I just turned 60 and my left-of-center value system has in some ways become more conservative. At the same time, I have become more intolerant of right-wing views to the point where I find myself feeling uncomfortable with the thought of socializing with neoconservatives and tea-party types. I would not want to invite such types to my home, yet being a liberal, question my capacity for tolerance. I am contemplating asking new 'friends' just what their views are and making a decision. This has a narcissistic flavor, but I don't need token neo-cons for entertainment value (as they would keep pet liberals) or as reminders of what the dark side looks like. I guess the GW Bush legacy has opened my eyes. I am repelled. Is this chauvinism/tribalism consistent with living an authentic life I understand to be directed by evolutionary forces that propel me to seek out maximum stimulation in order to realize my potential? Suggested readings would be appreciated. Many thanks.

Is it unfair for a judge to give their verdict based on a technicality?

As a business major who has a strong interest in philosophy I'm strongly considering adding a philosophy minor. My question is this: how can studying philosophy help me in not just business but in life in general? What are some benefits to adding a philosophy minor?

Is the question of whether homosexuality is "a choice" at all morally relevant? Does it bear, e.g., on whether homosexual lifestyles are morally permissible, or whether gay marriage should be allowed? Many people seem to think so, including many of those who support gays and lesbians.

I wonder what is the philosophical significance of sports? Some people play sports for competition, some others play for exercise while some play only for fun. Generally speaking westerners like competing while easterners like exercising. So British people invented soccer and Americans like basketball while Indians like Yoga and Chinese play Taichi. Why do people take such pains with their bodies to play an activity which would produce no any tangible outcome? I wonder. BTW, I think sports are the least activity man has ever invented.

I was politicized early thanks to growing up in a war zone, and such a childhood imposes certain questions on a child's mind. After growing older and nurturing an increasing infatuation with socialism and anarchism, I am now at a new crossroads - totalitarianism. The reason for this is simple: I have no faith in humanity, nor in the so called 'rationality' of Mankind. In my opinion, people are overwhelmingly ignorant of what is best for them. How can they decide what is best for them without proper education? Furthermore, people are overwhelmingly selfish and short-sighted, how can a society function correctly if the majority of people are unfit to decide for themselves, and when they do so, they do so poorly (see George Bush). Another problem is media. Reading Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" in my teens nourished in me a deep hatred of privately-owned media, and as we all know: propaganda is rife in all societies. Finally, we come to the financial crisis. If I have understood it correctly, economic...

I'm not specifically sure how to word this question, so please pardon my lack of eloquence. What, if any, moral responsibility do we have to those who had hurt us deeply, say, someone who has cheated on their spouse? Should we forgive and forget? Just forgive but never forget? Ought we treat them normally, or is it ethical to hold a grudge? How does one ethically/morally handle the rest of the relationship, whatever it may be, when one has been significantly betrayed?

Is there a prevailing consensus on determinism vs. free will, and the implications of that debate for the status of moral prescriptions? I am reading a piece by Derek Parfit, for example, which addresses the topic so briefly that it makes me wonder if his (compatibilist) position is the only one breathing. Thank you! -philosophy fan

I am a new comer to philosophy and metaphysics in particular. I would like to know about the method of analysing and proving statements in metaphysics.Being a student of mathematics I am familiar with the axiomatic method. Are there any systematic methods for proving statements in metaphysics?

Can you please provide some suggestions for a good supplementary text for Martin Buber's "I & Thou?" In spite of our philosophical backgrounds, a friend and I are getting a bit lost trying to comprehend it. We are not reading this for part of a college class, so do not know of any professors to ask.