Studying philosophy is always done from a certain perspective, with certain assumptions in mind. (Every century teaches philosophy in a different way). So, if I am interested in philosophy, but do not wish to adhere to a specific set of beliefs - what do I do?

Let's say that I have a perfect duplicate who is psychologically continuous with me. If I get bad news from my doctor that my days are numbered, can I anticipate surviving my death?

Does Hegel really reject the Law of Non-Contradiction or is that just something analytic philosophers like to say because they dislike him so much?

Knowledge is usually said to be justified true belief (with some caveats). However, it seems that a great deal of what we "know" is actually knowledge we have received from third parties - our parents, our teachers, authors of books and websites, friends, and so on. If we define justification so broadly that it encompasses things we learn from third parties, what is to stop us from assuming that anything we learn from anyone else (or any specially qualified individual) is knowledge? Does this mean, according to the justified true belief understanding of knowledge, that most of what we think we know is not actually knowledge?

Should a parent report their own children to the police if they are aware that the child has commited a criminal offence. Does the age of the child or the seriousness of the crime matter. Example should you report your child if you suspect they have commited shoplifting or should you only report them for serious crimes like armed ronbbery. What about other family relations such as your brother or cousin commiting criminal acts. Do you owe any loyalty to your family or is it more important to obey the law. Michael.

Sexual harassment is often defined as "unwanted sexual attention." Isn't the idea that all sexual attention must be "wanted" by a women for it to be okay simply a perpetuation of the idea that women have no independent existence outside of the wants and needs of men? Don't women have the right to be indifferent to sexual attention? And don't women have the right to interpret unwanted sexual attention in other ways other than thinking of it as harassment? Basically I find it incredibly ironic that one of the the pillars of modern feminism has such a weirdly sexist underpinning.

If I desire to be a logician what should I do to become that?

Parents who are conscious and critical of rigid gender norms face a problem. If they raise their children without regard for traditional gender norms, then their children run the risk of being ostracized for not conforming to these gender norms. Yet if a parent enforces gender norms on their child, then they are closing off potential spaces for self-fulfillment. This kind of problem is most easily recognizable with regards to homosexuality - many parents say they have nothing against homosexuality, but wish their own children would be heterosexual, because of the social difficulties and ostracism faced by homosexuals. As a parent, where must one stand? Must one teach one's children to conform to rigid gender norms that one disapproves of, because it will make life easier for the children? Or should one liberate one's child from these norms, and run the risk of them suffering greatly for their disregard of these norms?

Is it possible to strike a balance between being content and being ambitious? Both are desirable qualities but aren't these mutually exclusive?

I was having a discussion with a friend about video games, and she said, "Just imagine what we could accomplish if people took the time they invested in video games and invested it in something meaningful!" Now, setting aside the question of what is meaningful, she makes an interesting point. Obviously, the point applies equally well to television, film, music, and entertainment in general - video games are just one kind of entertainment media among many. So my question is this: do we have the right to devote some of our time to entertaining ourselves, when we could instead be devoting that time to fighting global warming, AIDS, violence, poverty, depression, cancer, and any other number of ills? How can we justify entertainment for as long as suffering continues to exist?