Is the claim that education is a universal right a morally defensible claim? I have heard many people claim that education is a priviledge or a commodity, and they have quite convincing arguments. They say that because teachers need to be paid, and books, computers, etc. need to be purchased, that only those people who can afford it (or who can borrow the money for it) should have access to education. Although this conclusion is unsettling, I cannot seem to think of any reason to deny its validity, nor can I find a solid argument defending education as a right.

I just had a job interview today. As is often the case, I am now nervous as to whether or not I got the job. But in the process of being nervous, I got to (over)thinking about my own nervousness and potential disappointment if I don't get the job, and I've come to wonder something: would it be rational for me to be disappointing at not getting the job? I mean, I suppose if we were to endorse the logic that if (a) something is important to me, (b) it is rational to be disappointed when important things fail/fall through, and (c) getting this job is important to me, then it seems logical to be disappointed. But why endorse this logic in the first place? Why not just apply, do your best and then, if it falls through, shrug and move on to other opportunities? Is it in any meaningful way rational to be disappointed, sad or frustrated when things don't go our way? It may be natural, and it may be human, but that doesn't mean it has to actually make sense.

Is there such thing as a male feminist philosopher?

How is "philosophical progress" made, assuming it is made at all? And on a related note, are philosophical theories ever completely abandoned (considered "wrong"), or do they simply adjust to criticism?

I read about the sorites paradox, especially "what is a heap?" and was a bit puzzled about the reasoning. Isn't it fairly straightforward to say, "fiftenn grains is not a heap" and "fifteen thousand grains is a heap" and then say, "even if we cannot give a single precise number where "not a heap" ends and "is a heap" begins, we can narrow down the range within which it occurs, right? In other words, a sort of "bounded fuzziness" applies, where we know for sure what is a heap and what is not a heap (the "bounded" part) while we cannot say exactly where the transition occurs (the "fuzziness" part). It also reminds me of Alexander the Great's solution to the Gordian Knot problem, in a way. People are getting confused because they are using the wrong tools, not because of the nature of the problem itself. the argument seems reminiscent of the supposed paradox about achilles and the tortoise, you can calculate the exact time at which Achilles catches and passes it.

Is there any moral justification for income taxes? If a person receives an income through the exchange of his services to an employer, who then grants that person a wage, how can it be justified to force the person to relinquish some of his earnings or else face violent coercion? I understand that from a utilitarian standpoint, taxes are justified if the services they provide increase overall happiness, but hasn't this understanding of utilitarianism been largely forsaken because of it's inability to adequately deal with individual rights?

I am in the midst of applying to a master's program in philosophy and am wondering if a 5 page writing sample will necessarily disqualify me.

Despite the fact that philosophy is based on rationality, are there any philosophers who embraced the irrational side of man or irrationality in general, and how could they justify this except by contradicting themselves by using rational arguments?

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy Schopenhauer was one of the first philosophers to advocate for the idea that the universe was not something "rational" What is an "irrational" universe then? Is there a difference between a universe being beyond the grasp of human reason and saying that the universe is "irrational"? Does he mean to say that the universe can do things that are illogical such as have square triangles?

I'm just getting into philosophy, thanks in no small part to this site! I was discussing it with a friend recently - a friend I admire as hard-working, intelligent and someone who challenges himself - and found out that he was actually a philosophy major in college (now he's a businessman). Naturally I was excited, but I was quickly discouraged as he explained that he had given up doing philosophy long ago and had no interest in it. When I asked him why, I received the following explanation, which confused me and I'm hoping to gain some clarity on it from this site. I hope it's not offensive to any of the professional philosophers who read this site, though it is of course anti-philosophy, since it was his reason for abandoning it. In any case, he said that he gave up reading/doing/thinking about philosophy - and he specified "analytic philosophy" as the culprit - saying that, although he found that the material he read was highly intelligent, he was nagged by a persistent feeling (one he ultimately...