Is it possible for two people to have a different "worldview" while not disagreeing on any particular fact?

Suppose P is true and Q is true, then it follows logically that P --> Q, that Q --> P and therefore that P Q. Now, suppose that P is 'George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the US' and Q is 'Bertrand Russell invented the ramified theory of types', both propositions are true, and therefore the truth of both guarantees the truth the aforementioned propositions. But it seems bizarre to say that Russell's invention of the theory of types entails that Bush is the 43rd president, as well as the other logical consequences. After all we can conceive of a scenario where Russell invents the ramified theory of types, but Bush becomes a plumber (say), if that is a possible scenario, it would seem that the proposition "If Russell invents the ramified theory of types then Bush is the 43rd President of the US" is false given the definition of 'if then'. But after all, does it make sense to say that a proposition entails another only in the actual world? (That doesn't seem to have as much generality as we...

What is meant by the question "why is there something, rather than nothing?" Or rather, how can it be put into simpler terms so it can be more easily answered?

Why do my parents tell me it is morally wrong to have a "hickey" or love bite on my neck. I am in a socially recognized relationship. Both of us are above the age of sexual consent in our country [several years above]. Neither of us are religious. Neither of us care about the judgment of the rest of the world. No one can see the mark, when my hair covers it. I am not in a professional setting that requires me to uphold any dress code or manner of behavior. I would just like to know what is so wrong about acknowledging that we enjoy giving pleasure to each other. Why is it morally wrong to have passion, and reciprocated enjoyment. Maybe we would be a less uptight society if we spent more time trying to find ways to bring people enjoyment and less time worrying about upholding some sort of stilted Victorian morality. Perhaps he takes umbrage to the fact that I, a woman, am enjoying sex? After all, it should be done for reproductive purposes only, in the dark, with only the man enjoying himself. Can...

What was Wittgenstein's contribution to philosophy? He is considered to be one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, and besides his unique use of truth-tables, what was his contribution? Perhaps his vague writing simply gave opportunities for other philosophers to place their own thoughts? What I mean to say is, does it seem likely that 'Wittgenstein' is nothing more than a vague writer and became famous because a lot of talented minds tried to figure out what he was trying to say, and in the process made his writings vastly more insightful than they really were?

I'm puzzled whenever people say things such as, "I have a high tolerance for pain." How would you ever know whether your "tolerance" for pain were actually a form of insensitivity? In other words, what's the (externally observable) difference between being able to tolerate or endure pain and simply not *feeling* pain? Maybe that guy who seems admirably tough and strong-willed actually just lacks the capacity for really powerful sensations. We talk almost as though there are two parts of a person: one part which feels the pain, and another which resists.

Often times, a common argument offered to stop people from complaining about their problems is to tell them to "be thankful for what they have and not complain too much". This can be quite irritating and annoying to a person that hasn't really found life to be all that enjoyable. Firstly, no one has asked for them to be brought into the world. As much as it seems hard to function in a world without a clear purpose or a sense of meaning, the thought of having to be 'thankful' for being alive, is hard to arise, perhaps even offensive when times are tough? How does one deal with this dilemma? Does the evaluation of life always have to be relative to other less fortunate beings in the world in order to feel better about one's situation?

The intolerable earthquake in Haiti that took thousands of lives brings up an important question: What obligations do we owe to other people? Virtually all of us believe that, when no comparable sacrifice is required, we have a moral duty to help those we encounter in dire need. If one were to let a child drown he would be unanimously regarded as a morally reprehensible individual, yet those who do precisely the same thing when they ignore the plights of those in distant countries are not viewed negatively by many. How can we account for this inconsistency? What are we morally obligated to do to help those in Haiti?

What is emotional suffering? I know that I feel that I suffer, but in what sense am I suffering? I cannot place anywhere, the source of emotional suffering in any causal terms from the external world. The external world can bring me physical pain through physical action, but it seems absurd to think that external objects can also cause emotional pain. Does this mean that emotional suffering is generated from within me? Am I the cause of my own suffering? If so, does this mean that one can choose not to suffer?

What makes conspiracy theories improbable?