Have Freud's ideas about the subconscious been tested empirically? Is there a way to test for the existence of an Oedipal Complex? If so, have the results strengthened or weakened the Freudian/Marxist critique of society made by the Frankfurt School?

It seems that the psychological and emotional difficulties experienced in life by individuals such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Artur Schopenhauer and Max Weber lead many people to be more skeptical of the theories and works of these individuals than they otherwise would, regardless of the content of these works and theories. What is the meaning relationship between a philosopher's work and his psychological issues? Surely all philosophers are influenced in their thought by the things that have happened to them in their lives, so why should some have their work dismissed or explained away, in part, via their personal issues, while others don't? Where is the line?

What role can emotions, principles and personal (or borrowed) convictions play in a philosopher's reasoning process when approaching a specific issue? What role can they play in a philosopher's way of seeing things, or even in a given philosophical trend in which a number of philosophers share similar ideas about a certain number of issues? Is it possible to be completely or at least reasonably neutral when approaching a subject, in spite of your own personal background? If not, then, is it still a good idea for philosophers to try to be neutral? What happens, for example, if you as a philosopher are not aware of the fact that some of your arguments, or thoughts, are being "influenced" by something other than reason, like fear or rage, for example? Are the conclusions of such influenced ways of reasoning, something that you can refute (or at least recognize as "impure") in the long run through uninfluenced (if possible) or at least reasonably uninfluenced reasoning? And finally, are there any known...

What good is it to study philosophy? I have always wondered what it is that philosophers have actually accomplished. For example science marches on without need for philosophy of science. The philosophy of mathematics is almost completely useless to a working algebraic topologist. If philosophers are really concerned about the world, why not study mathematics, natural, social science, etc?

What the role does cannabis (or any other mind-altering substances) play in the world of philosophy?

How can I persuade someone who is convinced that spiritual experience is the most reliable basis for establishing truth that empirical evidence is in fact more reliable?

Does consciousness presuppose: language? long-term memory? the ability to understand that you have mental states? If not, is consciousness merely a recurrent, fleeting state of awareness? If so, SERIOUSLY, is it considerable that animals have consciousness (minus long-term memory, language, social cognition)? Thanks for any insight, this has been bugging me.

How can an atheist possibly make sense of a world in which the vast majority of people adhere to a religious tradition? If atheism is correct and at the basis of all these religions lie mistaken facts and historical inaccuracies- for example that Jesus was risen from the dead, that Muhammad was visited by an angel, etc.- then the majority of humans who have ever existed have based their actions and beliefs upon a lie.

In "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking claims that free will does not exist. He uses the evidence of a study in neuroscience which found that the stimulation of certain regions of the brain resulted in the stimulation of certain desires; ex. a desire to move one's right arm. But does the mere fact that we can not decide our desires mean that we don't have free will? Don't we have the ability to control these desires and act in an appropriate way? Isn't that free will?

To many people, belief in God and belief in universal moral values is axiomatic. In fact, many believe that if God does not exist, then everything is morally permissible. But note that almost everyone believes that at least some things are morally impermissible; the best example might be raping a child. And if raping a child is not morally permissible, then not everything is morally permissible. Therefore, it seems to follow that God does indeed exist. This would be the argument form MT and it would be sounds correct? But why?