Hi, I graduated from college a few years ago and have since developed an extremely strong interest in Philosophy. Although I have read a considerable amount of Philosophy on my own, as an undergrad I studied History, Literature and Spanish but not any Philosophy (aside from certain concepts that were relevant to my other studies). I was wondering what I could do to have a chance to get into a quality PhD program in Philosophy. I went to a very well regarded school and my grades were excellent, but I don't have the Philosophy coursework (or recommendations from Philosophy professors). Thank you in advance for any advice.

It seems to me that Kant's categorical imperative implies that we all have a duty to procreate. Is this actually the case? I say this because it seems that any person choosing not having children would be forced to admit that, if their behavior was made a universal law, society would collapse, with a slowly aging and ailing population and nobody to take care of them. Society would die out, and the last generation before the end would be helpless geriatrics suffering the problems of old age with nobody younger to look after them. So do Kantian ethics actually demand that we have children? Or is there a subtler way of looking at the issue?

In the bhuddist religion, the aim is obviously to become "enlightened" or as it could be redefined "a state of inner unwavering happiness" however along with being englightened one must take away his/her desires for material objects, relationships, negative emotions etc. So if ones family was to be brutally be tortured and killed, one would see it as a change of energy, and feel no pain. Assuming that this is the only way to be permanently happy, could it be considered that to become enlightened would be to deny being human, and so would become like a machine that does not care. Year 10 - Hale Highschool

If humans are nothing more than the interaction of DNA and environmental stimuli does this give us any hope for life after death? this may sound paradoxical, but if I am composed merely of memories and perceptions brought on by the course of nature is it possible my perceptions could return acting on a different substrate- I.e my perceptions and memories live on through my ancestors or people who shared a similar life experience? If they remember me in their dreams is this in fact an aspect of myself that lives on? Can a spirit be contained in a mere cause-effect relationship? If someone in the future is placed in a similar dillema to myself, is this like an echo in time? would they not share some of my perceptions? If the thoughts were merely part of an evolving system and conciousness is all action-reaction would this be a form of "resonance", Simpy because of a shared experience? Are the memories dead people not evolving just as we are? For example Jesus Christ is remembered as both a saint and a...

Hi. Let's assume that there's no higher power that could establish objective norms of morality. Then let's think of a fictitious situation in which a certain individual could greatly benefit himself by killing several innocent civilians. Even though this potential murderer tends to comply with laws and widely accepted moral rules created within society, he's a hypocrite and thus is willing to make exceptions when it comes to striving for his own personal goals. Imagine that in this hypothetical scenario the same person committing a crime could know for sure that no one will ever catch him, he will never have to serve a prison sentence, and there will be no blame whatsoever to damage his reputation. Moreover, we make an assumption that this individual will not feel any remorse for this horrific act of violence. So, in this particular situation, taking into account the potential murderer's point of view, why shouldn't a crime be committed?

how big a factor is the translation when trying to understand philosophical works written in another language which we do not understand? For example, in the translation I read of Das Kapital, Marx talked about "the means of production" which seemed like an awkward and confusing term. Then one day the "aha" light bulb went off, and i realized that this term meant "technology" and suddenly his whole theory of dialectical materialism made great sense to me.

I have a question about food and objectivity. My friend insists that all opinions about the value of certain instances of a type of food being better than others are merely subjective. I disagree with this and when I say that, for example, "my mom's chocolate chip cookies are better than store bought cookies" I believe that there is actually some objective basis to this. I would cite as evidence the fact that my mom uses higher quality ingredients, puts more care and attention into baking, and that generally others agree that her cookies are quite good and preferable to store bought cookies. Is there any truth to this idea about food more generally? Can there actually be some objective basis for judging which food is better?

Hi, I'm curious how modern, professional philosophers (those holding a PhD, doing academic research, etc) view someone like Plato. I should add that I'm a mathematician and thus be a little biased, but I find their reasoning and arguments to be terrible in so many cases. Perhaps my definition of philosopher is too specific, but I'd say they're more like an artist than what I think of as a philosopher. For example, I'd say the metaphysics in the Republic may serve as an inspirational model for later philosophers, but his literal account, in my mind!, is almost silly.

I think of forgiveness as a central principle around which I base my behavior. Lately I have been feeling as though many people close to me take advantage of my generous forgiveness by intentionally doing things that hurt me (not physically) and then offering superficial apologies, knowing that I will forgive them. Is there an ethical justification for forgiveness? If so, does it offer any insight onto the practical application of when and how to forgive and where to set limits?

What would Kant say about "networking"? Poses a dilemma for me bc of his prohibition against using people, which networking is, by definition. Is there a way we could modify or qualify networking to fit his Categorical Imperative, as in: well, if you offer in return a commensurate service, and if you wouldn't mind everyone doing it or even would recommend it... any ideas?