Dear All, Few days ago, I read quote that stated "Life becomes easier when you accept apology that you never got". Recently, I broke up with my ex and he did something terrible to me, and most of friends that know my problem would say if he did something terrible and he needs to apologize. Unfortunately, his pride is way much bigger than his conscious. He never apologizes and I haven't feel so terrible because of him. How could I forgive him though he would never apologize to me? I want to forgive him even he never apologizes to me, I just want to feel better. Thank you.

Someone asked here recently whether "philosophy is mostly specious rationalized intellectual imagination and raw speculation dressed in the guise of logical argument". My problem with philosophy is something like the opposite of this. I think philosophical questions, or at least most of those I've heard of, are in fact real and important questions. What I can't understand is why aren't many of them solved! Please don't say it's because philosophical questions are "very difficult": this sounds rather pretentious and seems to forget that many very difficult questions were solved in mathematics and in science. Take, for instance, the question whether morality is objective (or whether there are moral facts). I'm sure one needs to define carefully what "objective" or "facts" means, and even what one means by "morality", but when that is done, why on Earth can't you get to some consensus about this?!

I would like to know if the right to decide what is 'normal' and 'abnormal' belongs to any particular authority or type of expert. Whose job is it to define what is 'normal' and 'abnormal'? Is it the job of philosophers, or sociologists or another authority? Or a combination of these disciplines? Or is it not up to any type of authority and is instead up to everyday people with no particular expertise? Example: French historian and philosopher of history, Amaury de Riencourt claimed in one of his books that "Far from being an incomplete form of maleness...femaleness is the norm, the fundamental form of life." This statement implies that to be male is to be abnormal. Is he right because of his credentials? Are there counterarguments to this statement? If I disagreed with this statement, would I be wrong becuase I have no credentials to my name?

Suppose it's morning, and I tell my wife that I am going to be home at 6 PM this evening. On my way home, however, I am involved in a minor traffic accident that delays my return, such that I am not able to arrive home around 6 PM as I had originally claim. Was my original claim a lie?

Can aesthetic claims be falsified?

It seems that certain ethical theories are often criticized for contradiction ordinary ethical thinking, or common moral intuitions. Why should this matter, though? Is there a good reason to believe that ordinary common moral intuitions are infallible, and that more refined ethical systems ought not contradict such intuitions?

I have a question about the entities in scientific theories and models. The status of some of these objects seems intuitive. Frictionless planes, for example, though they don't exist, seem helpful enough as an abstraction for understanding how actual planes function. My question is about entities which we (non-scientists) know only through the prism of scientific theory--say, photons or electrons. I know what light and electricity are, on some immediate level, through my everyday experience of these phenomena. But I don't know what to make of the entities that physics tells me compose them. My inclination is to take them as "real", not just convenient notions of the purpose of theorizing and mathematical models. I can't help pictures these tiny, planet-like spheres whizzing around. I know there's something importantly wrong about that image, but I'm not sure what. Furthermore, scientists still talk about particles "spinning" and so forth, I am unable to see in what sense this is an analogy in the way...

We see that as society changes, yesterday´s vices become today´s virtues, and vice versa. E.g. intolerance of homosexuality was formerly considered a sign of decency, today it´s the opposite. Is there a branch of philosophy that deals with these changes in the moral code? Is there one that predicts what changes are most likely to occur in the coming decades?

Psychosis is often characterized as 'loss of contact with reality.' Three questions. (1) What is this 'reality' of which they speak? (2) Does anybody (even psychatrists) really know enough about this 'reality' to be able competently to deliver a diagnosis under that characterization? (3) What is this 'contact' of which they speak

Suppose Bob is wearing a pink shirt and John tells him, in an aggressive tone, to lose the shirt. Bob replies "You can't just tell people me to do like that," and John replies "But in saying so, you're trying to tell ME what to do!" Similar logic seems to apply with regards to all sorts of things - tolerance is another common example ("You need to tolerate my intolerance, Bob!"). A similar case might be John screaming at Bob, and Bob screaming back (presumably just to be heard) that John should stop screaming at him. My question is twofold: first, on a more formal level, this kind of problem seems common, yet I'm not sure what to call it, nor am I sure what exactly the problem is. Can you give me a brief formal analysis of these situations, and perhaps tell me whether this is a frequently-discussed topic? Second, how can Bob effectively respond in such situations? Should he even try, or is he in the wrong?