how global integration of cultures, including Eastern metaphysical influences, affected contemporary philosophical thinking

Is there a philosophical point of view to the use of of marijuana? How would a philosopher think about smoking marijuana?

Should people have an expectation of privacy with regards to things they do in public? For instance, do I have the right to expect that conversations I hold in public places are not recorded, or that my shopping trips are not be tracked then and posted online?

are we programed to respond favorably to those subjects that we consider beautiful, rather than considering them unappealing. I imagine if we did not have positive responses to things we consider beautiful, it would make our lives extremely unsatisfying and we would not strive to attain that which gives us emotional pleasure...Is this nature's way of having us adapt and assimilate to our natural surroundings....a joke played on us....making us turn away from the ugliness that truly exists all around us.......rn.

I'm sure that, for almost any position I take on a controversial political issue, there is an expert out there who has investigated it more than I have and, as a result, rejected my position -- or who *would* reject my position *if* they investigated it more thoroughly. (Take, for example, the question of whether Obamacare is good public policy.) This humbles me and makes it difficult for me to be fully confident in my conclusions and work up the motivation to fight for what seems like the right thing. More generally, careful reflection on how I could be wrong often removes or severely diminishes the passion I might have originally felt about a political issue. My reflection breeds a sort of apathy. Is that inappropriate? How do philosophers who passionately fight for political causes deal with the uncertainty that they could be wrong, or with the fact that there is (or could be) someone out there who is more of an expert *and* has the opposite view?

Debating with a theologian over the validity of biblical condemnation of homosexuality i've been offered a sequence of arguments that seem to me circular. First argument: Divine directives 1. God has given the directive to establish the eterosexual marriage 2. Homosexual acts are condemned in the BIble 3. Homosexuals brake the divine directive Second argument: Perverse heart 1. To brake a divine law willingly is perversion 2. Homosexual acts are condemned in the Bible 3. Homosexuals are perverse Third argument: social deviance 1. To diffuse behaviours that are condemned in the Bible is a form of social deviance 2. Homosexual acts are condemned in the BIble 3. Homosexual are social deviant To me it is obvious that all these arguments implies, as a second premise, the condemnation whose validity is in question. When i have made this observation i have been offered a curios answer: anyone has a worldview that starts from certain unquestionable premise, that are in themselves circular but not invalid....

I have a question about the theistic argument from contingency (henceforth, TAC) and God's selection of universes. There is the following age-old argument which led Leibniz to reject TAC. Argument: 1. Necessarily, If God exists, then God creates the best possible universe. 2. God necessarily exists. 3. So, God necessarily creates the best possible universe (from 1 and 2). (3) gives us modal collapse, which goes against TAC. But let's say we deny (1). Still, God is strongly reasons-responsive. So, if God weighed reasons for and against creating a certain universe U, and God found the reasons to favor creating U, then God necessarily creates U. This would also give us modal collapse. But there may be a solution. My question is whether this solution works. The solution: suppose Molinism is true. Then, God is confronted with different contingent counterfactuals of creaturely freedom in some worlds in which he exists. Maybe in one world in which God exists, all the persons freely reject God's...

Are the concepts of 'panta rhei' (Heraclitus' river analogy) and hard determinism reconcilable, or are they mutually exclusive? One suggests a world constantly in flux and the other a world where all events are determined rigidly by prior ones. But surely even if 'everything changes', it is possible for all of those changes to be determined? Or am I interpreting Heraclitus wrongly?

why is it that we see sunsets, mountains, life forms, geological formations, etc. and consider them to be beautiful.

What theistic philosophical response can there be to evil and suffering, acknowledging original sin, even from a kierkegaardian viewpoint, to what does it relate to the meaning, purpose and endurable with some meaning and joy? (ps sorry for the horrible syntax) basically philosophical statements and ideas relating to meaningful living, not just suffering and illusion, for a religious mind/person. Thank you.