I have to write a persuasive essay in English class and the subject of my choice is the meaning of life. I knew ahead of time of the difficulties that will plague me in trying to properly define meaning and discuss the multiple views on the subject. My aim is to prove that a secular person can live a meaningful life. However, I want to know how I can argue for a meaningful life (more or less objectively, since it would have more grounding) without begging the question against the nihilist (who would claim that without a transcendent cause that there is no meaning at all)? It seems that to argue for a meaningful life I would have to presuppose that certain things have meaning, which they would deny. I could probably argue from analogy, and show that subjectively the fulfillment of someone's projects or the relationships we create with others have meaning to ourselves and that is enough (which I think it is) for someone to live meaningfully (or that without certain things, e.g. relationships our lives...

Hello, If someone proposes an idea, an idea that cannot be objectively proven in no way, as fact, and I ask them what is their education and credentials for them to speak with authority on the subject, could that be considered a fallacy on my part? More specifically is it an appeal to authority?

Presuppositional apologetics arguments attempts to show the logical inconsistencies in non-Christian world views. Is it not the case that, by beginning with the the presupposition that the Christian world view and the bible are the absolute truth, thereby beginning with the desired conclusion as part of the premise, this form of apologetics commits the fallacy of circular reasoning or begging the question?

Is it immoral for a person in a rich country to adopt a child from a very poor country, while the parents are still alive. Often, the parents in poor countries will beg rich people to take their children, so consent is not an issue.

Why are parents said to have the right to teach their children whatever they want? What are the underlying philosophical justifications and explanations for this right?

Has philosophy really been transformed into petty qualms about semantics? I haven't been studying it for very long, but a lot of recent talk has led me to believe that 1.) Philosophy is pretty much completely analytic now, and 2.) Analytic philosophy might as well be called 'rigorous linguistics'. I've learned that there are even philosophers who believe that all philosophy can do is help us clarify what we already know, and it *should* just be rigorous linguistics (Ayer, Wittgenstein, Russell). I thought (and would still like to believe) philosophy was about finding the truth, not narrowing the scope of what could potentially be solved...until there is nothing left but the sentence itself! I totally understand that it is necessary to clarify propositions and arguments before they can be given their deserving assessments, but I'm worried that philosophy has become some kind of unrecognisable monster that will never revert back into truth-finding and reality-understanding. I want to major in philosophy,...

I go to church regularly and say things I don't believe. I justify this by saying that it's necessary to support an institution that I believe does more good than harm and that the usefulness of a statement is more important than its truth. I think my grounds are utilitarian and pragmatic, and do not share the vulnerability, among skeptics, of belief in the statements. I am satisfied with my justification until I am asked to teach a seventh-grade Sunday School class. If I decline I leave it to somebody else, maybe as much a skeptic as I am, to give the support I want given. I can't do that, and don't expect a philosopher to give me a justification for it. If I accept the job I do the things that make me ask for help from a philosopher. My question: How I can avoid harm, and if I can't will I do enough to tip the utilitarian balance and remove me from the church? As I see it, I risk doing three kinds of harm. First, pedagogical harm. I will be teaching credulousness. They can't believe what...

How can someone know that a question has an answer before knowing what the answer is? Or more specifically how is it possible that someone can place parameters on the possible answer faster than they can produce that answer?

If we turn up to spectate a sport for instance a football match is the outcome of the game any different to what it would have been, had we not been there?

Consider the following scenario: I am very good at doing analytic philosophy (though I am not a genius by any means), specially analytic metaphysics, but not limited to that field. I am well acquainted with the literature on the subject, I have an excellent grasp of the arguments and am pretty good at suggesting objections or proposing new arguments (or variations of old ones). Also, I have a pretty good command of the relevant technical material, that is, classical logic, modal logic, mereology and set theory, etc. Suppose I am capable of original and rigorous work. Suppose I profoundly dislike being taught in a university but have a fine time debating with (competent) professors, visiting lecturers and students (outside of the lectures), who, if asked, will acknowledge my philosophical ability. However, since I am not fond of the academy (as a student), I do not have any degrees. Suppose I am still young so I haven't published anything but I have plenty of ideas which, with a little work, might make...