Throughout Plato's Republic, he makes alot of claims, that all stem from the question "what is justice", from there the soul to the analogy of the state, to the forms etc, my question is, does Plato actually believe in these analogies or are the just that, analogical statements to help his arguments

Am I guilty of some kind of inconsistency if I reject scientific consensus about evolution, global warming, the big bang, etc., but still make regular use of modern technology?

Is the positing of an infinite regress a legitimate explanation in philosophy respectively are infinite regresses logically possible?

We often hear people saying about how a certain artist or composer is better than another. Many people, for example, believe Bach and Verdi to be better musicians than, say, Rihanna or Justin Bieber. I share this same belief, but it is mostly based on intuition than on rational arguments. It is certainly true that Bach was able to develop a musical theme in a much more organized and logical way than Rihanna is, but does it really mean that Bach is a better musician than Rihanna? Is it true that there is such thing as a good and a bad composer or is it all just a matter of taste? Could you point out to me some arguments and readings which are relevant to this type of question?

What is evil, and what is good? Do you believe is changes depending on where you go? Tim Age 11

I am interested in learning more about Philosophy, both the history of the development of ideas, and its practical application (or is that an oxymoron!). I am currently enrolled in two MOOCs, one taught by Mitch Green (Know Thyself) and the other by Michael Sandel (Justice). As a Clinical Psychologist, I have been skating around the edge of philosophy in my work as a therapist, so am excited about learning more of this field in depth. My question/curiosity is in the area of maternal obligation. More specifically, under certain circumstances, is it ever justifiable that a mother kill her infant. Lest this question sound too horrible to consider, I can imagine this scenario: a child is born with massive, multiple physical deficits that would make his/her life less than that which an animal might experience and would entail untold expenses, time, and emotional costs for the parents and society. There is clearly, here, an issue of the moral obligation of a mother to her infant, but I think even that...

Many people believe in the concept of a "soulmate". Do I need to share everything with my partner? Should my partner always be my best and closest friend?

How does one determine which side in an argument must shoulder the burden of proof?

Dear philosophers, I really appreciate your website, which I just discovered! I'd like to make one comment regarding the recent questions about infinite sets on March 7 and March 14. In your responses (Allen Stairs and Richard Heck on March 14), you write that you do not know of any professional mathematicians who deny the existence of infinite sets. However, such mathematicians do indeed exist (although marginally). They are sometimes referred to as "ultrafinitists". One well-known living proponent of this view is Princeton mathematician Edward Nelson, also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Nelson and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism Specifically, one argument an ultrafinitist might use is that formal proofs are finite. Thus, although we might use the concept of infinite sets in our reasoning, there is no need to assume that infinite sets actually exist, because any mathematical statement could be preceded by the phrase "There is a finite proof of the statement that ..." I hope this...

I have read that subjectivity means something which is unique to a person's perspective. An example of something subjective might be color, but is that really something unique to a perspective? If a person is aware of a color isn't the "perspective" the awareness of that color, and isn't the awareness of the color separate from color proper? If that is the case isn't there a sense in which colors are just as external to our being and as objective as primary properties? The attitude of a child is to not distinguish between the secondary and primary properties so that colors are real features of the world but isn't this seeming mistake a product of the fact that awareness is in a sense fundamentally distinct from that which it is aware of? Of course on the other hand it seems hard to imagine colors not existing without a perceiver so I don't know, I'm guessing that philosophers have discussed this issue.