Is philosophy of language and empirical study, since it discusses how humans actually communicate, as opposed to all the ways we hypothetically could communicate?

Suppose I was born on March 17, 2010, which was a Wednesday. I was born on a Wednesday. My question is whether the fact that I was born on a Wednesday is a "conventional", "artificial" or "socially constructed" fact (I'm not sure about the right words to use, but I'm sure you got the idea). But I want you to make a distinction. It is obvious that we could have another word for Wednesdays. We could have called them "Sonntags", or "Fourthdays", or "Potatoes", or whatever. But the days would still be the same. As we could have called dogs "cats", and cats "dogs", but the animals would still be the same. In my view, the fact that I was born on a Wednesday is NOT a conventional or socially constructed fact, but rather a strictly objective, perhaps even "natural" or "logical" fact. Unfortunately I haven't found anybody who agrees with me until now.

What is the difference between philology and linguistics?

What happens to a memory when I forget it, or realize I've forgotten it?

If, as Dawkins reminds us in "The God Delusion", our cellular self is completely renewed over time, should we absolve the criminal of his crimes after time has passed on the grounds that he is no longer the person that committed the crime - for example, the rapist who is not caught until decades after his crime, or the aging general who committed war crimes. If not, does this prove that there is more to the self-hood of a person than just a collection of cells?

Is it wrong to practice a belief which one does not believe or finds to be irrational? For instance, are cultural Christians like Richard Dawkins intellectually irresponsible for adhering to practices connected with the belief which they find unconvincing? This is a very bugging question for me since I am a Christian who is becoming more and more disillusioned with my religious beliefs, so a philosophical answer would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

I was wondering why philosophers, as far as I know, insist that one must be consistent in one's ethical behavior and philosophy. Why would it be bad if I do X one day and don't do X the next day? I change from day to day, the world around me changes, and no two situations are ever exactly identical.

To my understanding, organisms evolve in order to adapt to their environment and its pressures. If that is the case, how come we are conscious? It seems like consciousness is an unnecessary add-on. Why aren't we p-zombies? P-zombies can do the same thing any other organism can, right? Or is it possible that consciousness is an illusion?

This sounds like the kind of a question a first-year philosophy student would ask, but here goes... Why should anyone be interested in philosophy in the first place (i.e., why should I care about Cartesian knowledge, or Locke's primary and secondary qualities, or bother with questions about the meaning of life if I'm already happy)? It would be nice to get a rational response to some of these very introductory questions...

Are there logical relations between colors? For instance, is it logically true that red and blue make purple?