There seems to be a common intuition that parts of a system can't understand the system they are in without stepping outside of it. This is mostly applied to ideological and political issues ("Ideology is everywhere, so you can't step outside it and thus can never fully understand it"), but I've seen it applied to artificial intelligence as well ("A computer program can't fully understand itself" is treated as self-evident by some). Is there something to this intuition, or is it just rhetoric? I can't think of any obviously necessary reason why a part of a system shouldn't be able to perceive or understand the system as a whole.

In making such decisions as whether to grant parole, should we care whether convicts are "remorseful" for their crimes?

I don't think I like my mother as a person. I mean, if I were not her daughter I think I will not befriend this kind of woman. It's not that I hate her, I just dislike the value she has. Is this feeling acceptable? Do we, children, have an obligation to love our parents? Or is it suppose to be natural?

What is the definition of validity under possible world semantics?

I've always thought it odd that rivers are said to have a single "source". Isn't a river the result of all its tributaries? What gives one source priority over the other tributaries to a river? Isn't the distinction mostly made-up?

Can Darwinian science explain the uncanny fact that a crow both looks and sounds ugly whereas as a prettier bird makes a prettier song? What possible purpose could such an aesthetic unity serve and why would humans be able to recognize it?

I recently read a text by Michael Fried, "Art and Objecthood," in which he rather vehemently opposes "theatricality," suggesting that it is the antithesis of modernist art (or the "art of our time"). He never really seems to explain why he is so opposed to it, but he uses extremely aggressive language (to my mind), talking about the perversion of art sensibilities, the corruption of art by theatricality, the "problem" with Minimalism (without saying what kind of problem he's talking about), etc. I was wondering if someone could shed some light on what is so terrible about theatricality, such as to merit such strong language.

Do we have a moral duty to demolish the delusions of others? I suspect not. I know many people who, in my opinion, are deluded in their religious and political beliefs, but I steer clear of trying to persuade them to drop these beliefs. If at some point these delusions fail them and leave them in tears, it's not my fault. These are self-inflicted woes, right? I respect the right of others to fool themselves. Now, on a personal level, a girl has decided, without any encouragement on my part, that she would like me for a husband. Unasked, she showers me with gifts but reckons, I feel, that she will be getting them all back, anyway, once we are married. She is pleasant company. I enjoy the gifts. I don't lead her on with false promises. She is self-deluded. One of these days it is all going to end in tears. But I have no more responsibilty for those tears than I do if an acquaintance discovers that his religious sect is a load of bunkum and feels a miserable clown as a result,do I? Well, do I?

Seeing that most languages require that sentences to have tense, can we actually have any progress discussing time? I mean every sentence by its structure already assumes a understanding of time , how do we ever transcend the bounds of our current understandings of time if we still using "time" bound language?

At what point does an action change from something you do sometimes to a habit? At what point does a habit become an addiction? Do those same points exist in reverse and are they in the same spot? Is this more of a medical question or maybe physiological? Is it a mental change you make (whether you know it or not) or a physical change? Why is it so hard to break but so easy to make worse?