Why are some emotions considered 'negative,' like hate and envy while others are held as the pinnacle of human achievement, like happiness or love? Who is to say happiness is any better than fear or rage or sorrow? Is it merely a question of personal choice, or are we naturally or artificially inclined towards one emotional state over another?

Is it plausible the theory of "occam's razor". Could a complex answer be the right one?

Is death without afterlife really all that bad? I mean, it could be worse, right? Of the plethora of possibilities the human mind can imagine, quiet, peaceful oblivion seems to me like not such a terrible thing.

I recently found out that a cousin of mine, about 15, is being brainwashed by his parents into accepting all sorts of religious dogma and nonsense. Now, personally I don't have anything against religion in principle, and I even think the Intelligent Design argument is, well, intelligent (or at least clever). But for a 15 year old to be indoctrinated like that bothers me. Is there anything I can say (or books I can recommend to him) to him that would not be insensitive to him or his family but would at least get him thinking about things in a slightly more independent manner? Thanks!

I'd like to hear what you - dedicated to answering questions - have to say to the following: 1) Philosophers and scientists seem to believe that a) problems are shared (by people), i. e. are the same (identical?) for every man b) each attempt to solve a problem produces its own solution. Here's my first question: If we think there are as many solutions to a problem as there are written papers, what makes us believe it's different with the problems? What are the criteria for the interpersonal identity of a problem? 2) Relating to the first: If two people refer or at least pretend to refer to the same problem (in solving or just discussing it), and given the thesis that in some way we must understand the problem or at least its verbal expression: What is it, that we know, when we understand a problem? Or, a bit less heavy-weighted:What kind of semantics of questions would enable us to understand how it comes that the problems questions articulate are real and shared by people, while the answers...

How do we say something that is recognizably artistically meaningful? It seems that in order for it to meet that standard, it would have to play on themes that have already established; in order to create something fantastically profound, one would have to create something truly new. But then art experts wouldn't recognize it as such since it wouldn't contain any reference to standards created by previous stuff. So suppose we take the mindset that we are writing for future audiences who will recognize it as a timeless classic. But why does the possible acceptance of our work in this way by future audiences guarantee its profundity? Why should they be favored over the intelligent audiences of today?

How good does one need to be in mathematics to do good work in philosophy of mathematics? Does one need to be able to *do* original math research, or just read and understand math research, or neither? Or does the answer depend on the topic within philosophy of math? If so, which topics are those in which math knowledge is most useful, and in which is it least useful?

There is much written on veganism and vegetarianism and the morality of eating animals. The human animal is an omnivore; eating is basic to survival; our dentition and digestive tracts are adapted for meat as well as plants. This is our condition. There is an answer excusing peoples from agriculturally poor countries (and I would add the Inuit) yet, lacking suitable abattoirs, their trapping and/or killing of animals would be seen as cruel by our delicate western standards. If this is morally acceptable, what is "unacceptable suffering"? To whom is is unacceptable and what changes that it becomes acceptable? A vegan questioner suggested her omnivorous friend should witness the killing of an animal if he wished to eat meat. If he did and continued eating meat, would he then be exculpated? If so, where is the morality? Why should the vegan's morality be superior to the omnivore's? Should the vegan witness the grinding poverty and backbreaking work of 3rd world child agricultural labourers before eating...

Pet lovers seem to be taking their pets along for 'alternative' therapies for their ailments- e.g. homeopathy, acupuncture, indian traditional medicine, etc. Given there is no scientific basis for these treatments- isn't this sort of thing tantamount to torture? (PETA doesn't think so.) Humans who voluntarily submit themselves to painful treatments are at least getting the 'placebo' given their belief that the treatment will work. I'd imagine that it'd be hard to give a pet a placebo!

Why do so many equate 'natural' with 'good?' It seems to me as though there are loads of cases stating the very opposite. So is what is natural always what is good?