Dear philosophers, I'd currently call myself a 'pseudo-vegetarian', in that I don't eat meat, but I do eat fish and dairy foods, and use other products derived from animals (e.g. leather, wool). I became a vegetarian when I was five; arguably, when it was easier for me to hold a black-and-white moral viewpoint. I would now like to re-evaluate my vegetarianism, so that I can make an informed and (hopefully) ethically coherent decision about the foods I eat and the products I use. Are there any books you could recommend for me to read? I studied some philosophy at university, and would be interested in reading some balanced discussions of animal rights, vegetarianism and veganism. Thank you for reading this e-mail, and thank you in advance for your help.

Richard Dawkins wrote in his “The Selfish Gene,” that people are essentially biological robots. If he is right then all of our thoughts are simply the result of cerebral and neurological processes. Electrochemical signals produced by entirely physical processes. So, assuming he’s correct, then what reason do we have to trust our thoughts and logic? Perhaps what we think is universally true is not, we’re simply programmed to –think- it is? Actually, that’d be a profoundly effective evolutionary tool for preservation of the species. Our emotional values and logic may have developed as a way to augment survival instincts beyond the level of less cognitive organisms, right? So, why trust our thoughts? How do we know our logic is truly logical and not simply an illusion of logic?

Not to be silly…but if I could build a time machine would it be possible for me to go back in time and stop myself from building the time machine?

I wonder why there are so few philosophers 0 - 1000 AD?

Can gardening be considered as an art? Thank you.

I hear this argument a lot: If you're old enough to fight for your country, then you're old enough to do X. X might be "drink," or "gamble," or "do crack cocaine," or "rent a car"; basically anything. Whenever people say this, it strikes me as kind of silly. But at the same time it kind of makes sense, because fighting and dying seems more serious than almost anything else you could possibly do. So I wanted to ask: What do the panelists think?

I am a teacher. I find myself liking smart and well-behaved kids more than the others, and praising their efforts more. Being attentive, concentrating, imagining and thinking vigorously are all morally good traits, right? But when it comes down to it, those things pretty much just amount to being smart. And it bothers me that I'm just praising kids for being smart, rather than praising kids who can't concentrate and feel bad about it, or kids who aren't smart but would like to be. What should I do? I can't understand the difference between trying to be smart and being smart.

I have a question about colors. I always wonder if other people see the same color as I see. For example, we can agree that apple's color is red, but is it possible that we are refering to different colors as RED?

This has been bugging me for quite some time now. Is knowledge truth? Is truth knowledge? Are these concepts the same?

Pet owners neuter their animals. They rip out their claws, shave their fur, slice off their tales, and clip their ears. What if I, for whatever reason, wanted to give my dog a sex-change operation? I’m not sure what would drive somebody to do such a thing but should it be considered acceptable? Would that be crossing a line? Would it be cruel? Is it a pet owner’s right since the pet is his/her property? Where do animal cruelty laws come into play?