Is marketing fundamentally a bad thing?

I find that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is as much a critique of empiricism as it is rationalism. Why then call it the critique of "pure reason" as if the focus of the critique is purely about the rationalist's favored tool of inquiry?

Is the concept of inheritance of property a moral one? It makes sense that a person should derive some benefits from their own efforts, in the form of private property, but why should those benefits be transferable to one's offspring?

If free will does not exist -- i.e, each person is only an observer experiencing but never actually choosing or deciding anything -- can life still be meaningful?

Ok, I'm going to go at Godel backwards. I'm going to start from the fact that the universe exists (whatever others may think to the contrary). I'm assuming that the universe is ruled by law. It also seems to me that the universe can't contain any self-contradictions, or it wouldn't exist in the first place. So, its laws are consistent. For a similar reason, they must be complete; if some key part was missing, the universe wouldn't exist. This line of reasoning seems to lead me to: the laws of the universe are both consistent and complete. I know that Godel was talking about formal systems, but it just seems to me that the laws of the universe are *the* formal system. So, there is at least one example of a formal system that is both consistent and complete, whether or not we can articulate it. Or have I completely missed Godel's idea here? Thanks, JT

It seems that many philosophical positions are very depressing and scary. For example, a world without God, a world without freedom, or a world where everything can be explained away by science, even a world where everything that makes us human can be reduced to neuroscience. Not all philosophers endorse these views I know but how can some philosophers be happy people and live fulfilling lives with some of the positions in philosophy? I enjoy philosophy but some of the possibilities scare me or worry me too much for me to think about.

Mathematics is extraordinarily effective in revealing and stating the basic laws of physics. Why is this so?

5+5=9 is not an empirical fact. However it can be proven empirically (put 5 objects and four objects together, then count the result). How is it possible for non-empirical facts to be proven empirically?

Why does someone believe you when you say there are four billion stars, but check when you say the paint is wet?

Philosophy is well known for its inquisitive, critical nature. Naturally, we as philosophers strive to see clearly the basis of common beliefs, while rejecting prejudices and stereotypes that are without justifiable foundation. Now this all sounds fine, if we were diving into some debates or books. But, the common way of life outside is wrought with statements and beliefs that are at best grounded in some transient trends or local culture. Take, for example, when we engage in social interactions (perhaps in a college student's perspective). People are seen swayed by their emotions, possessed by gossips, some wearing extreme makeups and perfume, some drenched in alcohol, making horrid comments on someone the moment without his presence, blurting their prejudices and misconceptions, and so on. Of course, these are very narrow generalizations, yet I am convinced one cannot easily deny that these make up a big part of people's social lives today. As I study through various philosophers and their thoughts, I...