Why do most philosopher's talk in language incomprehensible to normal people? Do philosophers study 'the' because they know there are a few million other words that they can study afterwards, and therefore be philosophers forever?

In your opinion which philosophical idea has had the greatest impact on Western thought? Do you think there are more deserving ideas that have received less attention? Jon T. Sussex

As a newbie to philosophy, I've been spending much time with a good friend who studied philosophy in college. It's been, thus far, a fascinating discussion on the ancient philosophers, the evolution of the different schools of thought, and a great introduction from which I hope to delve into more specific readings of many of them. We've gone from Socrates/Plato/Aristotle to Descarte, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Camus, and Nietzsche. Even with all of the fascination I have with these interesting minds from the past, I feel like I note a trend that many great philosophers build on, refine, or otherwise take inspiration from the ideas and works of those before them. So, then who are the modern philosophers alive and well today? My friend suggested two in particular who he feels are noteworthy - Kitcher and Quine - though Quine passed away in 2000. I also have read a bit by Peter Singer, who I find interesting and quite different, too. Perhaps I'm already in the company of a great many others here,...

Are logical laws such as the de Morgan's ones preserved under modalisations? For example, what are the truth conditions for the following sentences: Peter knows that Mary does not invite Paul and Peter. Peter knows that it is possible that Mary does not invite Paul and Peter.

I used to love my work and see it as a path to a virtuous happiness and sense of self-fulfillment. But working for someone else had changed all that; amidst the petty slights, status contests, and probably just far too many hours in the office working for people who don't treat me well (with no choice about when or what I work on), my work has lost all its meaning. I feel like I built up a false belief system about achievement, and it worked for 27 years, but it's now come crashing down. I know I listed some probable causes, but I'm sure it could be explained more philosphically and eloquently. I need to better understand in abstract terms - what causes meaning to erode? And what have philosophers suggested as cures for such existential crises?

How can you think that your opinion is worth anything when all your opinion is is a thought process that came to you as a result of everything that happened in your extremely unique life? If you look at all the other arguments that go against your own beliefs, the people saying them believe them as truth. So do you ever think that you're just as equal as they are, or do you actually think that you're more "on the right track" than they are? Finally, if I always understand and justify why people think the way they do regardless of the subject, then how can I think that my own opinion matters, if, again, my own opinion is only a result of how I see things in my mind, because of everything around me that led to me being who I am today.

I am perplexed by Alexander George's recent posting (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2854). He says "Your observation that we sometimes take pleasure in beliefs even if they have been irrationally arrived at seems correct but beside the point: it speaks neither to the truth of (1) nor to that of (2)." (2), in this case, is "(2) that actions guided by false beliefs are not likely to get us what we want. " I believe the science of psychology has shown us that we form many beliefs entirely irrationally. The mechanism for their formation is often a defense mechanism. The purpose of their formation is often to hide some truth about ourselves from ourselves - to hide some unpleasant information that we would have gleaned had we formed our belief rationally. I just can't see how the above information is "beside the point". The point is: 1) I want to be happy. 2) My beliefs are formed irrationally in order to reach that desired end. Perhaps what is beside the point is that the belief-forming...

We always say that "is" or "doing" instead of "looks" or "I think". For example, when I am cold I say that it is "cold". Would not it be more correct to say that "I feel cold"? When we say that a car is green, is it because we see it green - but who says that there will be another who sees it blue? Siempre decimos "es" y "hacer" en vez de "parece" y "me parece". Por ejemplo, cuando tengo frío digo que hace frío. ¿No sería más correcto decir que "me parece que hace frío"? Cuando decimos que un coche es verde, es porque lo vemos verde, ¿pero quién dice que no habrá otro que lo vea azul?

Do the dead have rights? Example: suppose my father dies and leaves me his house in his will, on the condition that I never sell the house to anyone outside the family. If I were to take the house, and later sell it to someone outside that family, it is not clear that my father is harmed (he is dead!). Yet it seems wrong. Why?

Donald Baxter's recent reply (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2837), in which he writes "Then these attempts must be put to the test by trying to convince others, and then taking into account their incomprehensions and objections" suggests that Philosophy is about convincing people and alleviating their confusion. If that is the case, it seems Philosophy is more about rhetoric and psychology than truth or big issues. Do Philosophers believe, then, that they have succeeded if 1) people understand their positions perfectly and 2) people agree with it? This doesn't seem to me like the best standard for deciding what is true, and I thought philosophy was love of truth, not love of persuading people of clearly articulated positions.