Can you be blamed for not loving someone? For instance, it's not uncommon for children to accuse their parents of not loving them--and here, the claim is not simply that the parents didn't act appropriately (though this is typically part of the problem), but that they don't possess actual feelings of love or affection or care. While it's easy to appreciate the force of complaints like this, I wonder whether it's ultimately impossible to choose who you love, so that one cannot be blamed for failing to love another.

Dear Philosophers, I've been told the "dream girl" as the "dream job" as the "dream life" don't exist. I disagree, I found a wonderful partner and got married to her. It is not a dream, meaning not everything is perfect: I have my flaws and so has she. the question is I've been looking for a career, an activity, anything that can make me happy, energetic, feel alive. (find the job you love and you won't have to work for the rest of your life; find what you love and you will wake up early and go to bed late because without feeling tired, and so on). I've tried to go for the prestige, and worked in bank and multinationals without any results. I then decided to go for the skills, played guitar, surfed, snowboarded, read, did marathons, learnt languages and so on but couldn't get any money from this and evidently it is not my vocation/career. At last I thought I could be a good salesmen and applied for many job. I have a decent job, that for many could be a dream one, as a sales manager, but I hate it, it's...

Is there a difference between a number as an abstract object and as a metric unit used to measure things?

This is the first sentence of Stanford Encyclopedia's article on rights: "Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states...." I checked my English dictionary, and it defines "right", in the relevant sense, as "entitlement", and "entitlement" as "right". In my own language (not English), there aren't even two different words for "right" and "entitlement", they must both be translated to the same word. I think we can conclude that "right" and "entitlement" are synonymous, as much as any two words can be. So do you think that there is any useful reading of that article's first three words? Thank you!

Couldn't we take the "ontological proof" of God's existence to prove that there are many God-like creatures? For instance, imagine a creature that has all thinkable perfections except for the fact that it has dirty fingernails. If existence is a perfection, then this creature must have this perfection, since one can both exist and have dirty fingernails. And so, if the ontological proof proves that God exists, then it proves that dirty fingernails-God exists too. Doesn't it?

I have a question about whether individual lives are innately valuable. Say for example that genetic engineering reaches the point where all human beings could be engineered to be born without any disabilities. I know that this would be beneficial because it would alleviate the suffering of the person who would have otherwise been disabled and those who would have been responsible for him or her. However, does being free from a physical or mental disability make a human being more worthy than a person who is disabled? Or compare a multi-lingual person to a monolingual person. Is the value of a life dependent on the person's productivity and skills or is life innately valuable?

Has there been much work done on the notion of approximate truth, for example under what rules of inference approximate truth is preserved, or what kind of metric one could use to say that proposition X1 is 'truer than' proposition X2?

I have a question about existence withing a formal system. Can we construct it so that a theorem t implies "there exists" theorem t itself? Thanks, Paul

Does "if p=q, then nec(p=q)" hold, if "p" and "q" are intended to denote properties? I am told that it holds. But it doesn't seem to be quite right. It seems to depend on what it is for two properties to be identical. Am I confused?

I became a vegan two years ago, mainly motivated by emotional distress at the thought of the pain and suffering that animals go through to be killed/farmed. Now I justify this decision to others for health/social reasons, because I don't know how to justify it morally. I instinctively feel that to eat an egg, whether or not the hen was free-range, or even if I just found it outside, would be inherently wrong, but I can't quite articulate why logically. I suppose if pressed I'd say that all sentient beings possess rights, or at the right not to be treated as property, and farming violates this right. Does this stand up to scrutiny?