is impossible And if memories are not able to transfer to the soul then it follows that the soul would not know wht or who it is? I like to akin this to a "floating baloon"

Do send me your thoughts.

Angel asked:

What are the "big questions" raised by philosophers?

Kanrry asked:

Why do we exist? What is our purpose? What happens after death?

Jeff asked:

I failed my exam.

If I pray hard enough, is it possible (logically possible) that God could bring it about that I passed?

Does it make any difference whether I know that I failed (received the result) or not?

Smith asked:

How would you test the hypothesis that two distinct human beings are actually the same person who has the power of bilocation? Or, if the hypothesis is not testable, is it still conceivable?

Harry asked:

How should we relate to the other?

JAY asked:

1) Why does Socrates ultimately reject the definition of knowledge in the Theaetetus as "justified true belief plus an account"? How does this dialogue connect with Socrates' description of his philosophical program in the Apology?

2). What role does "mutual awareness" or "reflexive mutual recognition" play in Nagel's account of "sexual perversion"? What elements of this awareness or recognition are absent in the perverse encounter?

Raye asked:

Im trying to understand how to standardize arguments and figure out the patterns in the arguments but Im having trouble finding the premises and conclusion the George Berkeley's argument

Common sense may seem to suggest that things exist independently of our mental perceptions of them, but careful reasoning shows that such mindindependent things cannot exist. You see, if something is mindindependent, then (by definition) it must be able to exist without being conceived of by a mind, but it is contradictory to conceive of something that isnt conceived of by mind, for the very act of conceiving of something makes it a conceived thing. Thus, it is contradictory to conceive of a mindindependent thing. Now, anything the conception of which entails a contradiction (like a square circle, for example) is logically impossible, and logically impossible things cannot exist. Therefore, mindindependent things cannot exist.

Where are the premises and conclusion, and what is just extra information that is not needed?

Pat asked:

apply any one of the moral theories discussed in Michael Sandels Justice: Whats the Right Thing to Do? to the novel The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. Are the circumstances described in the novel unjust? If so, what is it that makes them unjust? Is it a failure to maximize utility, or some violation of human rights, or a lack of access to basic goods necessary for human flourishing?Is Jurgis flourishing as a human being? What does a flourishing human being look like? Is there any evidence in the text that Jurgis is being systematically "dehumanized"? If so, is this dehumanization unjust? In the eyes of a Libertarian View and then in the eyes of the Utilitarian View?

Chris asked:

I would like to ask If I am understanding Kant correctly in the following manner ? I am not going into Hume and unnecessary terminology.

I understand Kant in 3 steps.

Lets take for example that I see an apple in front of me and how it is that I can perceive it.

1. Our brain have innate ability to enforce upon the world the concepts of spatial temporal and cause and effect (this might very well differ for other animals) at this stage the apple is merely a thing in front of me and I know this because of my innate abilities (at this stage of reasoning I have no idea it is an apple)

2. The second step is the 4 main categories (this we also know innate?) this being (a)quantity I sense 'one' apple , instead of many.(b) Quality I sense that it is real and not just in my mind. (c) Relation I sense the object in relation to the "table" on which it stands ? (d) modality (have no idea what this really is)

3. The third step is reason Here we give all the particulars linguistic terms and characteristics all by means of reason ergo the subjective nature.

In a nutshell the senses perceive raw data that (1) the brain structures in space and time and then (2) I apply the categories and (3) then I apply reason to explain what it is ?

This is how I understand Kant.

Can anybody please explain Kant to me in three of four steps


In light of the allegory of the cave access the effectiveness of the 844 system of education in realizing the national goal of education

Gaby asked:

For Socrates, theory joins with practice: If you really know something (e.g., what justice is) you will act in accordance with that knowledge. If you do not act that way, (i.e. you act unjustly) that can only mean you are ignorant and do not possess knowlege. Is this true?

Maggie asked:

Your supported opinion as to whether Descartes' argument is sound in the first and second meditations. Please provide quotations to support your position.

Edward asked:

i)what are the basic contributions of the atomists, eleatics and pythagoraeans to the development of philosophy

ii) what is fallacy? explain 5 types of informal fallacy.

Iii) list and explain four kinds of proposition

Britney asked:

What are the similarities and differences in Confucius morally perfected person (Book Two) and Platos philosopher king?

Kira asked:

Based on your knowledge. can you explain C. Card, Terrorism in the Home ?

rathin jha asked:

is life real or just a dream

Farah asked:

Hello. I was just wondering in terms of chronology which discipline is recorded first, literature or philosophy?

Can you direct me to a book or article which answers this question or discusses this?

If the you could include the details as well such as the texts and references it would be very much appreciated.

Thank you very much. Look forward to the replies.

Grace asked:

My friend recently told me what hedonism is and that he believes it. I instantly thought that pleasure is not the highest good, but that happiness is. But I'm not sure if that really makes sense I guess. Could you tell me what you think about it?

nozwelisha asked:

What are the advantages and disadvantages of objectivity and causation of history?

Roya asked:

What is the meaning in life? Well a lot of people say that it's happiness, but I think there must be a better and a bigger purpose. I've thought a lot about it, and I think you'll find the meaning of life when your time has come, but that's kind of unfair, isn't it?

Keep asked:


Tay asked:

Do you believe that Chapter 8: "The Case against Free Will" in Rachels and the videos on the Stanford Prison and Milgram experiments offer a convincing case that free will is an illusion? Why or why not?

Tay asked:

Imagine that scientists discovered that causal determinism is true. What would be the moral implications (if any) of this finding? Would this discovery affect the way in which you live your life? Why or why not?

Jesse asked:

I am confused by the distinction between the concepts of over and underdetermination in the philosophy of science and epistemology. I understand that a belief or a theory can be underdetermined by a data set because the relevant, available data set equally supports a rival, noncompatible theory. For example, based on observation alone, a heliocentric and geocentric theory of our universe would be underdetermined, because both would seem equally plausible to a man standing on earth. What, however, would be the application (if any) of the concept of overdetermination? Is overdetermination merely a flipping of the script, such that I can say "the theory is underdetermined by the data" or "the data is overdetermined by the theory," or is there more to the concept of overdetermination in philosophy of science and epistemology?

kayla asked:

Can we know through the use of reason that mindindependent material objects exist?

A) No, because "reason can only manipulate, but never create" ideas about the nature of the world.

B) Yes, because reason constructs scientific theories that systematize our perceptions, and these theories necessarily postulate material objects.

C) Yes, because unlike our senses, our reason can penetrate the "veil of appearances" and reveal permanent truths.

D) No, because we "might be affected with all the ideas we have now, though no bodies existed without resembling them."

E) Yes, because our reason allows us to infer the existence of mindindependent objects from our perceptual ideas.

kayla asked:

George Berkeley thinks that

A) Even when we have sensations of eating and drinking, we cannot be sure that our bodies actually consume anything. However, the fact that we don't die of malnutrition proves that that we do not "eat and drink mere ideas" but real, material stuff.

B) Ordinary people think that they actually "eat and drink ideas" but a deeper, philosophical understanding will make clear that this is not a defensible view.

C) if mindindependent material objects did not exist, then we would have to say that we "eat and drink ideas" which is absurd.

D) When we eat and drink, we are only aware of sensory ideas about what we consume, so unless we want to say that we "eat and drink ideas" we have to make the distinction between how something appears and what that thing is. The two must be different.

E) it might sound weird to say that we "eat and drink ideas", but since ideas compose real things like apples and wine, we can just as well say that we eat apples and drink wine.

Sabrina asked:

Hello, I was wondering if it is necessary for a moral theory, say utilitarianism, to care about people. I understand that moral theories are concerned with the determination of right and wrong. In that case will it be fair to criticise a utilitarian for not caring about the welfare of other people, but only what is right? Does considering which actions will yield the maximum utility equate to caring about people? Does the intention of just wanting to do what is right according to the theory (whatever creates the most happiness, if you are a utilitarian) mean that one has no concern for other people? Surely there is a reason for wanting to do what is right? Perhaps certain degree of altruism?

Thanks so much for your help.

Josef asked:

Is it possible that the world will end in nothingness?

Jaffa asked:

What do you understand by the formula, 'existence is prior to essence'?

Veronica asked:

Compare and contrast epistemology and metaphysics by Skepticism,amp;9702;Rationalism and Empiricism.

george asked:

What is systematic doubt? And what is its relation to Cartesian doubt?

Maria asked:

Taking the position of a physicalist, what scientific/ philosophical advice would you give to someone who wanted to write a screenplay featuring a scenario of an out-of-body experience?

Praveen asked:

What is the Hobbes' view's on Absolute monarchy. Why does he support the Monarchy? please give the answer in details.

rooz asked:

i know time is relative and an hour here can be a day on another planet. but I would like to know throughout the total expanse of the universe how many nows are there? I dont mean a measured now. as in such and such miliseconds. I mean the concept of now. this instant. is now the same everywhere? thank you

Karla asked:

what are the three types of good life that Aristotle talks about? Why is the making of money excluded? what science studies the highest good?

Brittany Nickel asked:

We are learning about Euclid's proposition 1 which I understand but I have a heard time finding out a empiricist view of geometry and how they would challenge the rationalist. Also my prof discussed rationalism about arithmetical truths compare with rationalism about geometry. Any clarification would be helpful.

Amna asked:

In the Second Meditation, Descartes says that you might be wrong that there's a fire in front of you, but you can't be wrong that you seem to see a fire. What does this mean?

why does he think this?

is he using the example of the fire to prep for his following argument about "the wax or the body"; that that we aren't perceiving the wax though our senses but though intellect.

Kanrry asked:

What happens after death?

Mr. Green asked:

True or False: According to Aristotle, The philosophical development, Heraclitus to Plato is persuasive: Nature likes to hide, and with the power of logos man will reveal the true nature of reality. But, Plato is mistaken: to reveal reality we do not need the mystical reach to the divine realm of Platos eidei. Let us apply the basic distinctions, Form and Matter, and, the doctrine of entelechy, together with the doctrine of the Four Causes to discover the substantial reality contained in the things we encounter in our experience of the phenomenal world.

Sydney asked:

Is it possible that George Berkeley was a solipsist, idealist and phenomenalists?

Tj asked:


jordan asked:

What is the explanatory gap argument for dualism and how would a metaphysical materialist reply to this argument?

erin asked:

what is the meaning of life?

Linda asked:

How can I teach my students the difference between shadows and substance referring to Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

Umair asked:

why people do affairs?

RSmith asked:

Can the Frege Geach problem be considered as flawed because: if you fully equivocated all the ethical statements in the argument 'if murder is wrong then stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong therefore stealing is wrong' to the emotivist alternatives, murder? Boo! and stealing? Boo!, rather than just the second premise, I see no reason why the argument would no longer be valid: the modus ponens from of if x then y; x; therefore y is satisfied. An emotivist would understand not only the linguistically simple statement murder is wrong by itself to essentially mean murder? Boo!, but also the embedding of it in the complex statement if murder is wrong then stealing is wrong to mean if murder? Boo! Then stealing? Boo!, where it is the expressions of opinion that are linked, rather than a true or false ethical statements, the existence of which the emotivist would reject.

lexi asked:

what alternatives does Plato have Socrates say the comunity ("the laws") offer the individual when he doesn't agree with a law?

Jason asked:

What is the taoist view on medicaid and social security?

kristopher asked:

Hi, I am having trouble writing a paper on a philosophy of mind. I am currently in a intro to philosophy class and the question bellow is the question I am having trouble with. Could you possibly give me some insight on your opinion to the question posed?

Global warming has rendered the continuation of life on Earth impossible. Luckily, we have been able to melt the polar ice caps on Mars which has created the atmospheric conditions necessary to sustain human life. You have no choice but to make the 36 million mile journey to Mars. However, you can choose your method of transport.

One method is teletransportation. You will step into a scanner here on earth which will destroy your brain and body, while recording the exact states of all your cells. This information will then be transmitted to a replicator on Mars. Travelling at the speed of light, the message will take three minutes to reach its destination. The replicator will create, out of new matter, a brain and body exactly like yours. The person on Mars will look like you, think like you, in fact be indistinguishable from you. He or she will feel as though they have merely fallen asleep on Earth and then woken up on Mars. This method is 100 percent reliable.

The other choice is to go by spaceship. This is very risky and there is a 50 percent chance that the ship will not complete the journey and you will die in transit. But if you do successfully take the spaceship, then your body and brain won't at any stage have been destroyed.

You must make the choice which you think will give you the best chance of surviving. What does your choice say about your philosophy of mind?

tay asked:

Does Rene Descartes provide a persuasive reply to the challenge of skepticism? Why or why not? If not, how is it (or is it?) possible to know anything for certain?

Annya asked:

Can language reveal the nature of reality?

Sam asked:

What is natural law, where did the idea originate from and how is it manifested today?

Jones asked:

Is space a 'thing in itself'?

jamie asked:

Hello, I have recently been reading descartes meditations and find it fascinating. Descartes said "I think therefore I am" but is this really true? How do we know it is us that is doing the thinking since the thoughts we are having could be coming from somewhere else? Through our consciousness how do we know if our thoughts, emotions and actions are controlled not by ourselves but by something external to our minds? I also read about the universe simulation hypothesis, same question if we are simulations how do we know if we have any controll of our minds? Thanks,Jamie.

nad asked:

What were st. Augustine and Boethius thoughts on free will and determinism?

jamie asked:

Hello, I have recently been reading descartes meditations and find it fascinating. Descartes said "I think therefore I am" but is this really true? How do we know it is us that is doing the thinking since the thoughts we are having could be coming from somewhere else? Through our consciousness how do we know if our thoughts, emotions and actions are controlled not by ourselves but by something external to our minds? I also read about the universe simulation hypothesis, same question if we are simulations how do we know if we have any controll of our minds? Thanks,Jamie.

Marisa asked:

Hi! I was wondering what inherent value is. I am studying this concept in terms of environmental ethics. I understand that if something has intrinsic value it makes you happy. This concept applies to inherent value in animals according to Mary Anne Warren, but what exactly is it? I'm not getting a clear answer from anything and I am stuck. If someone can help I would deeply appreciate it.

Christopher asked:

This is in response to a question of mine that was answered by Shaun Williamson titled "How does philosophy progress?"

I feel like you only halfway answered my question, so I'm going to rephrase it so that it is more direct. In philosophy, there are times when two ideas/theories/"isms" conflict with one another and are not compatible. It also seems to be the case that in some of these instances logic and reason alone are not enough to resolve this conflict. What I mean by this is that one idea is just as logical/reasonable as the other one. My question is in these cases, how can one determine which one to agree with, provided that suspending belief is not an option? In your first response, you brought up truth as being the deciding factor, and I would agree with you, but so often in philosophy the truth is unknown. Consider, for example, the problem of consciousness as it relates to dualism and monism/materialism. We don't know how consciousness exists/arises. Therefore, it could be that it arises purely from physical causes, which would lend evidence to materialism. However, it also could be that consciousness is a product or somehow related to the immaterial mind, which would lend evidence to dualism. I understand that there is much more to the arguments for both of these ideas, but for the sake of argument let's assume this is all we have to go on. How exactly is it that one would decide? My belief is that we would believe whichever idea appeals to us most, for whatever reason; popularity, an intuitive feeling, how well holding that belief fits in with our other maintained beliefs, etc. I'm not claiming that this is the right way to decide what you believe, I'm simply saying that this is the only option left. I'm asking whether or not there is another way of deciding what to belief in these instances that avoids all this subjectivity.

Christopher asked:

What is thought? In asking this, I'm trying to avoid the question of where thoughts come from. I'm asking more about what it means to think. Is thought simply the brain trying to interpret, make sense of, and understand the data it is receiving?

Matthew asked:

In what ways does Jean Paul Sartre compare to Nietzche?

Zachary asked:

Do you find empirical proofs (like the cosmological and teleological) for the existence of God more or less convincing than rationalistic arguments (like the moral and ontological)?

Dillon asked:

Using Kant's notion of a maxim to determine if it is wrong to cheat on a final exam, that you feel is not beneficial to you. How would Kant's approach to this differ from the approaches of the ethical egoist and utilitarian?

Alexandra asked:

Why do people ask: where are you from?

Hi, I would like to know if I have correctly identified the premises and conclusion in this passage:

A Debate About Colour

A: I think I can show that colours are not real.

B: Not again. Im sure you can find better things to do with your time.

A: No, really. I think Ive found a great argument. Hear me out. Ok, so far we have agreed that things look various ways to us. In particular they look to have various colours. And weve agreed that sometimes we can have disagreements about what colour something is; disagreements theres no way to resolve. If colours were real then there would be a fact about what colour things really were. But since we can't resolve these disagreements, there is no fact about what colour things are really. No more than there is a fact about whether someone is beautiful, or about whether something is funny.

B: Hang on! I agree that we can't resolve these disagreements, but why does that matter? can't there be facts about the world we never sort out?

A: But isnt a fact just something that we all agree about? So, if you and I dont agree about which flavour of icecream is best, then this means that there is no fact of the matter about which flavour of icecream is best. And if you and I cannot agree about whether something is funny, then this means that there is no fact of the matter about whether it is funny. Similarly, if people cannot agree about what colour something is, then there is no fact of the matter about what colour it is.

B: So your argument depends on assuming that if we can't resolve our disagreements about something, then there are no facts about that thing. But is this really true? Lets go back to another thing weve agreed to: The fact that we cannot resolve the debate over whether God exists. We agree that here we cant resolve our disagreement. Reasonable people can disagree and never resolve their disagreements about God's existence. But that does not mean there is no fact about whether God exists. Why not say colours are more like God's existence than icecream flavours or humour? In that case colours are real, even though we might not always be able to agree what colour something is.

Question: discuss this debate. Find the arguments on both sides. Identify the premises made. What assumptions do they share? Are the arguments sound? Are they valid? Are the analogies convincing? Who has the stronger arguments? Does anyone win this debate?

Premises for A:

1. Facts are real because people don't disagree about them

2. We have disagreements about what colour something is

Conclusion: Therefore colours are not real

I have said that this argument is valid since if the premises were true then the conclusion would follow. However I believe it isn't sound since the first premise is not true and assumes that the only way for a fact to be real is if people don't disagree about them.

I find person B's argument a bit confusing and don't quite understand the God exists analogy.

Can someone please explain the premises and conclusion of person B.

And can someone please tell me if I have correctly identified person A's argument. Thanks!

poppy asked:

I am studying applied ethics at the moment. When considering IVF would Kant not be pleased that I wanted to preserve and add to the human population? What would he think of such advance in science and infertility?

Ferlin asked:

My question has to do with the recent uproar made by mostly feminist students on the philosophy curriculum being offered in the west. They say it's racist, white and ignores the ideas of other cultures and race, particularly African and Indian. They say that they too have been doing philosophy and that if philosophy is all encompassing of ideas, we should have them part of the curriculum. They say they see no need for an almost exclusive European education, that world history isn't just about Europe, and should be called world history.

Your thoughts on the matter would be highly appreciated. Thank you.

russell asked:

How many pillars hold up the sea

Wombat asked:

It's impossible to disprove solipsism.

But on the other hand, ist it prossible to PROVE the truth of solipsism?

Sigurd Vojnov asked:

How do you, without changing the rules of classical logic,

show that sentence 3 does not follow from sentences 1 and 2?

1) sentence 1 is not true

2) sentence 1 = "sentence 1 is not true"

3) "sentence 1 is not true" is not true

Kristof asked:

I am perplexed by the concept of 'the polls' in Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition. Does she mean 'polis?'

It is a peculiar use of the term for which I have found no precedent. Every time I read it I want to substitute 'polis,'and wonder if it really makes much of a difference.

Any thoughts?

Paul asked:

Are there any similarities between Marx's theory of 'alienation' and Heidegger view of technology and the resultant 'deworlding' of being?

Will asked:

We have seen on the one hand that play in its many forms cultivates the virtuous characters of the individual, and that there are ethical, social, and cultural benefits to it. On the other hand, sport and games are often depicted as violent activities that in a sense compromise the fundamental ethos of play. Can you juxtapose and elaborate on these two positions?

Dev asked:

What do you think about the Islamic government (Sharia law) and the Islamic concept of God (One who is without attributes and only One)?

Sophia asked:

I have this question in this logic course that I am taking and have been stuck on it for quite a while, the answer is true but have yet to figure out exactly why.

iii) Any valid inference remains valid no matter what extra premises you may add to it.

True or false?

Ursula asked:

Which came first, the individual or society?

jimmy asked:

Hi Guys,

I was just wondering if you lovely people could clear something up for me. I was wondering what the main features of temporal experience are and how are they are significant to the metaphysics of time? I've always been pretty interested with this type of stuff and I can't find a clear answer anywhere.

thanks in advance,


caroline asked:

Defend one of the four ethical theories we discussed (ethical egoism, utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics). Say why you think that this position makes the most sense. Defend your view against opposing arguments and potential criticisms, and discuss the other views and say why you think they are inferior to the one youre defending.

rathin jha asked:

is the evil demon hypothesis true?

shafaq asked:

Plato as the major exponent of idealism

shafaq asked:

What is the application of idealism in education??

What is the application of naturalism in education

Natasha asked:

In the book Ethics and Infinity what ethical possibilities do you find in Levinas that we have yet found in any other philosophers? And what do you think of those possibilities?

Jack asked:

If everything had its binary opposite, would everything equal nothing?

Santy asked:

Is it possible into a naturalistic philosophy (naturalism) the existence of inmaterial things? And, Is it possible that, though God did not exist, could inmaterial things, even exist?

Ciara asked:

1.) At the time Darwin wrote the origin of species which of the following biological structures or processes were black boxes? A. Cells B. Digestion C. immunity D. Vertebrate eyes or E. All of the above

2.) Irreducibly complex systems in biology are problematic for evolutionary theory because A. Biochemists disagree on the number of amino acids that make up protein chains. B. Biochemists disagree about the components of cilia. C. its difficult to see how natural selection could retain a series of intermediate mechanisms that are individually useless to the organism. Or D. none of the above

3.) Behe defines irreducible complexity as a system which is composed of interacting parts that contribute to basic function, and removal of any of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. True or False?

4.) According to Behe it is no longer sufficient for an evolutionary explanation? (As Darwin did in the 19th century?) True or False?

5.) According to Behe life on earth at its most fundamental level is the product of intelligent activity? True or False?

6.) According to Behe a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, digestion or immunity must include a molecular explanation? True or False?

7.) According to Behe the fossil record is an important source of info that could help scientists develop missing biochemical explanation'? true or false?

Jake asked:

Did Socrates's philosophical lifestyle have the potential to "wake up" Athenians in a way that could have been useful to that society?

Jake asked:

Does the importance of being awoken in that way justify the extreme manner that Socrates chose to live and die?

Jake asked:

Do you agree that (to use a famous phrase from the eighteenth century Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant), awakening an individualor an entire societyfrom "dogmatic slumbers" is a constructive and useful role of raising probing philosophical questions? Is there a significant opportunity for philosophers or others to play this kind of constructive role in our own society?

Melanie asked:

Which philosophers believed that it was okay to tell a lie?

San asked:

Does God exist?

Meredith asked:

Does Plato, in your view, provide an adequate solution to the moral problems raised by the immoralists?

Paul asked:

A scientist at Creation Ministries International says there at 101 evidences for a young earth (an earth which is about 6,000 years old): http://creation.com/ageoftheearth

Could you please give your thoughts on this matter? It would be appreciated.

Devin asked:

I have a question about human consciousness. How come we can actively disobey what our brain is trying to tell us (For

example, if we put our hand on a hot stove, although it is our natural response to pull away, we can choose to keep our hand on the stove)? If our brain was the "control center of the body", then shouldn't it be able to pull the hand away from the stove if it was in control? If it is not in full control, then does this prove human consciousness? If not, then how come I can actively choose to disobey my natural response? (I apologize for my stringing of questions)

Simone asked:

Does the end justify the means?

If a person commits an act they know to be wrong (for instance they lie) to get something they want, something intended to be good, does the end ever justify the means by which they got what they wanted?

Jamuna asked:

What makes me "I" ? Please provide a detailed answer from a philosophical perspective as I am only 14 years old student.

natasha asked:

We have just started reading ethics and infinity and im having a hard time understanding levinas. what ethical possibilities do you find in Levians that we have yet found in any other philosophers? And what do you think of those possibilities?

Elieza asked:

If this is the question, then what is the answer?

Cece asked:

"External Perception is a Constant Pretension to Accomplish Something That, it is Not In A Position To Accomplish quoted by Husserl.

Is This Correct?

Nathan asked:

What does Hans Kelsen's philosophy look like when put into practice? for instance, how would he analysis Tennessee attempting to pass a bill to make the Holy Bible an "official state book," while the Tennessee Constitution says that "no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship"?

From my understanding, Hans says law is positive law, so I feel like Hans would say that the law is what it says it is, that "no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship." Therefore, it would be a question of whether this is truly giving a preference to the establishment or mode of worship.

But then the whole notion of Grundnorms has me lost.

Is the Tennessee Constitution the Grundnorm and the bill is the law we should be analyzing instead? Or is U.S. Constitution, or something else the Grandnorm?

Oye asked:

Hello, I'm writing an essay titled "'No act is intrinsically criminal'. Discuss" I know it might sound silly or dumb but I have no clue what the title means and I'm struggling to write my essay. I really want to get a good grade. Please can you help me. Thank you.

Chris asked:

What is meant by Nietzsche's dialectical method the subversion of truth.

Chris asked:

What is meant by Nietzsche's notions of human equality and of the universality of moral maxims ?

Chris asked:

How does Nietzsche's philosophical insight subvert and overcome the ontological and epistemological categories of Western metaphysical thinking.

Val asked:

Would Rousseau agree with Marxs account of the way we have moved from primitive societies to modern society? Why or why not?

Hayley asked:

How does the Memory Theory give rise to the Duplication Objection?

Stephen asked:

I was taught that awareness is essentially who we truly are. For instance this is the driving theme within Buddhism. Is it possible to argue that this view is wrong, if so, how?

sanaullah asked:

what we mean by utility of philosphy in literature and how define this?

Noah asked:

I'm writing a paper on Gettier's cases being , and I need help, these are the parts of the outline I can't figure out how to phrase/type.

Present the individualist theory you are explaining How individualist theory resolves the Gettier case Socially oriented theory

How socially oriented theory fails to resolve the Gettier case


sudip asked:

Elucidate the jaina theory of self bondage and liberation.

Karen asked:

Part of Aristotle's argument for his conclusion requires everything to have an ergon, or proper function. How plausible is this claim when applied to natural objects?

Karen asked:

The utilitarian is often criticized for ignoring rights. What are rights, and does hedonistic utilitarianism act against them?

Farhan Mustafa asked:

Dear Sir,

I would like to ask you a question on metaphysics in philosophy.

What are the strengths of applications of metaphysics in secondary schools nowadays. (8 points). Waiting for your kind response.


Yours sincerely,

Farhan Mustafa

Hazel Hofman asked:

I am interested to know how apperception (not sure what is the current thinking on this) fits with the multiverse or parallel universe theory. If there is any to explain philosophically perception within the concept of parallel universes, I'd appreciate it.

sam asked:

i need help with 3 questions I don't understand

1) Why do Parmenides and Zeno think that change/flux/motion are impossible?

2 What is Descartes substance dualism? How can we know there is a substantial difference between minds and bodies prior to experience?

3) What is the Humean problem of induction? If generalizations cannot be rationally grounded, then why do we believe in them?

Jenni asked:

Why doesnt Descartes simply determine what's real by looking around him and use his sense experience?

KamaBoy asked:

How does Rousseau account for the emergence of civil society?what is the change, or more precisely, the transformation of material relations, that accounts for the founding of society in a robust sense (i.e., civil society)?

Christian asked:

With regards to Plato's "Republic", what are the different definitions of justice, and what is the relationship of justice and rationality?

Christian asked:

With regards to Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, what is the function of a human being? Why is the good of the city higher than the good of a single individual? Can virtue be particular to an individual and still universal?

Sam asked:

An ethical question regarding government mass surveillance: Given the data that an organization such as the NSA has on individuals internet usage, does that organization have an ethical duty to, apart from stopping violent crime (terrorism etc), to stop people searching for ways to selfharm and to commit suicide (which is also a crime in some places)? If the former can be justified shouldn't the latter be necessary as well?

Stacey asked:

what did socrates have to say about choosing rightly?

mike asked:

Plato believes that through dialect we can know whats just, beautiful, virtue, love, good, but in general people are in disagreement about these terms. In your opinion, do such universals exist? And can we know them? If yes, why?

michael asked:

Hello there, well I am looking for a definition to a phenomenon that I have experienced all my life and that I have been told by others that they have experienced this phenomenon as well.

"When I want something I never get, but when I don't want something I get it right away in great abundance".

What is the name of this phenomenon, and why is it so frequent in my life.

I have dabbled in this for years, and maybe its my subconscience or karma or it has to do with something with the laws of attraction as well. Maybe I have a negative aura or energy to who I am.

I have also experienced that people that I have never met before in my life( personally or through photos or any information of them) have a negative reaction to me as if they hate me or dislike me yet they don't know or have never known me before.

Drago asked:

Let's say there is a moral philosopher who is repeatedly doing some morally questionable action towards others, for example harassing, stealing, or bullying. (From what I hear, moral philosophers are not that moral, are they?) One day she becomes the victim of this same behavior for the first time. Would she revise her own actions, and how would she go on rationalizing about that?

My attempt at an answer would be that a utilitarian would revise the utilities related to that behavior and maybe that would make her change her ways. A Kantian would think of the categorical imperative and perhaps decide this should not be a universal law and therefore one should not act like that. Is that about it or is there more to this?

Bryanna asked:

The prisoners in the allegory of the cave as political leaders create shadow reality for people and that people have to break the chains to see things for themselves.

How would you explain this? and how would someone argue against this if they do not feel the same way?

Kristen asked:

In the second chapter of The Ethics of Ambiguity, Simone de Beauvoir lists a serious of character types (the subman, the serious man, the nihilist, the adventurer, the passionate man, etc..), culminating in her existentialist ideal.

What type of character would the underground man be from Dostoevsky's "Notes From Underground"?

Mandy asked:

Does game theory give a morally acceptable procedure for making decisions?

Gershon asked:

Is it really true that what does not kill me makes me stronger?

hala asked:

how does Socrates sees the meaning of life?

Charles asked:

What existed before Christ ?

Annie asked:

What are the problems in the nature of matter in Russell's Problems of Philosophy?

stephen asked:

if my clothes are off and there is no one to see me, i'm i naked?

Derek asked:

what are essential features of consciousness

Himangsu asked:

Is it possible for something to have the property of hardness without itself not being hard? Or, is it possible for something to have the property of softness without itself not being soft?

Catherine asked:

Is an act morally good because God approves of it or God approves of it because it is morally good

Catherine asked:

Do philosophers agree on the nature of philosophy?

Sam asked:

If a hundred individuals are suddenly 'born' into utter darkness into a place where there is nothing to sense and thus no conscious sensory experience, and yet (for the sake of argument) are able to survive in such a condition does there become a 'common being' between them all by virtue of the fact that their conscious experiences are equally void? Aren't the hundred individuals one individual if their experiences are precisely the same?

Pinny asked:

Hi, My question can be asked about shout all skeptics in many ways and versions,

But perhaps the simplest and easiest ,I would be the example of Nietzsche ...

Perhaps,more than anyone else ,Nietzsche had demolished any sense of certainty

Of almost any truth or knowledge ,it seems of any kind...

The question I always had is...

What about this very conclusion itself,quite a huge statement ,with such certainty

Coming from the same man,who at the same time saying,practically,

That mad is delusional ,Nietzsche's conclusion is self contradictory.

In similar vain,Nietzsche thinks ,will to power is what drives life...

And looking at Nietzsche's own life ,practically lived poor and suffering all his life,

How does will to power apply to the life he lived and he himself drove,

Understandably ,the theory is general and universal,but didn't his life and of many others that sacrifice their lives for what seems clearly ,other than for power...

Anon asked:


If the dates during the B.C. era moved backwards, e.g. from1000 B.C.E. to 400 B.C.E to 350 B.C.E. and down towards zero, then was the first month of the year December or January?

What did the people who lived during the B.C.E. think would happen when the year reached 0000? End of time?

Was the first date of the C.E. (A.D.) era 01.01.0000 or 01.01.0001?

If, say, the first date of the C.E. was 01.01.0000, then what was the date the previous day? Was it 01.01.0001 B.C.E., 01.12.0001 B.C.E. or 31.12.0001 B.C.E.?

And if the first date of the C.E. era was 01.01.0001, then was the date the previous day 01.01.0000, 01.01.0001, 01.12.0000, 01,12,0001, 31.12.0000.or.31.12.0001?

raja asked:

Elucidate the idea of unconscious .also proof the existence of unconscious

Giwa Victor asked:

With all we learned from history is that nobody learn anything from history. Discuss?

Philosopher asked:

Is every belief a candidate for knowledge?

Pinny asked:

How can Nietzsche,as an example,believe in what he says,with any certainty,

While much of what he is saying,is basically demolishing any belief in certainty.

Sam asked:

How would we know if past generations experienced time differently (perhaps more slowly) than we do today? Is it possible that time is moving more quickly for us? Could this be used as an argument for why past generations are "better", in terms of artistic achievements etc.? Did they simply have a more stretched out experience of time in which they had more time to consider the world? Or is this just a very silly question altogether?

sourab asked:

Why does Wittgenstein disagree with Bertand Russell's interpretation of atomism in Tractatus?

steven asked:

How did Socrates know he was wise?

Chris asked:


1. What is Nietzsche's argument in the literary piece of On Truth and Lies in a Normal Sense , in a nutshell?

2. What makes scientific knowledge and empirical observation untrustworthy On Truth and Lies in a Normal Sense, in Nietzsche's opinion?

3. How does Nietzsche's notion of "truth" relate to Plato's The Allegory of the Cave and Jean Paul Sartre's Existentialism notion of "lawmakers"?

Chris asked:

What is Steven Hawking's argument in "Is Everything Determined?", in a nutshell?

Chris asked:

There are some striking parallels among Plato's "The Allegory of the Cave," Jean Paul Sartre's "Existentialism," and Henry David Thoreau "Where I Lived, and What I Lived For." What are they?

Chris asked:

Why does Thoreau call the average person a "sleeper" in "Where I lived, and What I lived For"? How does this lifestyle differ from living "deliberately"?

Chris asked:

What is the nature of scientific reasoning, according to Jacob Bronowski in "The Nature of Scientific Reasoning"? What role does imagination play? Does this differ from the picture painted by Steven Weinberg in "Without God"?

Danish asked:

What if religion disappears today? What be the implication from:

1. Social point of view Is it not the religion that plays a major role in holding back 99 against 1 amongst other things? Will not it create anarchy as a very first reaction as the religion is the fundamental identity amp; bedrock of human principles (de facto legal too)?

2. Ethics/ Morality-Will then every legitimate/legal action then have an inbuilt moral amp; ethical qualifier holding near to negligible intrinsic value? Will not anything intrinsic then be seen with a prism of hedonism? Will then incest be acceptable if agreed upon barring/controlling biological complication resulting from it. In sum, any desire agreed upon amp; legitimized by state will then be deemed acceptable amp; morale.

annie asked:

according to Epicurus, what is the soul?

Hannah asked:

In Chapter 4 of Mill's Utilitarianism he offers a partial defense of the utilitarian moral theory. Which aspect of utilitarianism does he defend? And which aspect does he leave undefended?

Giovanni asked:

why was Socrates condemned?

Jaffa asked:

Is it possible that time is going backwards?

Smitty asked:

Who is your favorite presocratic philosopher and why?

Jonesy asked:

What are the philosophical implications of the flight of Solar Impulse?

Richard asked:

was Plato a rationalist or an empiricist?

It am relatively new to philosophy and studying the aqa philosophy a level syllabus. It seems to me from my reading that some writers view Plato as a rationalist at least partly because he believed that some knowledge is innate (meno). however from my general knowledge It seems to me that Plato was really a mystic who believed that most people are driven by their habits or conditioning and he therefore advocated theocracy as his preferred political system.

I would therefore be more inclined to say that Plato was more of an empiricist than a rationalist neither of which terms existed in his time.

Robert asked:

What is the age of the Earth if time does not exist?

Jack asked:

I recently saw (YouTube) a very interesting discussion between Lawrence Krauss, Daniel Dennett and Massimo Pigliucci on the limits of science. One point that was not discussed adequately was that science sometimes turns to philosophers to help formulate the right questions. Dr. Krauss agreed apparently only if the physicist or other scientist runs out of questions to explore. I feel that the philosophy of science should play a larger role, but it intrigues me that scientists DO turn to philosopher to formulate the right question. That is, how does one know that they're asking the wrong question? Is there a method for evaluating such, and for formulating the right question? I don't expect Steps 1, 2 and 3, just some insights.

Ellie asked:

I recall reading, in the past, about a philosopher who acknowledged that the existence of god was completely irrational and that he probably didn't exist. However, he emphasized that despite this fact, people should and need to believe in religion to feel happy, moral, and fulfilled in life, and so, belief is necessary. I can't recall who this is although I'm leaning towards Kant or Aristotle. Do you know who I can attribute this idea to or where I can read more?

Paul asked:

Possibly this question is too broad, but what does it mean to say that ethical propositions do not refer in relation to Metaethics. Could you give a concise outline?

James asked:

I am just getting into the philosophy Of Guy Debord. What is your definition of "spectacle"?

sarah asked:

what is direct realism?

Steve asked:

What are the premises of Descarte's indivisibility argument for substance dualism?

Nicole asked:

Thoroughly summarize Descartes' development argument in MeditationTwo of the Meditations on First Philosophy. How does Descartes' initial skepticism lead him to certainty? What can be known with certainty, according to Descartes at this stage of the argument? Summarize the wax argument at the end of the second meditation.

Kim asked:

I am studying intro. to Philosophy, Specifically, Aristole, Kant, and Mill's Ethical theories. Which one would you consider the most reasonable and why?

Joffa asked:

What is the significance of dreams for philosophy?

Fred asked:

When Newton said, 'Hypotheses non fingo' was he lying?

Martha asked:

Can anyone here explain what J.L. Mackie in his analysis of causation means by an 'INUS condition'?

Julian asked:

Is philosophy still of any use today?

Nigel asked:

Wittgenstein once commented on Bertrand Russell that he had 'run out of questions'. Assuming Wittgenstein was right, what kind of problem or disability is this? What is the solution?

Anne asked:

Evaluate John Henry McDowell's contribution to philosophy.

Andrew asked:

Can you explain the rationalist vs. empiricist controversy. Is the debate about the origin of our ideas or justifications for our beliefs?

Robben asked:

Is mourning a relationship a healthy process in healing. Is it healthy to mourn one's relationship to family even if nobody has died? What do you feel about this attachment to a parent, is it sensible to let it go if we have established our own life to include our own families?

Gary asked:

From a Kantian perspective is it morally permissible to torture a person(who will die from the injuries) as the only means to find out where he has hidden a nuclear bomb that is set to go off in the city or area where you live? Why?

JAY asked:

does a cloned human have soul

Jamie Jones asked:

Descartes in his meditations tells us that an evil demon controlls all our perceptions, but the meditator retains the power willingly to suspend judgment, the cartesian demon cannot simply force its victim to have any arbitrary chosen belief. For example, it cannot install and run an arbitrarily chosen train of thought in the mind of the philosopher thereby making the philosopher beleave whatever the demon wants. But how could descartes be sure of that? If this was the case in our reality how would we know or discover it? and how could we deal with knowing it? I guess what im asking is are our thoughts and perceptions and even actions controlled by us?

Shane Revis asked:


What I am about to say is a desperate call for help. I am reaching out to you so that I may be assisted with this dear worry I have been plagued with for several years

Basically, I am paranoid about what will happen to me after I die. Because of argument amongst equally learned, intelligent, capable philosophers, I cant figure out what the afterlife (if there is one) will consist of. The reason this is an obsession and highly alarming to me is because several different religions state you must believe such and such in order to escape hell (eternal torture). You cant simultaneously be a follower of incompatible religions, so its like youre taking an eternal chance in believing anything. Moreover, it seems the superiority of one religion over the other cannot be determined. Philosophers argue about this stuff night and day, and the arguments never end...nothing is ever decided for certain. No one can be sure of anything. Must I believe that when I die, Ill more than likely go to some sort of hell? My morals arent terrific, you know. This is driving me mad! It is something I dwell on ALL the time. Life is so terribly fragile, and any of us could go at any time. Im at a higher risk of death than a lot because of heart disease problems in my genes.

What is a man supposed to do in a predicament like this?

You probably have beliefs about the afterlife, but how can you be SURE of them when you are aware of the other equally knowledgeable minds that dont believe as you dothat have solid arguments for their own worldviews and against your own? You cant say that youre somehow superior to a whole mass of intelligent minds!

Gray asked:

where do I come from?

Rowan asked:

How does direct realism explain what happens when we read a story? We are certainly perceiving more than just marks on a page, and our mind can build a pretty convincing picture for us based on these marks. (It also gets better at it with practice) The image we build is unique to us, yet shares a common grounding in the reality of the print on the page. This seems to me to be neither direct perception, illusion or hallucination, and I'm not sure it could be described as sensedata either, as the picture we build bears no direct relationship to the text. Has this ever been put forward as a criticism of direct realism?

Dapinderdeep Singh asked:

if I found a wallet with 500 cash in it would I return it?

Warren asked:

Who is to say what time it is? side note for all we know what we think is 7:00 o'clock am/pm when it could be 3:00, 1:59

Brad asked:

I've read a fair bit of secondary literature about Heidegger (although I must confess I have not successfully completed Being and Time) and I am still perplexed about what "being" is. What is it, actually? Additionally, I don't understand Heidegger's contribution to the postPlatonic ideas of being. Can someone please summarize 1) what being is (or at least where the long conversation about being now stands); and 2) what exactly is Heidegger's contribution to a concept of being. Many, many thanks.

kWABENA asked:

.Values are not objective, are not part of the fabric of the world can you explain this quote that was said by Mackie

Jessica asked:

Can you please explain Descartes' arguments for the position called Substance Dualism, and the position he is arguing against (materialist monism, 'mind' is just (brain) matter)?

Jessica asked:

can you explain Descartes' argument in Meditation II which establishes the nature of the 'I' as a 'thing that thinks'? And clearly explain what the I is, and what the 'I' cannot be on his view?

jack asked:

Why are we here?

Aileen asked:

Can happiness be defined and measured

Keziah asked:

What is love?

Kingsley asked:

How does Plato's Epistemologist theory become the basis of his political thought ?.

Akeem Reed asked:

I'd like for you to answer this question about what we can know and how we can know it. In the light of Descartes' extraordinary method of doubting everything that is not absolutely certain, how much of what we see and hear, think and believe, is really certain? Can there be any certain knowledge does there need to be? Is "I exist" the only absolutely certain truth, as Descartes says in the Second Meditation? What about the famous "dream" and "evil deceiver" problems raised by Descartes do these show that everything except "I exist" can be doubted?

Ali asked:

The rates of teen pregnancy in many countries have risen over the past decades, despite the increased availability of contraceptives. Suggest how parents, teachers, religious leaders, government officials, and teenagers themselves could help remedy this situation. Include at least one concrete suggestion for EACH group.

Adam asked:

What is this logical fallacy?

"Paypal was not available, so I decided to use Paypal?"

LARRY asked:


Adam asked:

I've been seeing this on the web lately.

"This sentence is false."


Abdul asked:

I am high school student from India, both Philosophy and science has always interested me but I came to know that Scientists (or empiricists) like Stephen Hawkings declare that science has killed philosophy, so are they right?

Derek asked:

I thought it was pretty obvious that Kant was a moral absolutist and really meant that one must not lie, at any cost. If an axmurderer came looking for a victim, and asked you where the intended victim was, Kant insisted one must not lie even to save his life.

But, I was in a conversation the other day and the topic came up. My interlocuter insisted that Kant really didn't mean what he said, but rather it was "a thought exercise".

What do you think? Did Kant really mean that we should not lie, even to save a life?

matthew asked:

No moral philosophy so far discovered or created is yet perfect, as in completely rationally sound and creating the courses of action resulting in the best possible world (or with the proper intent to create the best possible world). correct?

So then we must fall, as imperfect but striving to be rational and good, to the nextbest or currentbest philosophy. Given some simple additions, if necessary, namely to continue the search of the infinite possibility space of moral philosophy for a/the perfect moral philosophy and proper fallback to the nextnextbest moral philosophy for those edge cases where a specific moral philosophy might fail, is there any way to determine a best moral philosophy? asked another way, is it possible to determine if one flawed moral philosophy is in any way better or more correct than another?

If there is a metric, then does not adding specific search and/or fallback clauses make the currentbest into an essentially perfect moral philosophy?

And then if not, then what could uniquely distinguish a/the perfect moral philosophy from one of the aforementioned flawed moral philosophies?

Finally, is a moral philosophy metric necessary for there to be a perfect moral philosophy?

James asked:

The Philosophy and Ethics of Sex and Money.

How can philosophy help us think about a recent trend of women attempting to sell their virginity online to the highest bidder.

Medical student 'Elizabeth Raine' is a recent case. She planned to sell her virginity for 801,000 before backing out.

1. Consenting adults should have the right to do what they want with their body and money?

2. She does not help liberate women, but perpetuates the objectification of women as commodities instead of human beings, and contributes to violence against women.

3. If a university, medical school, and the medical profession punish or expels such students, are their actions morally defensible or not?

Socrates asked:

Marriage is an extension of business (karl marx). Agree or disagree?

Gideon asked:

Pick any question...


Basilius asked:

African philosophy: is there really such a thing?

Sylvester asked:

Essence and existence: which is prior to the other?

Daniel asked:

In the future do you think 'believing in God' will be classified as a mental illness?

SteveMario asked:

Why do good things happen to bad people, and bad things to good people?

Michael asked:

Where does theology end and philosophy begin?

Istvan asked:

How is human illness a philosophical problem?

Paul asked:

How is Nietzsche's philosophy of 'Will to Power' and 'Slave and Master Morality' related to Christianity? Besides critique of Christian values, what does Nietsche think of religion itself? Thank you.

Santy asked:

Do we say Scientific Method or Scientific Methods?

Lily asked:

If something cant be defined can it exist? and vice versa?

David asked:

Is it inevitable that Guy Debord's ideas expressed in Society of the Spectacle will become entirely absorbed by the spectacle?

Jessica asked:

The No-Self Theory; Hume, Buddhism, and Personal Identity.

What are the 7 theories to Hume's no-self Theory?

Issy asked:

I need explanations on The Problem with St. Augustine's Theism and possibly references

patric asked:

using suitable illustrations from a school setting,discuss the various ways principle of empiricism and rationalism find expression in the process of Education?

Craig asked:

These days philosophy is often viewed as discourse (doctrine, argument,conceptual analysis), as a subject for intellectual study. But the Western tradition (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Cynics, Pyrrhonists, Epicureans), strongly emphasizes that philosophy is discourse plus a way of life striving for wisdom, and ancient accounts of philosophers often tell us how they lived rather than just what they said.

What, then, are the distinctive features of a philosophical way of life? And can one call oneself a philosopher without living such a life?

omar hussain asked:

What are the two main kinds of bad faith?

Noel John asked:

In asking the "right" question, one must not be insensitive and must consider the state of the listener. For example, it would be rude to ask an unemployed person as to why he can't find a job. This is not a "right" question since the speaker failed to use discernment in his question.

mary asked:

according to dualism mind/body problem is a person still himself if he loses his memory

Noah asked:

Is curing someone of a multiple personality disorder an act of murder, and can a human have two souls?

The other day, I found out that one of my friend's relatives was diagnosed with a type of dissociative identity disorder (multiple personality disorder). However unlike most cases of DID, she got along quite well with her alter. The disorder was not majorly affecting her in any negative way, and she had no intentions of treating it. So that got me thinking. If someone developed a dissociative identity disorder during their early childhood, with each identity having its own set memories and thinking patterns. Would the act of curing that person of the disorder by eliminating their other extra identities be similar to murder?

The theory that I believe in is that a human can have multiple souls (just for this argument, let's presume a soul is created by reaching a level of consciousness). According to some neuroscientific research, only 5 of our brain activities are conscious and 95 are unconscious. And if we presume that two souls could share unconscious brain activities, like knowing how to walk, monitor heart rate, read written words, and so on. Then a human with two souls would only require a brain that's 105 (95+2*5) as efficient as an average human brain. Which is well within the realms of biological plausibility. So I believe that in some severe cases of a dissociative identity disorder, a human could have two or more souls. And by treating them, you are in a way commenting murder.

However I'm not a professional philosopher, and I'm sure that there are a lot of flaws in my reasoning.

kelly almond asked:

I think that every brain is not biologically the same. So is Kant taking the individual brain into consideration when it filters the world? Is he accepting that many humans perceive the world in ways that are different than other humans?

Steve asked:

If time travel existed and I projected myself 0.1 second into the future, would I still be visible?

Thomas asked:

If any of you have read the Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus, I do not understand the absurd victory at the end. This quote in general is puzzling;

"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that nightfilled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

Could you please break this down so I can really understand what Camus is getting at?

Jason asked:


I have been reading 'The Vita Active and the Modern Age' by Arendt and I am a little confused by Arendt's discussion about Descartes' use of the term dubito ergo sum and cognito ergo sum.

Arendt comments that Descartes' "famous cogito ergo sum... did not spring from any selfcertainity of though...but was a mere generalisation of a dubito ergo sum" p279.

Hence is Arendt suggesting that Descartes' selfcertainity of thought was the truth of self, ie 'if I think, therefore I am' or was it that because of the Cartesian doubt, Descartes believed that whilst ever he doubted, it offers validity to the claim that if I doubt, that was proof that I was thinking, and therefore I am?

I apologise if this is a bit .... confusing in the writing. I am trying to come to terms with the idea or rather Arendt's comments about Descartes' work.

Any clarification you could offer would be appreciated.


Camila asked:

In De Cive by Hobbes in chapter XII Of the internal causes, tending to the dissolution of any Government there's a quote that refers to the bibble "The most ancient of all Gods commands is, Gen. 2:15. Thou shalt not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evill; and the most ancient of all diabolicall tentations, Chap. 3. vers. 5. Yee shall be as Gods, knowing good and evill; and Gods first expostulation with man, vers. 11. Who told thee that thou wert naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? As if he had said, how comest thou to judge that nakedness, wherein it seemed good to me to create thee, to be shamefull, except thou have arrogated to thy selfe the knowledge of good and evill?" And I was wondering what Hobbes mean by "naked" in politically terms, initially I thought it mean the shame in being a subject under a ruler but my philosophy teacher said I was wrong and quote Kant in something like I needed to see the spirit of the text and no the literally words and I wanted to know your vision about what naked means politically in Hobbes, I apologise for my poor English, thank you

Mark asked:

Which act do you see as the more immoral act:

1. Defacing a widely recognized symbol of freedom, in this instance, the American flag.


2. Initiating violence against someone for defacing said symbol of freedom.

Julia asked:

I am very interested in anti-psychiatry and what philosophy has to offer in this field today. I believe it is more and better than psychiatry. I am also very interested in the modern philosophers who have accessed this field through existentialism, phenomenology and ethics. Any comments suggestions or criticism? Or even guidance.

Luke asked:

In regards to an addict and their addictions, it is quite possible to want to be sober, and not want to be sober, at the same time.

Though, the addict, knows that using is bad for them, the urge continues. The voice in their head tells them they want to do it.

The addict caves, and uses, and experiences shame.

Is the shame justified? How can the addict differentiate between their own moral compass, and that of the disease?

Fatima asked:

Can we have happiness without sadness?

Fatima asked:

Is it easier to love or to be loved?

Anon asked:

I am so scared of death, how am I going to not scare it anymore? Please help me, I'm only 11 but I am scared....

Lotte asked:

1. how does philosophers do philosophy? What methods philosophers use to gain new knowledge?

2. What is meant by the term rationalism and empiricism?

3. explain the following terms deontological ethics , teleological ethics , absolutist ethnics and relativist ethnics

please help

Lisa asked:

In which book, which chapters does Hegel talk about 'everything happens for a reason'? Are there other authors that talk about this topic? What are the titles?

kirti asked:

I want help for an essay on the topic 'The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled'

Gideon asked:

Russell stated that the theory of solipsism reduces to 'solipsism of the present moment' because I can't know for certain that I existed in the past or will exist in the future.

Does it even make sense to suppose that I MIGHT just exist for a fraction of a second (how small a fraction?), say, while while I was tapping the second 'l' of 'Russell' in the first paragraph?

shereemah bryant asked:

The idea of the optimistic progress of Being, Spirit, Mind, Reality, History, God, etc., through a triadic process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis is known as

atta asked:

Do believers have right path?

Jonathan asked:

When Descartes concluded his process of methodical doubt he claimed only to have certain knowledge of his own existence and the existence of God. The problem seems to me is that his knowledge of God was based on his belief that God was perfect, and that he was not. Does that not mean that Descartes possessed certain knowledge of perfection and imperfection too?

Descartes lived during the transition from early Baroque to high Baroque when the Catholic church dominated European culture, and that Descartes was a Catholic and therefore he would have taken it for granted that if God existed he would be perfect. This objection feels weak, what do you think?

Melissa asked:

how does Socrates answer the 2nd question of philosophy, "How can I know what is"? In other words, explain Plato's epistemology.

Carmen asked:

For a moment assume that Descartes' argument works in proving God's existence, does the ultimate conclusion follow as stated in premise 6? Can Descartes be certain that God would not allow an evil demon or computer to systematically deceive humanity? Maybe God has a reason, or needs to teach humanity a lesson?

Cupcakes asked:

in the term metaphysics of presence does presence refer to a physical presence or presence of time?

Joshua asked:

What kind of thinking may be going on in the mind of a headless man? Existentialism, or... what?

He had a sudden accident where his head was cut clean off, but managed to walk for some meters before falling down cold.

What may he be thinking before falling down dead,and do philosophers think about this?

Gretchen asked:

Do you think that technology could ever replace the memories of being curled up with a great book or the feel of an old book with its pages turned and worn, marked with someone elses notes or messages?

Leslie asked:

How do mythical stories attain authority, and what is the role played by the Muses who are often cited at the beginning of them? What does Hesiod's term Theogony mean?

angelika asked:

I'm trying to understand the differences and similarities to Kant and Humes theory abut cause and effect.

Can you explain the the basics in witch they are similar and different from each other?

Charles asked:

Matthew 10:28 in the New Testament seems to show influence from Greek Philosophy; however, I would not say that it came from Plato. It seems that it might come from Aristotle who later influenced St. Thomas Aquinas. The soul cannot be killed by mankind. If the body is killed, the soul can live on if the person is a believer in Christ. However, if the person is not a Christian, the soul and body will be thrown into hell and annihilated. The Christian soul lives in heaven until the Second Coming occurs. Afterwards, it is reunited to the body. Aquinas seems not to have believed in the inherent immortality of the soul because God could still destroy it. Jesus sacrifice seems to be what gives the soul and later the body immortality. The souls of those destined for hell are now in hades waiting for the resurrection and the Last Judgment. One might say they are on death row now. I realize this is not the traditional view of the Church. I would like to see your ideas. Charles Wynns, BA, MA

Abby asked:

Is there such a thing as intellectual elitism? To what extent should we allow our intellectual pursuits to run our lives and is it better to have friends with the same intellectual interests as you?

I have a close friend of mine who I feel I'm drawing away from because for months I've been feeling that we are too different mainly because I can't be myself with her. I can't talk to her about anything serious and when I try she shows absolutely No interest. The problem is I spend a lot of time with her and when I do I feel like I'm losing a part of myself I can't afford to. I'm afraid of being elitist. At the same time being an introvert I value the friends I have but this one is suffocating me.

Jackie asked:

For a moment assume that Descartes' argument works in proving God's existence, does the ultimate conclusion follow as stated in premise 6? Can Descartes be certain that God would not allow an evil demon or computer to systematically deceive humanity? Maybe God has a reason, or needs to teach humanity a lesson.

Lorenzo asked:

I was recently stumbled across a philosophy book at my local library and picked it up for a read. One of the topics was concerned with proof/information about something along the lines of "x is x if it is simply x". A real life example might be "a chair is a chair if it's simply a chair" or "green tea is green tea if its just green tea".

The topic seemed interesting but I have forgotten what it was concerned with or which philosopher had come up with the proof. Any help/information to help me narrow down to a specific topic would be very much appreciated.

Dan asked:

What would be a philosophy of beer?

Frances asked:

If you had to make a choice, which would you save and why: (a) a newborn human infant, (b) thirty adult gorillas.

Pearson asked:

'The world is all that is the case' (Wittgenstein). I am struggling to see the point of this. Isn't it obvious? What is the case, is the case, and what is not the case is not the case. How things are in the world depends on what is the case. End of discussion.

Beth asked:

I can't think of any philosophical questions. Is there something wrong with me?

Gordon asked:

In the UK, the Liberal Democrats are a spent force and Labour with the election of Jeremy Corbyn have made themselves unelectable. What would be a credible political philosophy that could serve as the basis for an alternative political party to the Conservatives?

Norman asked:

Suppose the universe is a computer simulation, within a computer simulation, within a computer simulation... Is there any decisive logical difficulty in the idea that it could be 'simulations all the way up'? Does there have to be something REAL that isn't a computer simulation?

Fred asked:

Who, in your opinion, is the more important philosopher (and why):

Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger.

Jackie asked:

Can we know if we have a soul? What about other people or animals?

Jackie asked:

1 .Explain some of the benefits a student may gain by studying philosophy.

2. Explain the Socratic Method of Teaching. Is this a useful way for students to learn?

3. Explain how critical thinking can be used to analyze a philosophical issue.

4. Compare and contrast induction, abduction, and deduction.

5. Explain some of different areas of philosophy which will be discussed in this course.

6. Compare and contrast various views on substance such as materialism, dualism and idealism.

7. Evaluate the 4 views as to the nature of universals and particulars.

8. Explain and evaluate the views of Anaximander regarding the nature of substance.

9. Explain and evaluate the views of Pythagoras regarding the nature of substance.

10. Explain Aristotle's 4 causes.

11. Compare and contrast rationalism and empiricism.

12. Explain the difference between A priori and A posteriori knowledge.

13 .Compare and contrast Foundationalism and Coherentism

14. Compare and contrast pragmatic theories of truth with the correspondence theory of truth.

15.What are some of the implications of Godel's Theorem?

Chiedza asked:

I have a question on religion. It seems these days with the rise of the prosperity Gospel the idea of religion being a social construction is very visible. I'm a Christian however but I've never viewed it as a religion, in fact I find the idea of organized religion deplorable. My question is is it possible to envision a pure world free from human pollution. Before I used to think the world was determined purely by human nature now I realize that our existence also weighs heavily on us.

Do you think the world would be a better place without religion? By that I don't mean atheism but rather if people pursued truth maybe in the we would realize that what drives us to look up is the innate emptiness we all feel inside. And if humans realize that we're all knowingly or unknowingly searching for our origin maybe we'd all come to one conclusion. Or maybe That's undermining the complexity of our experience as a race.

Doriane asked:

What did the person who hit a stone and said "I refute him thus" while disagreeing with Berkeley mean by that action?

Austin asked:

Try to imagine that you had a cognitive defect such that you could not think of world in terms of causes and effects. What might it be like?

Alex asked:

Some physicists are currently supporting a new theory that there exist an infinite number of parallel universes beyond our own, some of which contain an exact copy of you and me, with every action we will ever or have ever done. What does this mean for uniqueness and legacy? Can you offer some optimistic mindset for someone worried about retaining some degree of uniqueness? Thanks a lot!

Peter asked:

Government is an idea that has a stronger resonance in the U.S. than in Europe. In 2014 there was an armed standoff between Federal Government Agency officials and Militias at the Cliven Bundy Ranch. Why is that Americans tend to be more distrustful of their state/government than Europeans?! (The Danish seem more satisfied with the idea of being 'governed' than any other population). Is it history, geography, politics, culture or psychology? What does it say about Hobbes' idea of human nature being 'immutable'?

Jeff asked:

What is the true meaning of, 'What goes around comes around'?

Dan asked:

Is Islam incompatible with the US Constitution? Why? or why not?

Fiona asked:

'God save the Queen...' From what, exactly?

As a good atheist, can a Brit sing the National Anthem without hypocrisy?

Michelle asked:

What do you understand of the statement: "we all have 2 lives, the second one begins the moment you realize you only have one? thx

Lauren asked:

What is the difference between Descartes' doubts about using our senses under bad conditions and Descartes' doubts based on the problem of knowing when we are dreaming?

Crystal asked:

I am wanting to know what would the Philosopher Kant think about the fact that we throw away enough bottles to wrap around the world 190 times in a year, and what would he want to do about this and how would he solve thins issue.

Aaron asked:

What, according to Socrates, is the soul compelled to believe concerning reality? Does socrates feel this is a reasonable criterion? why or why not?

Chiedza asked:

Do you believe - I say believe for lack of a better word - but do you believe that humans are a creature in evolution. Not Darwin's evolution but social evolution. That since the dawn of time human beings have been moving further away from their basest self, or rather from the unchecked obedience to their natural inclinations. In the same vein can it be said that human evolution is driven by man's struggle with his nature and his desire for that which is good or better. Such that it's possible to envision a being on a journey to his highest self and that highest self as the end of history.

David asked:

Question: Are all beautiful paintings good paintings? If you answer Yes I would say that it's impossible to view all the beautiful paintings in the world, so it would be impossible to conclude that all beautiful paintings are good paintings. If you answer No, if you view a beautiful painting how can you judge whether it's good or not, if not all beautiful paintings are good paintings? What would your answer be?

laura asked:

What is the principle of utility and how does mill argue for it?

Margaret asked:

How do you use the FULL-Truth method to determine whether an argument is valid or not.

Janine asked:

I have to symbolize the following sentence:

H: HAL goes crazy
E: Everyone aboard is killed
F: Frank replaces the AE-35 Unit
D: Dave will fly into the monolith
C: Communication will be lost

Communication will be lost if and only if HAL goes crazy.

I'm just wondering how I'm supposed to symbolize this sentence.

Shmuel asked:

How do compatibilists respond to the source argument against compatibilism?

Esmeralda asked:

Why does Socrates in Plato begin constructing the ideal city?

Bea asked:

Why do you think, according to Plato we can never know what is false?

TITANIA asked:

using contemporary examples discuss Plato's argument that a best society is one ruled by philosopher kings.

Johan asked:


Question: What are your toughts regarding (1) "presuppositional apologetics" (van Til, Bahnsen, Bruggencate etc.) and (2) the so-called "transcendental argument for the existence of God" (Slick etc.)?

regards, Johan (Sweden)

Charlie asked:

How do I know what questions to ask? and even then what do I do with the knowledge that I aquire.... I think/ feel that from all the questions ive asked and all the things that you can try to tell people but most of them dont want to know any ways or even think of thees things. I can say that I learn for my own interests but to understand that people arnt interested which would mean that most people dont really show any appeal which would point me down a path to be anti social or I should say more so but I think that would be selfish and pointless in the sense that there is more knowledge around other people and understanding that they dont want to know and that they are happy not knowing it seems that they show a.... I dont know how to explain the "effect"? (sheep?) I guess im just confused by my own perspective.

Brad asked:

Could you tell me what Heidegger's answer to the question 'What is being?' For the life of me, despite trying to read both secondary works and Being and Time, I don't understand it. Being is everywhere, You'd think it wouldn't be so difficult to explain and understand. (Maybe it's difficult for fish to understand water??) Your comments will be much appreciated. Thanks

Kenneth asked:

Can pure thoughts or emotions create or change reality?

Jacob asked:

True or False? Hick concludes that this world is well adapted to the purpose of soul-making.

Nitish asked:

I am a post-graduate in Applied economics based in India. Despite having studied Economics I have deep interest in philosophy, my interest lies especially in epistemology whereby I want to understand the underlying mechanism of our ways to create and impart knowledge to others. when I was studying economics there is a sense that discipline intends to solve world's problems but then it's by its own means and there must be a limitation to it, given the practices of the discipline by virtue of the way knowledge is created via models or abstraction. This aspect is/ was never a part of discussion/ syllabus as what is the limit of our solutions or what we are trying to achieve is that what we desire? so I want to equip myself with the understanding of the philosophy of the discipline and then understand its limitations (in terms of offering solutions to modern day problems) for the way it's practised in its pedagogy/ finance ministries/ central banks/ international institutions and others. I would therefore appreciate if you can point out a systematic study plan for me citing references. I intend to do Phd in this area, so I wouldn't mind going to advanced readings gradually expecting that you guide me as Socrates did to others!

Selena asked:

A friend believes that the five human senses - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and feeling - are independent from one another and from our judgment of people and the world around us. Explain what is wrong with your friends belief.

Brian asked:

What does a foundationalist mean by 'certain'? How does a foundationalist know when s/he is correct?

Brian asked:

Why is astrology not knowledge according to science?

UCHE asked:


Omar asked:

Why does Descartes switch from considering the hypothesis that he might be dreaming to considering the hypothesis that a malicious demon is deceiving him?

Omar asked:

Hume argues that the phenomenon of double vision shows that "our perceptions are not possest of any independence existence." What does Hume mean by "perception"? What does it mean to say that something has no "independce existence"? Set out Humes argument in the form of premises and conclusion. Is the argument convincing?

Omar asked:

What does Hume mean by "continued existence" and "distinct existence"? What connection does Hume find between the two? what is his explanation of how the "coherence" and "constancy" of "certain impressions" give rise to our belief in the continued existence of tomatoes, trees, tables, and so on? Is his proposed explanation correct?

Freda asked:

Is in vitro fertilization a 'natural' process?

Henry asked:

Is the idea that all things derive from an arche credible? Why do the milesian philosophers tend to identify the arche with the divine?

reneee asked:

compare epricurus and camus?

Junior asked:

Compare Gorgias skeptical philosophy to Protagoras maxim. What do they mean?

Anna asked:

Do you need to be religious in order to be Moral?

Oliver asked:

Can an octopus surround a building?

Vincent asked:

Is it possible to prove or disprove the following question: The entirety of the universe could have been created 3 seconds ago. The egocentric predicament. As in can anyone prove without any doubt that it exist beyond my mind?

Lydia asked:

How does Socrates sufficiently defend himself against his accusors in Plato's Apology?

Chiedza asked:

I have a question on power. The idea of power is very complex. But my question is directly connected to God. You might not believe in God but let's just presuppose His existence. One of the most difficult questions I've come across is the problem of evil in philosophy if religion. The argument many people present presupposes an omnipresent, all powerful God who is almost a puppet master. But I find is idea of power problematic and perhaps we just misinterpret the essence of power. What if the problem of evil cannot be answered by the idea of the failure of an all powerful being but rather by the argument that God's power is self limited. Maybe power is not definitive of existence but rather responds to existence. What if to God power is not being able to make everyone bend to His will but rather , it's found in granting a degree of freedom to His creation so that those who do yield to him do so out of pure understanding. Basically what if power isn't all powerful but rather understanding the limits inherent in the idea.

Roger asked:

Could Descartes' idea of God be materially false, and why does it matter?

JANJA asked:

Why is truth relative and why do we say that there is no absolute reality (that we can see)? how is that even possible, the existence of a life has started somewhere so we could say that absolute reality exists, something objective, concrete, something that even if it is influenced with our perception would not change. How could a person get near the absolute reality and truth if everything is influenced with our perception and perception of others?

Adnad asked:

What is ethics?

Stevie asked:

What is the Cartesian Circle? Why is this argument problematic for Descartes? Provide at least two ways that this argument has been reinterpreted in the contemporary literature to address the objectionable argument?

Stevie asked:

What does Leibniz mean by a 'world'? What does compossibility mean? How does an adequate view of compossibility help Leibniz respond to Spinozas necessitarianism?

Tanisha asked:

Why is uncreativeness ugly?

Naomi asked:

What do you feel is the strongest argument for the existence of God in the Meditations? Cosmological from Meditation III or Ontological from Meditation IV? And why? P.S. your blog has helped me soooo much. Thank you!

fizi asked:

Dear sir/madam, could you give me a broad explanation about the "meaning of philosophy"? You can answer it in the form of an essay if you don't mind. Thanks.

Valerie asked:


In groups of four, we have to teach 15 minutes about a philosophical topic. We got terms which we have to explain to the other students. My topic is "the slippery slope principle". I can't find much comprehensible information in the internet etc. So I'd like to ask you. Id would be very nice, if you could give me some simple explanation. Maybe you also know, how I could teach it to my colleague. In form of a game, video or maybe music?

Thank you for your answer, I'm very happy and I'm sure, that I would get some good help!

If you speak german, it would be nice if the answer is in german. :-)


Allen asked:

What enables Descartes to be skeptical of reason and conceptual relations?

Sarah asked:

I'm doing a paper where I have to critique an argument. I've chosen Springer's All Animals are Equal and his theory regarding speciesism.

I've argued that there's something more to it than just socially constructed views on our human superiority.

For example, if you and a stranger were tossed into a strange wilderness with only poisonous plants and a rabbit, your instinct would be to eat the rabbit as opposed to cannibalising the other human.

Would Singer's theory not encourage us to see both the human and the rabbit as viable food sources from which we should choose between without bias?

My claim is basically, that speciesism is not something that gives grounding toward his moral claim, that we shouldn't eat animals -- sure, I don't personally agree with factory farming and humans eat way more meat than they need to, but I don't think, based on the analogy provided, that speciesism is the only reason we see animals as a food source.

ANY thoughts on this or ways you've seen my argument goes wrong would be appreciated.

Kobe asked:

Are your own ideas about reality most in agreement with the thinking of Locke, Berkeley, Hume, or Kant? Explain your answer.

Bernard asked:

Following Kant, many critics of theism believe that there is an ontological sleight-of-hand by importing the existence of a Necessary Being into every cosmological argument, which is an illegitimate move from experience to logical necessity

BERNARD asked:

Necessity Does Not Apply to Existence But Only to Concepts According to this objection, a Necessary Being is a misapplication of the term necessary, for necessary applies only to concepts or ideas, never to actually reality.

Bernard asked:

Immanuel Kant offered several alleged contradictions, or antinomies, that he thought resulted from applying cosmological arguments to reality. At least three of these antinomies apply to the cosmological argument.

Bernard asked:

Some critics argue that even if God is the originating Cause of the universe, he is not the sustaining Cause of it. God brought the world into existence, but He is not needed to keep it in existence.

Will asked:

What are the main similarities and differences between Substance dualism and Logical behaviourism?

bahar asked:

Most of us take for granted that even when we are not looking, the ice-cubes we saw in the freezer yesterday remain both solid and cold. Is this assumption rational or true? Why or why not?

Lyss asked:

I had a question in regards to Kierkegaard, why does he claim that Socrates is not in the category of sin? (his reasoning)

genesis asked:

What are the qualities a question must have if it is to be used as the basis of essay?

I. it can't be answered in a single sentence or paragraph.

II. it requires investigation.

III. it must be able to be answered conclusively and definitively.

IV. it must lead to a conclusion that is debatable.

Valerie asked:

How did Hobbes explain the emergence of society?

Valerie asked:

what did Hobbes mean by "the leviathan?"

Edward asked:

Can one have Platonic Love? (as in a life partner relationship without a sexual dynamic, so as to clarify not including Altruism or biological family bonds).

valerie asked:

how did Thomas Hobbes explain the emergence of society?

valerie asked:

what did Rousseau attack in his essay "Discourse of the arts and sciences?" and why?

valerie asked:

what are Bacon's idols of the mind, and what was his new method for acquiring knowledge?

valerie asked:

what did Locke mean by the term "property"? how do men preserve their property?

valerie asked:

how is Descartes' method of doubt related to his statement "I think therefore I am"?

valerie asked:

explain what is meant by monism, dualism, and pluralism. which seventeenth-century philosopher was identified with each of these metaphysical positions?

valerie asked:

what does Locke describe a something I know not what? how does Berkeley use this description to argue that matter does not exist?

valerie asked:

explain why Hume thought it was impossible to empirically prove cause and effect?

harcharan asked:

when inference is expressed in language it is called

Bhupendra asked:

What is Buddhism epistemology, ontology, Metaphysics and Axiology?

I am a students of M.Phil of Trubhuwan University in Nepal. I am trying to understand the philosophical perspective to see the theories and other. But I couldn't understand the epistemology, ontology, metaphysics and axiology of Bhuddhism.

Hope to get satisfying answer from you.

With regards,

JUSTIN asked:

Explain what Plato means when he says "Beauty causes beautiful things"

Keith asked:

I have a rather unorthodox question that requires the response of a philosopher. I am in a Marketing class for an online Masters degree program and in one of our discussion posts, a classmate made the statement that all people who love to shop are prone to impulse buying or will make emotionally driven purchases.

My rebuttal was that just because a person loves to shop doesn't mean that they do not take a strategic and logical approach and rationalize their purchases. I said that this statement is a fallacy for this reason as well as others. I added that some people who are on a budget or are frugal will strategically watch what they are spending their money on each month for food, entertainment, clothes etc so that they do not overspend or make impulse buys, but these individuals might love going to malls and love to shop. I added that the Quakers and others with strong faith in their higher power live very simple and structured lives where they do not succumb to temptations and desires of the flesh. But with that being said these individuals may have a deep desire to shop or have new things just like everyone else as we are all human.

This person later changed all people to all women and tried to cite some study that was done to validate his point but it's still not true because each person is wired differently and unique. I would like an answer with a little more substance. So please help! Thank you kindly!

Seb asked:

Is philosophy required to be based upon scientific knowledge, at least partially?

Yola asked:

What is the main argument on Descartes "Meditation 1 and 2? And, is the argument good (valid/strong, sound/cogent) or bad (invalid/weak, unsound/uncogent)?

Yola asked:

What is the main argument on Bertrand Russell, "Appearance and Reality"? Explain why the argument is good (valid/strong, sound/cogent) or bad (invalid/weak, unsound/uncogent)

gabrielle asked:

A recent investigation into universities in Northville reveals that the percentage of philosophy prefessors who are female was 11.2486102% in 2012, 10.9399783% in 2013 and 10.6400161% in 2014. This is very alarming because it tells us that in only 37 years , 6 months and 15 days, female philosophy professors will constitute less than 0.33333333% of Northville teaching force. Identify two main problems.

Gaby asked:

The cia world factbook is one of the most reliable sources for worldwide statistics. According to it only 99 % of germans are literate- with a population of 80.716 million people, this means a straggeering 807,160 germans cant read! But working from the same source , we see that only 351,100 canadians have trouble reading, clearly canandas education system is superiror at teaching is citizens to read ? Is there a problem with this question.

Robert asked:

Could precognition be a reality if the past, present and future exist simultaneously?

Brendan asked:

What do Platos Apology, the Allegory, Descartes Meditations, Lockes Enquiry, Abrams Spell have to do with each other?

D'aja asked:

Question: most of the essays were not never finished.

1. logical form

2. Give the obverse and converse

3. Give the contrary or subcontrary, contradiction and the subalternate

Marie asked:

What is the difference between Kant and other epistemologists on the status of God, the soul, and causation in our body of knowledge? Be sure to show clearly what Kant means by calling these Ideas of Reason as opposed to how Hume or Plato and the rest would analyze them.

Marie asked:

Kant created a 'Copernican revolution' in epistemology. Show how his theory avoided the problems Kant found in both rationalism and empiricism, explaining the Forms of Sensibility and the Categories of Understanding

Marie asked:

Can I get to know what a rock really is? Should I just hang out with it? How would Bergson, James and Kant answer such questions? What reasoning would they advance for their viewpoint

maria asked:

if metaphysics veil is to be drawn between some of our ideas and how things really are 'out there' one might begin to ask whether any of our ideas can support notion of what really exists in the bodies themselves what does this mean

usarmy71l asked:

Do you know whether you are dreaming right now? Why or why not?

Jenn asked:

A friend believes that the five human senses - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and feelingare independent from one another and from our judgments of people and the world around us. Explain what is wrong with your friend's belief

Rajan asked:

I am interested in moral philosophy, particularly the conception of living well. My question is: how should I go about developing expertise (or, at least, significant understanding) in this particular area? Ultimately, I'd like to write a book or series of essays that formally defines my views on what it means to live well. I began the process by taking two ethical theory courses at my university and later reading Aristotle, Cicero, and Emerson in-depth. I want to be deliberate about how to proceed but am uncertain of the appropriate direction to take (or even how to locate philosophers who have written extensively on the topic). Any guidance would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Andrinna asked:

"Al Gore's global warming theory maintains that everything is getting warmer, not colder. But if thats true, then my tea should be getting warmer, not colder, as it sits here in the cup. Same thing with the food on my plate. But of course that never happens. Therefore, there is no global warming. Al Gore is wrong."

a. beside the point

b. appeal to pity

c. ad hominem

d. straw man

Andrinna asked:

The word fallacy as used in logic refers to:

a. mistaken opinions

b. a category or group of things that share some attribute

c. erroneous beliefs

d. common patterns of defective arguments

Alitza asked:

Is there any validity to the claim that an atom can be in two places at the same time?

Kevin asked:

I'm an atheist. While challenging my indoctrination in my youth I came to this reasoning concerning infinity and god/s;

How is it logically possible for an infinite being in it's perpetual existence to come to 'thought' let alone 'create' or 'affect', clearly the domain of a time governed universe?

An infinite being can never come to a point in time when fresh thought is formulated, because that would mean that an infinite being took X amount of time to come to that thought.

In perspective; How could an infinite being pick up time 'X' to formulate the though to initiate the universe, and act upon it at time 'Y' as opposed to time 'Z' for instance.

Logically speaking, can the 'creator of the universe' be an infinite being?

Thanks for your time.

Rose Ann asked:

Deduction is a form of inference in which the conclusion is already contained in the premises and induction helps us claify what we know. True or false?

Rose Ann asked:

Soundness is a feature of correct inferences like the inference to the best explanation?

The empiricist maintains that knowledge is composed of synthetic propositions whose truths are only contingent and acquired a priori?

The Coherent theory of truth states that truth is a matter of whether there are corresponding facts?

Naive realism states that what we can directly perceive is ideas or impressions? Heraclitus claimed that humans are the measure of all things and thus that only change itself is unchanging?

Tettier shows that the tradional definition of knowledge is incorrect and claimed that one can have knowledge only when one's belief is true and justified?

Descartes maintained that only those that are perceived exist?

Berkeley like Locke believed that only those that ae indubitable can be knowledgeable?

Are these true or false?

Joe asked:

Hello. I am very educated, formally and informally, and tend to think that the more formal education (ie, college education) one has, the more liberal their political beliefs (ie I have in mind the American political spectrum of liberal and conservative, perhaps another parallel line consisting of Libertarians which are liberal socially and conservative economically). I only know a few others who read philosophy but they tend be be very liberal like myself. For instance, we all know of Noam Chomsky (who doesn't like labels but after reading a dozen or more of his books I take it he's quite liberal) and sympathize with if not vote Green Party.

So, do philosophers (which I define as those perhaps with Phds in philosophy) tend to be more liberal or conservative? This is a whole other question but just as intriguing, and similar because it arises from such thinking as I've stated: how many philosophers believe in a monotheistic god? I would assume the number is low. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Richard asked:

Why is factory farming immoral?

Alison asked:

How would you go about building a suitable morality? What considerations are of most importance? Do you think that morality has a purpose? If so, what is it?

Question is relation to the article by James Rachels called, 'Morality is not relative'.

Rumbidzai asked:

Define metaphysics and discuss its value vis-a-vis opinion of certainty and truth

Mark asked:

What is the science that deals with the human good? Explain why Aristotle sees it this way.

Eden asked:

Hi, Im a biology student, im interested in paleobiology. How the philosophy can be usefull to paleontology? Is there the "philosophy of paleontology"?

TJM asked:

Of what there is, which are identical to which?

TJM asked:

What is there?

Becky Jones asked:

'god is too remote' do you agree?

caesar asked:

do you consider the milesian effort a philosophical waste? begin your essay with your opponents and state their own views.

caesar asked:

Who is a philosopher?

Colin asked:

In what philosophy resource can information be found about what human beings are other than the physical body?

Dee asked:

Are we ethically obliged to help North Korea?

Zach asked:

Kant argues that it is impermissible to lie; make false promises. How does he come to this conclusion? Explain. Is Kant successful in showing that we have a duty never to tell a lie? Why or why not?

Zach asked:

Is there conflict between being a good person morally and being a good friend? Explain why or why not by looking at what utilitarianism would say about our obligation to friends. If there is a conflict between being moral and being a good friend, are our duties to our friends stricter than those to others (strangers)?

Rajat asked:

Can we dissociate rights of citizens from their duties?

Rajat asked:

Can citizens have rights without duties? Discuss with examples.

Area asked:

I can't understand the difference between normative and descriptive claims.

can you help be sort the example below, as normative or descriptive claims?

1- Don't murder?

2- we must cultivate or intelligence

3- some people do whats right just because its in their own interest.

4- cheating is unfair

5- pleasure is ethically valuable.

Sarah asked:

What type of school system would Nietzsche endorse or create?

Karen asked:

Hello. We are making a film about Richard Linklater and are interested in a line from his animated film, Waking Life. The line is Dream is Destiny. Rick remembers someone repeating that line for him or showing him in a book but that is all he recalls. I feel as if I have read it somewhere.


Jimi asked:

If philosophical zombies existed, would they talk about consciousness just like we do? Or, if you tried to talk to a philosophical zombie about consciousness, would they be fundamentally unable to understand what you mean? If the latter is true, would we then be able to tell if others were conscious just by talking about it?

One might argue that what a philosophical zombie ascribes to consciousness differs from what we do. They "think" that a certain physical phenomenon is what we call consciousness, but they aren't experiencing it like we are. This explanation is unsatisfying to me because it's impossible to pinpoint what exactly they're ascribing consciousness to.

Another possible explanation is that the philosophical zombie is physically "programmed" to have a discussion about consciousness. If this were true, if there were a world of only p-zombies, where would the concept even come from? It would seem pretty random that consciousness, something so abstract and unheard of, would be such a common topic of discussion among p-zombies.

AEE asked:

Discuss and critically evaluate Descartes' wax example in Meditations 2. What is it meant to establish? Discuss some possible criticisms.

Abe asked:

What are Pythagoras' views on: the workings of the mind; how we acquire knowledge of the world; how we know that our knowledge is true?

fonki asked:

Do you need to know what to teach in order to teach

Matt asked:

Do Gilbert ryle and Buddhists have the same point of view on the mind? Or do they have different point of views? If different what are the differences?

Rifat asked:

Why is philosophy against desire?

The urge or the need to succeed or to become some thing or to come to a realization of fulfillment through work or live exemplary toward the loved ones surrounded or to motivate other to not to give up their dreams, isn't that what is expected. If not work than what? What can give our lives any meaning at all?

kay asked:

Are we all one? My rotational analysis feeds back to me that we are a multi-rotational system and I do not need another to exist as I am self feeding, I do not need to be observed;...because I observe myself and serve nothing other than my many "me's". I am fully conscious of this and not, due to my sometimes seemingly binary nature. So please, other part of me...

Shaina asked:

Can you explain the fact value distinction problems and solutions pertaining to the views of emotivists/ cultural relativists/ individual subjectivists/ divine command ethicists/ egoists? and how evolutionary ethicist/ utilitarians/ kantians provide a solution to this problem?

How do virtue ethicists try to solve the fact value problem?

iloveyou asked:

it is where philosophy started to exist?

Erika asked:

According to Pythagoras, (and Daniel Kolak) the symbol '2' is ___ and refers to ___?

sida asked:

what are the differences between the ancient notion of the self and the modern notion of the self?

sida asked:

St. Thomas Aquinas developed The Cosmological Argument in the 13th century on the basis of Aristotle's arguments. What are the notions supporting this proof?

Jack asked:

Should there be a limit on prison sentences? If so, why?

Kathy asked:

John is bumbling along the street one day and falls through a trap door. Underneath this trap door, he find himself in an underground chamber being maintained by a large circle of well-respected, rich and powerful citizens. For over 13 years these people, whose public lives continue to be resplendent with 'good works' on the surface, hold John in solitary confinement subjecting him to extreme forms of psychological torture and humiliation for their amusement. His own 'upstairs life' is in the meantime effectively destroyed. John knows that even if he were somehow to escape, if he tried to go to the authorities or otherwise tell his tale he would be committed to a mental asylum.

Before this John would have considered himself an average guy or even slightly better ethically speaking. While quick to ire he was also quick to forgive if a matter of dispute were correctly addressed. Now all he can think of is getting back at his tormentors by any means possible. Despite their 'other side' he considers them the vilest specimens of mankind that have ever lived. Is John becoming a bad person?

Tori asked:

Starting especially with Descartes and running through Locke, Hume, and Kant, discovering and articulating a foundationalist account of knowledge - with the particular goal of putting scientific knowledge on a firm foundation - was a central element of the Enlightenment project. Explain what this means, illustrate it with examples from each of these authors, and evaluate their competing arguments.

What lessons should we draw from their efforts? In light of their efforts, what sort of foundation, if any, can be found for science? Does science need the sort of firm foundation these authors were looking for?

Julie asked:

Is preference utilitarianism a form of rule utilitarianism?

Rocky asked:

What is true happiness?

John asked:

A possible argument that a computer running an algorithm cannot be conscious?

Imagine, to the contrary, that a computer could experience a moment of subjective awareness by running some program code. Let us put that code inside an infinite loop and set the program running with a counter that increments with every iteration of the loop. In principle the code runs a countable infinity number of times and the computer experiences an infinite number of identical moments of consciousness.

Now imagine the computer "waking up" in one of these moments of consciousness. It asks itself the question "what is the prior probability that I should find myself in a particular conscious moment with some definite counter number n?". As it knows that it will run forever then the prior probability of finding itself in the moment n is 1/infinity which is zero.

But this reasoning is true for all n so that the probability of finding itself in any moment is zero. This contradicts our assumption that the computer does find itself conscious.

Perhaps a computer running a program cannot produce conscious awareness?

Nasser asked:

What is the best journal for submitting my solution to the paradox of Achilles? Is there a prize in proving the paradox of Achilles to be false?

Please kindly email me your answer to my questions. Thank you.

Nasser asked:

I disagreed with the following argument of yours: "One of the most obvious rules of logic that Zeno's paradoxes violate relates to a non-sequitur fallacy. In other words, Zeno's premises are affirmative (positive) but his conclusions are negative. Specifically, in Achilles and the Tortoise Zeno states that both Achilles and the tortoise are moving forward (positive premises) but Achilles never catches up with the tortoise (a negative conclusion with no negative premises)."

I think that Zeno does have a negative premise in his reasoning and it is that while Achilles and the tortoise continue to move forward, the distance between them continues to decrease. The decrease in the distant ancestors between them is a negative premise.

scott ward asked:

The student says I am akin to a caged beast waiting, waiting for the next day, waiting for the moment of enlightenment, waiting on desiny, waiting to see the glory of the next level, and the teacher replied:

DJ asked:

How can you justify greed in ethical terms?

Emiliano asked:

Is it right to follow the law(s) of a country, even if they are clearly against its constitution? If not, what would a philosopher do?

geedeecee asked:

If animals were conscious isn't it more likely to be an animal. I mean there's thousands more animals than humans so what's the chances of finding your self human. Doesn't this mean animals are not likely to be conscious

Greg asked:

Is hard determinism consistent with knowledge; that is, is it consistent with justified true belief? It's the "justified" condition that strikes me as problematic. If hard determinism is true, then wouldn't my thoughts (including my belief in the truth of hard determinism) be the predetermined outcome of physical events in my brain? It may well be that natural selection favors my having certain (predetermined) thoughts in various circumstances, but the survival value of those thoughts is not necessarily the same as their truth value.

As a boy, when I first came across the stock syllogism, "All human beings are mortal, etc." it took a second or two for me to grasp its logic. My mental effort and subsequent understanding felt like the opposite of experiencing an automatic brain process; e.g., a startle reaction. And how would the ability to grasp a chain of formal logical reasoning have favored survival among the prehistoric environments under which such thinking would have presumably evolved?

In addition to your answer, I'd appreciate any recommended books or articles for further exploration of these topics. Thanks!

Greg asked:

Hi, here's one more question related to hard determinism: Is hard determinism utterly futile?

Here's what I mean: Take the often-heard argument that criminals should be treated leniently because (certainly under hard determinism) they aren't morally responsible for their crimes. But, if we are to apply hard determinism consistently, a censorious judge can no more help being censorious than a criminal can help being antisocial. And the "bleeding hearts" can't do otherwise than bleed, and those who are moved can't do otherwise than heed.

Like some vast Punch and Judy show set into motion, everyone does what the bouncing atoms bid them do. Our impact on each other is essentially the same as that of colliding billiard balls.

And if I despair that free choice is an illusion, even that despair is not my own, but just another predetermined swerve of the synapses.

And if I despair that even my despair is determined--even THAT despair is not freely chosen.

Under hard determinism, I have no agency whatsoever. Contra the compatiblists, being a hand puppet is hardly an improvement over being a marionette.

A final irony: In the discussions of hard determinism that I've run across, the writers often lapse into addressing the reader as if they have a choice of how to react to their exhortations--but I suppose the writers can't help themselves.

Seymour asked:

We all now, currently, it's impossible to "scientifically" or "physically" go back in time. But if you had the dying urge to do so, say if you wanted to correct a critical mistake you made, and provided you would not disastrously change the cause of history by doing so, could the following be plausible: you are given a drug which puts you in a coma for the rest of your life. You have a dream in that coma that lasts from when you were knocked out until your real-life death. The events in the dream start the day before you do this bad thing, so you can do something different instead. So essentially, this drug simulates your life from a certain point until your death. My question is, is this the same as going back in time in reality ("scientific" or "physical" time travel)? Or even, is there a difference between the two? And, what's more important, the "reality" of life, or our interpretation of it, or are they the same (because everyone has different interpretations)?

Derek asked:

What is the point of the Sorites paradox? I'm a regular listener of the Rationally Speaking podcast, and couldn't help but notice that Julia Galef concludes "that philosophers think there should be a precise definition or a right answer". I'm of the opinion that the point of the thought experiment is to help us realize the "messiness" of language. Which of us is closer to the truth?

ram asked:

what is the meaning of direct pressure,how does it play an important role in group thinking in engineering?

Tom asked:

How do you tell the difference between induction and hasty generalization/sampling bias?

When making an inductive assessment, how do you check to make sure you are not making a hasty generalization/sampling bias?

Marc asked:

My question concerns real vs. nominal definitions.

In brief: is it possible for real definitions to be either true or false?

For example, let's assume I fix the denotation of the term "tiger" (as I point to a large, four-legged cat). Then, I give a real definition of "tiger": an eight-legged invertebrate.

Would it be reasonable to say that the real definition of "tiger" I have given is false? Assuming the earlier denotation of "tiger" I gave by pointing to actual large, four-legged cats?

Ngonadi ifunanya asked:

I am not everybody but I am somebody

Bland asked:

'Under Athenian law, one could not be prosecuted for a crime if it could be shown that the action was done unwillingly, under duress, by threat of force, or from ignorance. If Socrates' view is correct, how could anyone be responsible for his or her actions? If one acts under the influence of passion or other non-rational motives, is one morally responsible? Can one be 'willfully ignorant' of the law?'

mike asked:

Hello, this question is about things that have happened in the past, experiences we have had and how we think about them.

Does it make any sense to say this: Regardless of whether or not humans have free will, regardless of anything else, the universe unfolded the way it did until this second and it could not have happened any other way, therefore it is pointless and unhelpful to regret the bad experiences we have had.

Someone makes a decision that turns out to be a bad one, and you can say well if you made a better decision of course the universe would have unfolded differently and you would have had a better experience, a better life, but is that true? Is it possible to argue that whatever has happened, good or bad, had to happen because it actually did happen, and that's all the proof you need. It doesn't matter if the Determinists or Libertarians are right or wrong, it has nothing to do with a belief in fate, something happened in the past therefore it had to happen. The world wars happened, now we can look back with hindsight and see how they could have been avoided, but when you take into account all of the many and varied factors at the time that contributed to them isn't it possible to say that they had to happen, how couldn't they?

olisa asked:

what is the philosophical analysis of the following motivation statements. (a) I am not everybody, but I am somebody. (b) I can not do everything, but I can do something.

James asked:

What are the three activities/methods of philosophy with examples?

Dominique asked:

I'm interested in the implications of Arthur C Clarke's third law, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Do you know of any philosophers who have addressed this? Can you recommend some reading? Thanks for your time :)

Ray asked:

Descartes & The Problem of Other Minds: In the reading from Descartes for the first section of Unit 2, we are introduced to Descartes' mind/body dualism, wherein the mind and body are taken to be completely distinct types of entity. In particular, the mind is taken to be immaterial (nonphysical) while the body is wholly material (physical), and it is the mind which is taken to be the self on Descartes' view. Gilbert Ryle, however, argues that if Descartes is correct, then a certain puzzle arises: since the immaterial mental states of others are not observable, we can never know whether other people really have minds (or might instead be zombies or automata). This is supposed to be a problem for Descartes' view of self because surely we DO know that other people really have minds. If you write on this topic, you should argue whether this is a genuine problem for Descartes. If it is, can Descartes' view be fixed to avoid this problem? Explain why or why not.

Daisy asked:

Is a photo stored on a camera the same as a memory in our mind?

Richard Wilson asked:

Are you able to solve this? Who made this statement?

"...this recommendation is based on my belief that it is sometimes more appropriate to attempt to rebuild reality so that it conforms with the moral premises of our perspective theories than to restructure scientific statements so that they conform with current empirical observations"

vishal asked:

Solve this..!

There was once three fortune tellers, namely Truth (who always tell the truth), Lie (who always lies), and Wise (who sometimes tells the truth or lies). An investigator was sent to know if who is the Truth, Lie, and Wise.The investigator asks the one who is sitting on the left: "Who is sitting next to you?" She replied: "Truth".The investigator asks the one who is sitting on the middle: "Who are you?" She replied: "Wise".The investigator asks the one who is sitting on the right: "Who is sitting next to you?" She replied: "Lie."Who is sitting on the left, middle, and right respectively?

Dida asked:

Is the power of God possible to exist?

Dida asked:

does philosophy matter?

rog asked:

Which one of the meditations in the Meditation on First Philosophy by Descartes is the most important in meeting to goal of establishing a new foundation for the sciences?

Rachel asked:

A friend believes that the five human senses - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and feeling - are independent from one another and from our judgments of people and the world around us. Explain what is wrong with your friend's belief.

John asked:

Is the idea of God essential to the realist conception of the past, and by extension to the realist argument? Must we all be a dualist, however mild, to sustain realism?

Stephen asked:

Is science born from Philsophy?

And what about Quine's anti-foundationalism? Is it a correct philosophical position?

irene asked:

All education questions are ultimately questions of philosophy.explain with practical example

Jane asked:

Hi I was wondering why conceivability isnt sufficient for logical and metaphysical possibility. And the arguments substantiating this viewpoint? As well as the implications of this om conceivability arguments such as Descartes'.

Erin asked:

Why is tranquility the highest goodness, according to Epictetus?

Isabel asked:

What is the one connective in the English language that connects two propositions in such a way that one of the propositions is asserted and the other is unasserted?

JJ asked:

What are the subject matters of the ff: Epistemology, ethics, logic, metaphysics, and aesthetics?

Thank you in advance!

Elijah asked:

How does Plato's theory of reality build on the theories of Parmenides and Heraclitus?

For Plato, what ultimately is real?

What reasons are there for believing or disbelieving that Plato was right?

Dida asked:

What is the different between religious wisdom and philosophical wisdom?

Adam asked:

Kant diagnoses human reason as suffering under a 'peculiar fate', namely 'that it is burdened with questions which it cannot dismiss...but which it also cannot answer'. What does he mean by this?

Shahana asked:


So my question is, Is Philosophy related to Logic?

In my opinion, Logic has a practical conclusion to arguments, whereas philosophy doesn't provide that.

Philosophy sounds very vague and superficial while logic makes total sense.

I know that facts prove Logic is a branch of Philosophy but have you (with all due respect) heard of any theory that proves it otherwise?

(P.S.- I'm a young high school going girl. I have scattered thoughts. Have keen interest in Logic.)

Thank you.

Benilyn asked:

Present your understanding of the program of virtue epistemology. Tell briefly how is supposed to differ from Cartesian inspired, traditional epistemology. Show in what sense the notion of intellectual virtues, and vices can supposedly give us a much better theoretical understanding of epistemic goods.

Barry asked:

How much of Augustine and Thomas' philosophies can be seen in modern day theology?

Barry asked:

How do I know that I'm not the only person who exists and everyone else is not a figment of my imagination?

Barry asked:

Why do people do things that they know are not in their own best interest?

Barry asked:

Why does philosophy matter?

Barry asked:

Which living things matter, and which don't?

Barry asked:

How has the human understanding of the concept of God changed over time?

Sandy asked:

If I have a six pack of beer how many items do I have: one, six or seven?

Joseph Kelly asked:

What is prescriptivism?

Joseph Kelly asked:

What are the objections to emotivism

paola asked:

im taking a philosophy class and reading the book named "Biffle- a guided tour of five works by plato"- and as i read the book it is asking me questions like "in order to answer the first question i would have to?

Ameen asked:

Dear all,

I come from a Muslim background and when one looks back at intra Islamic polemics, one will find a massive debate about the question: Where is Allah/God?.

There are two main camps in this debate, the Asharis and the Hanbalis ( otherwise known as the Salafis/Wahabis).

The Asharis believe that God does not have a 'place' and that he exists in a realm that is outside of directions, places, space, time.

The Salafis/Hanbalis believe that God is literally 'above' the universe in a direction in a way that is unique to him. They hold that concepts such as space and time are meaningless concepts that don't have an actual reality (like numbers).

My question is, if God exists, then where does he exist?

kerry asked:

do u agree that behind all our actions we are seeking pleasure and avoiding pain [emotional or physical]

Devora asked:

Could precognition be a reality if the past, present and future exist simultaneously?

gina asked:

1. What common-sense methods do we have for telling whether people are nothing but selfish?

Anton asked:

Am I mind or body?

Leslie asked:

Dear Philosopher -- is there a law or principle in philosophy that states that all positive statements in a language can be turned into a question and can also be negated?

thanks in advance

Jennyfer asked:

Hello, I have a question about Descartes' dualism. A lot of people have argued that with his dualism view comes the problem of interactionism: How can the mind have an influence on the body since it is a non-extended substance? I was wondering how Descartes has defended his opinion when facing these criticisms. Did he consider that the union of the mind and the body (lying in pineal gland)was the reason of this interactionism ? How did he explain that? Thank you very much for your answer !


vikrant asked:

Why is this world devoid of love though everyone knows the significance of love? What has eroded us to such an extent that it seems futile to love or love is seen as merely as a weakness? Has Materialism completely out shadowed Love or Love itself has become part of Materialism?

Marie asked:

Why do bad things happen to good people? And visa versa?

Lilian asked:

Which of the following would be real and which would be solely experimental?

An idea; Mr Spock (of Star Trek); A feeling of loneliness; the state of Arizona; An itch; the state of euphoria; Your car; the sound of music; An atom; the Pythagorean theorem; Pythagoras gravity; A heartache; the law of gravity; A beautiful painting; heat; A dirty picture; temperature; A poem; the office of the President of the United States; A mirage; The President of the United States; The planet Mars; the state; The God; Mars; a sunset; A scandal; A toothache (in your wisdom tooth)

Celina asked:

Example of a moral dilemma which a deontologist and a utilitarian would probably disagree on, and explain why.

Leslie asked:

Dear Philosopher -- if we categorize sentences in English, would Positive Statements, Negative Statements, and Interrogative Sentences the same level of hierarchy?

Do we need one to create another, or any one of the three can be created independently of the other two?

Thanks in advance

Jamal asked:

Why it is neccesary to consider society in planning education in social development?

Jamal asked:

With vivid examples show the relationship between liberation and development.

reggie asked:

Why is it not good for us to get all we wish? Why is it 'hard to fight against impulse'? why should we fight against it anyway?

Tiara asked:

Plato suggests that education is a difficult trek out of the cave into the realm of the Forms and the Good

Tiara asked:

Plato suggests that education is a difficult trek out of the cave into the realm of the Forms and the Good, but ultimately, it is the soul remembering what it already knew from its previous existence there.

What is your understanding of learning? This will also reveal something of your understanding of human nature.

Tiara asked:

Who is Plato?

Jonathan asked:

With the incarnation, God made himself particularly vulnerable to the various aspects of this world (war, disease, famine, rejection, etc). And he was willing to die for us to live despite our fallen nature. Would a sense of vulnerability be an aspect of God's nature? I'm not suggesting that God is imperfect or unable to see his plans through. But there does seem to be an element of vulnerability he has taken up with loving us and accepting our rejection of him. In our own lives, the most loving and beautiful things make us vulnerable.

David asked:

My dictionary's definition of "define" is "declare the exact meaning of". Does this definition declare the exact meaning of define?

Mohammad asked:

Is all knowledge dependent on culture?

Sarah asked:

In Meditation II, Descartes states, "I am; I exist - this is certain." Explain why Descartes claims that his knowledge here about this cannot be doubted?

Sarah asked:

What is the nature of the "I" for Descartes and why doesn't it refer to the physical body of Descartes?

Barbara asked:

what philosopher once said everyone needs these 3 things - something to do, somewhere to go and someone to love?

Cassandra asked:

Both Boethius and Socrates argue that it is better to suffer injustice than to perform injustice, i.e. suffering injustice does not cause real harm to a just person, but performing unjust actions does cause real harm to oneself. What reasons do they have for holding this view?

One asked:

I want to know philosophy related to villages

Beth asked:

Which of Meno's definitions for virtue do you find most convincing? How might you answer Socrates' objections to the definition in question more effectively than Meno did? On the grounds of the definition you've picked, do you think virtue can be taught?

David asked:

My dictionary's definition of "definition" is an "exact description of a thing". The definition doesn't contain an exact description of a thing, it only mentions it, so it doesn't qualify as a definition. Paradox?

Haley asked:

Explain Aristotle's proof that humans have a proper function.

Leo asked:

Who was more fecund Plato or Aristotle,. Is there anything that we can know absolutely via empiricism?

gilehmerd asked:

What Nietzsche means by this?

"I am a man who wishes nothing but some daily reassuring beliefs to seek and find his happiness in this daily greater liberation of the mind."

This is from which era of his philosophical life, and does it have any direct connection to any of his works?

Thank you,

Rikesh asked:

What does Aristotle think that human beings are? What kind of life is a good life according to Aristotle? What are the virtues and vices and how do they fit into this? How could Aristotle's philosophy be used to justify drinking a glass of wine at dinner?

Nawd asked:

Descartes, drawing on the success of the Copernican system, believes that many of his former beliefs must be false. How worried should we be about the fact that the world is not exactly as it seems?

Nawd asked:

Galileo says, "To excite in us tastes, odors, and sounds I believe that nothingis required in external bodies except shapes, numbers, andslow or rapid movements. I think that if ears, tongues, andnoses were removed, shapes and numbers and motions wouldremain, but not odors or tastes or sounds." Do you agree? Why or why not?

Nawd asked:

If it is possible that you're being deceived by an evil demon (or, aliens, evil robots, or whatever), what does this mean about what we can or can't know? Is there anything you could still know even if you couldn't trust your senses?

Keegan asked:

I've heard of Geniology but it's mostly a wacked out religious cult and not a solid political theory. Are there any other political philosophers who craft a meritocracy based in intelligence, or who attempt to incorporate specialization into a political structure in the way that Smith did into economics?

Stefano Z asked:

Explain what kind of dualism is found in Russell, Plato, and Descartes

David asked:

What does Taylor Carman mean (in his foreword in Heidegger's Being and Time) by "Yet the entity-ness of the entity is just what possession of the property was supposed to explain." It is prefaced by "What would an entity be without the property of existence? Nothing. And what could have such a property? Only an entity." I understand that Carman is stating an entity is that which has the property of existing and that Heidegger classifies Being as a separate characteristic of an entity and existing. But the sentence explaining it (see above) is rather wordy and confusing. I fear I am missing vital info by simply glossing over this information. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

This is not a test or essay question,(I mean its a pretty obscure line to have a prompt based off of) but I am going to be taking Heidegger courses in the coming fall and wanted to get a good grasp on the subject before diving in. I have already read Question Concerning Technology and now want to read Being and Time but this line is really getting me! Hoping there are some fellow Heidegger aficionados on this site, ones with better knowledge/experience than I currently have

Tomislav asked:

Are metaphysics and epistemology keys to interdisciplinary approach in science?

This is my line of reasoning. Science does experiments and experiments generate data. Data itself has no value, in the sense that to gain knowledge we need to interpret that data and see how it 'fits' in the existing knowledge. Also, to make an experiment we need to make some assumptions, both metaphysical and epistemological. For example, to investigate the nature of subatomic particles, we need to make a metaphysical assumption that 'the outer world' exists and that such particles exist. Furthermore, we need to make an epistemological assumption that 'the outer world' is knowable and that experiments are a knowladge-generating method. So, philosophy can act (or acts?) as the first and the last step in scientific method. Since philosophy can engage itself into answering a question from multiple perspectives (read multiple science disciplines)and philosophical assumptions are needed to do science can philosophy act as a glue that enables interdisciplinary approach? Also, is philosophy inherently interdisciplinary? Can we use this for better understanding of interdisciplinarity?

wisdom asked:

why do you think the various academic disciplines we have today broke from philosophy?

Mark asked:

Hi there,

I'm really struggling to make sense of today's world. I feel as though I'm out of place and can't readily relate to people's obsessions with money, status and instantaneous gratification. Is it me or has the world changed?


Zack asked:

Regarding the mind and its knowledge of reality, how does Chalmers' argument compare with Plato's metaphysical views presented in the allegory of the cave? How does the Brain in the Vat compare with Plato's views?

Candis asked:

Do objects in the external world really exist? Can we demonstrate whether they do or don't? Discuss with reference to the arguments of Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. In the end, who offers the strongest argument? Discuss fully.

Briefly explain the Turing Test, and then discuss whether you believe a machine will ever be able to pass the Turing Test. If not, why not? If a machine could pass the Turing Test, would this mean the machine thinks, and so is self-aware, in the way that you and I are self-aware? Or is there some relevant property we have that the machine would still lack? If so, exactly what is this property?Finally, what implications does this debate have for the question of whether we each harbor an immaterial soul?Be sure to make use of the arguments of Ryle, Lycan, and Searle in developing your answer.

ayden asked:

The haze in Singapore causes problems for the capitalist economic system. The forest fires in Indonesia cause the haze in Singapore. The forest fires in Indonesia are caused by the greed inherent in the capitalist economic system. So the capitalist economic system is inherently self-defeating.

Is this a valid or invalid argument?

Ed asked:

Are the positions:
I exist therefore you don't exist
We exist therefore they don't exist
They exist therefore we don't exist
Western philosophical positions identified with a particular school or author?
I believe it is in Tibetan Buddhism. Any references regarding Western or Buddhist thought would be appreciated!

julie asked:

what philosophy would you ascribe to - Rand's, Aristotle's, Plato's, or a Combination of some sort and why?

Andrew asked:

Can we unknow what we already know?

Kuno asked:

In Buddhism there is no self, so to whom is the accumulated karma transferred in a future life?

Marlee asked:

I'm currently doing my assignment and got stuck. I have read the boy over and over and I'm still not grasping on everything. Please help me. Thank you.

Defend the idea that the mind is non-physical. Using some of the tools philosophers like Plato or Descartes have given, give a convincing argument that this is the case. What problems might arise if indeed the mind is non-physical? How would you account for these?

Danny asked:

Do you agree that (to use a famous phrase from the eighteenth century Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant), awakening an individual--or an entire society--from "dogmatic slumbers" is a constructive and useful role of raising probing philosophical questions?

Presley asked:

What does Whitehead mean by "causal efficacy" and "presentational immediacy"? How do these notions pertain to the tension between Becoming and Being, novelty and order, along with consciousness and the body?

Presley asked:

What is the difference between relational and unilateral power? Include in your response a discussion of the following dichotomies: actuality/possibility, force/persuasion, competition/attraction, and eros/tragedy.

call me john asked:

Assumimg it is possible for a person to have memories that he does not believe are correct, how would you define the word "memories"?

Note: Its okay to use the word "beliefs" in the definition , as that is a much simpler word and I understand it already.

Jeanette asked:

Imagine that you are Descartes and you want to prove the existence of God. Choose the argument from this group of five (The Five Ways by St. Thomas Aquinas) that you think is best. Will it work? Why or why not? What makes it better than the other four? This last question can mean What makes the argument better in general, as you judge it? or What makes it better for Descartes?

Jason asked:

Image that theres a famous, rich celebutante whose Bentley is dangling precariously off the edge of a cliff. Below, past a jagged craggy precipice, a school of hungry hammerhead sharks is circling. The celebutante is frantically tweeting her plight to her millions of followers, promising a large reward to whoever can rescue her. You decided to try your luck, even though you are afraid of sharks, cannot swim, and have no search-and-rescue abilities.

A) Using Aristotle's doctrine of the mean, explain whether your decision to save the celebutate is good or not. B) Explain Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative and then explain whether your decision to save the celebutante is good or not. C) Using either Aristotle or Kant, explain the deliberative process of someone you was acting morally (and their deliberative process) when saving the celebutante.

Blessing asked:

If the conclusion of an argument seems to be proven simply because nobody has contradicted it, the argument is called...

RUSS asked:

Is there a philosophical tradition that permits a "prime mover" (GOD) who created that which we know, or, can ever know, using "eternal" truth/laws, given that we are also subject to those laws THEN leaving us alone to work out our own lives?

LEENA asked:

What is the essence of human beings? What is Aristotle's reasoning?

Katie asked:

According to Kant's Groundworks, what is the moral law? What is at least one of its formulations? And how is this imperative different from a hypothetical imperative?

Tina asked:

Why is Heidegger's fourfold the house of Being? Why is house of Being homelessness?

Yohan asked:

Which groups of people populate the first moral community Socrates describes (in chapter 3)?

Vivian Bouza asked:

Kant argues that humans are 'rational animals,' and therefore reason, as what distinguishes us from the animals, is an organ that has special and specific value. What, according to Kant, is the purpose of reason, and how does he make his argument?

Tamasin Bouza asked:

Kant argues that only those actions that are undertaken both in accord with, and from, duty, are considered to have true moral worth. What is meant by the distinction between 'in accord with' and 'from' duty? Why does Kant make this distinction, and what are its implications for his understanding of morality? Why and how does acting in accord with and from duty make us morally better people?

Gabby asked:

I am taking an ancient greek class and we are studying Aristotle obviously. I am kind of confused on how his accounts about change in Physics 1.7 and 3.1-3 differ. If anybody could help that would be greatly appreciated!

tom asked:

is it possible that the intelligence in evolution has learned to survive death?

tom asked:

Where does the intelligence in evolution come from? even instinct is intelligence.... can it come from no intelligence?

Marty asked:

I have always thought of science as a methodology for creating models of our observations that we can use to predict the observational outcome of a future experiment or other interaction.

Scientific theories that are more accurate at predicting the future outcomes are considered better theories.

What perplexes me is then how can the study of the past (e.g., anthropology, archeology, etc.) be considered science since the outcome is already at hand and we are trying to create a theory that predicts what we are already observing. In fact all theories that predict what is already being observed seems to me to be equal in scientific validity no matter how weird the theory.

Fabiana asked:

What did West means when he says: 'Plato says philosophy is a meditation on and a preparation for death. And by death, what he means is not an event, but a death in life because there's no rebirth, there's no change, there's no transformation without death. And therefore, the question becomes, how do you learn how to die? And of course, Montaigne talks about that in his famous essay, 'To Philosophize Is to Learn How to Die.' You can't talk about truth without talking about learning how to die.'

Fabiana asked:

What are Avital Ronell basic presumptions on ethics?

Dani asked:

How do we eliminate dogmatism?

piotr asked:

is there a meaning for the existence of things?

is there a need for any other question?

Tim Moss asked:

Since seeing Donald Trump's rise I have seen the comparisons to NAZI Germany. But I remember (perhaps naively) that many of the NAZIS believed what they were doing was for a greater cause. Many gave up high paying roles and professed the interest of the nation. Goering justified the Holocaust with a genuine (sounding) belief that he was bettering the nation. By comparison, we live in a post-fascism society, Trump must know what he's saying and doing is inflammatory and contradicting.

I was wondering, assuming both outcomes are equally ethically wrong, is it more evil to influence people to do something evil you logically don't agree with for your own interest, or to influence people to do evil when you believe it is for the common good?

Fabiana asked:

Singer makes the claims that modern day conservatives are much like those who prosecuted Socrates for 'corrupting the youth.' Since common sense morality must be challenged in applied ethics, why do you think this charge against conservatives is valid?

Brage asked:

My questions concern personal identity or the particular self or "I". Why does my particular self inhabit this particular body? Imagine a twin earth (twearth) identical to earth except that on twearth my self inhabits a different body and the self of that different body inhabits "my" body. Will that scenario be contradictive? Will it be possible/contradictive dependent on the definition of "self" among philosophers?

Bill asked:

Hello, I hope you can help me but I am not sure of it. I am doing a research project over Hume and Kant and their similarities/differences and am gathering different points of view from different philosophers such as the ones at my university. If you could answer the questions below about both Kant and Hume, email me back. If not, thanks anyways.

1. Do the contents of the mind passively mirror what is experienced, and if so, how does this work? Or is the mind active in forming the representations it knows, and if so, how?

2. What are some reasons for claiming either that the connection between events located in the events themselves, or in our minds? What is gained or lost in either case?

3. Does the world appear to us in a way that is a) maces dart, governed by law; or b) contingent, dependent on experience?

4. What accounts for the manner in which the world appears to us? What models are proposed by the thinkers you have chosen, what arguments are offered in support? And which one best explains the nature of these functions?

5. What are the limits of knowledge? Can we claim to know more than our representations of things, and what are we to make of the objects of classical metaphysics?

John Depe asked:

Does the categorical imperative provide a reliable guide to good action?

ana asked:

I wonder how philosophers were dealing with economical issues in ancient Greece: who took care of for instance Plato's and Aristotle's everyday needs: food, clothes etc.

illy asked:

what is the difference between concept and idea and what is the report between human and the world?

Gina asked:

In the light of Descartes' extraordinary method of doubting everything that is not absolutely certain, how much of what we see and hear, think and believe, is really certain?

Cristina asked:

How could i know if i'm genuine and not just a compilation of ideas taken from others?

Gail asked:

What were Berkeley's main arguments for immaterialism?

ken asked:

If humans were removed from the earth, would then greater (natural) harmony prevail, or would another species evolve intelligence and the endgame remain the same?

Kenneth asked:

Does there exist a philosophical term for a general "Hate/ disgust for the contemporary society/ modern world"? I think it's becoming quite widespread.

I would myself like to suggest: Pan-misanthropy

Kevin asked:

What is a number?

Sheila asked:

Who is greater, Aristotle or Kant? and why?

Baron asked:

If the thesis of determinism is true then every future event is determined. Does that mean that the future event is ALREADY determined (I mean now) or is the event only determined when it actually occurs?

Moth asked:

Evaluate Karl Marx's contribution to Philosophy.

Tim asked:

Is pleasure a good? What is good about it?

Nancy asked:

How do you explain the (apparent) existence of fifteen galaxies whose estimated age is much older than the estimated age of the universe?

Alexa asked:

I note that this site has been running continuously since 1999. Do you ever expect there will be a time when the questions run out - when there are no new questions to ask? only the old questions in different words?

John asked:

Can you know that you are currently dreaming?


Valerie asked:

I wondered as to your take on the whole issue of how during times of human rights /humanitarian crisis in another country, the governments of other countries seem to take every step imaginable to save their citizens /nationals who happened to be abroad in that country, and they consequently leave the citizens of the affected country to deal with the implications of the crisis as best they could.

Ashley asked:

As a result of the economic down-turn starting in 2008, efficiency has become more and more the byword of the successful business person. The axioms of the efficiency expert are: "Eliminate what need not be done; simplify what must be done; combine tasks wherever possible."

Putting this into practice means, among other things, eliminating people's jobs. Sometimes it also means making one person do two or three people's jobs. As company's gain the upper hand in employment (when the number of employees wanting good jobs is higher than the number of good (i.e. high paying) jobs available), they will more and more expect employees to be willing to work longer hours and to do accomplish more and varied tasks.

1. Under what circumstances is it ethical business practices to ask employees to multi-task or do more than one person's job?

2. Under what circumstances is it ethical for an employee to refuse to do more work than can be taken on in a conventional 40-45 hours per week?

3. Let's assume that it is BECAUSE employees are willing to multi-task and do two or three people's jobs, that others LOSE their jobs. Who is more at fault ethically? The employer who requests the extra work from the remaining employees? Or the employees who are willing to do the extra work, thereby putting the others who aren't willing out of work?

4. How do you feel John Locke would have solved the above ethical situation differently or the same as you did using your philosophy? Please explain the reasons for the similarities or differences.

I really only need #4, I just would like to know how John Locke would have solved the above ethical situation.

Solange asked:

Can you please explain why Descartes ontological argument is synthetic rather than Anselm's analytic version of Gods ontology also is religious language meaningless? Thank you for your time.

Solange asked:

What is the problem of evil? And any criticisms if possible? Thank you

susma asked:

how does Plato explain the essence or nature of things is/are? theory of forum!

susma asked:

Theory of Forms - Plato

What is really real, how do we know?

Cornelius asked:

which is the correct order of these three items typical of Platonic dialogue of the early period. A. Socrates and his partner admit that they are ignorant of the answer. B. Socrates objects to a solution proposed by his partner. C. Socrates congratulates his partner for finding a solution to a problem.

Sammy asked:

Dear Philosopher-

What is the distinction between an action that is done merely in accordance and one that is done from duty? Which type is worthy of esteem? Why does Kant think that only one type of action have moral worth?

Mara asked:

what is the problem of permanence vs change? :D

Thomas asked:

How would you interpret this saying:

To be is to die,
To die is to understand,
But only to the extent of what we the living truly understand.

I would be fascinated with your answer.

Xochitl asked:

Is religion necessary for a meaningful life?