Is it true that all language is meaningless without context?

I have a question about the identity of a certain kind of fallacy, namely: A = C B = C therefore A = C Confusingly, I have read that the above syllogism is valid; and yet consider this argument I've heard recently: Obama = Good speaker Hitler = Good speaker therefore Obama = Hitler Clearly the latter is a fallacy. So, I have two questions, really: 1) What is the name of this fallacy? 2) How can it be a fallacy if the first syllogism (A = C, B = C, therefore A = C), whose form it follows, is considered to be valid . . . or am I wrong about it being valid?

I am a tremendous fan of your site, and I recommend it all the time to friends & colleagues. Sorry if my question seems silly, but I'd really like to hear some comments on how you think philosophers could be best utilized by society. I know that if I could afford it, I'd love to have a small staff of highly-paid philosophers to hammer out water-tight arguments on the efficacy of a proposed policy, that, when properly marketed, would be hailed as a breath-taking human achievement. Or even some philosophers to proofread my blog entries for glaringly obvious fallacies. OK, maybe that's stuff for philosopher-interns, sorry. Short of being crowned a benevolent, philosopher-monarch, what's the best way for you and us to benefit from your brilliance?

What exactly is metaphysics? I’ve heard it argued that metaphysics is simply asking about the existence of things that are or the nature of that existence. I cannot say, “it is,” without talking about metaphysics. Would that mean that everybody is a metaphysician?

Is hope ever not irrational?

Thoreau says that we have professors of philosophy but not philosophers. He said that over 150 years ago and it's obviously more true in 2009 than it was then. Could it be that what's missing today is leisure for philosophic souls to contemplate, inquire, wonder, converse, etc? What is the relationship between leisure--in the classic sense of schole or otium--and philosophy? I understand philosophy to be a love of wisdom that manifests itself as a way of life - especially a way of life predicated upon leisure and animated by the endless search for and cultivation of self-knowledge. Am I correct? Is leisure an essential prerequisite for philosophy, or can it be reduced to a mere profession, like law or medicine? What in the world do people mean when they speak of "doing" philosophy?

I enjoy playing lots videogames, listening to (and DJing) lots of various styles of electronic dance music, and frequently smoke marijuana. These things are hobbies of mine that usually make me happy. It seems, however, that most philosophical thought says to disregard things like this because they instill a false sense of happiness in us; that they are temporary, material things that satisfy the senses and should be discarded in favor of supposed "real" things that have a lasting value. Take Plato's cave allegory, for example. Are the things that I like simply shadows, fooling me from real happiness? Because I fill my free time with these things, am I living in ignorance of what real happiness could be? Is there any value from engaging in these activities at all?

Don't you agree that real philosophy has ended? (Heidegger) What you guys practice is conceptual hairsplitting and prostitution to successful sciences that DO have an object of research and a genuine method. What is the object of philosophy and what is its method? Do you really believe that philosophy is some kind of science? Where are its results and how does it progress? Don't you think philosophy is useless, except as a feel-good sense-giving practice, without real sense of itself? Philosophy is more akin to art than to science, because both are incapable of giving sense to life, whereas science and technology shape our lives and direct us towards oblivion. There will never be a philosophy to stop that... Sorry to disturb your dreams!

Why is that if P entails not-Q and Q (a contradiction) do we conclude not-P? I understand that this a reductio ad absurdum and that because of the law of bivalence P either has to be true or false so if it entails a contradiction it is proved not true therefore false. But that last step is what I can't seem to justify...why does it become Not-P if it entails a contradiction? If I had to guess it's because contradictions don't exist in real life so if P were true and it entailed something that could never exist then it must be the case that P is not true (and this is true because of modus tollens: not-Q entails not-P). But we are dealing with symbols in the case of formal logic so how does this apply? Is formal logic an analogy of real life? I hope the question is clear after this rant!

I've been wondering this for quite some time now and I'm not sure how to word it in an intelligent way a philosopher may like to be asked. But I have been practicing photography for quite some time now and am currently studing it. My main interest is social documentary...i think it's important to document what it is today. My question is (and I'll try my best). Is it right for someone to document something and not interfere. Not help. Just watch? I'm thinking of this as there is a famous photographer who shot a world famous photo of a child and a vulture in Africa, Kevin Carter was the photographer if you would like to look it up, he never helped the child, was that right, I don't think he was allowed to interfere with things like that. But let's say even the likes of a war, documenting it, is it right to sit on the fence and observe someone being shot without doing anything about it? I suppose the question is, is it ok just to observe and not interfere when it is probably morally right to do so. I...