Would Hitler be a just sovereign according to Hobbes?

I would like to know more about the (supposed) difference between dictionary and philosophical definitions. There is a free access introduction by Norman Swartz on the Internet. Swartz says that dictionary definitions are "reports of common usages". My problem is that dictionaries (try to) explain what words MEAN in common usages. Even if you accept that there is not more to meaning than usage itself, dictionaries seem to report THEIR UNDERSTANDING of usage, which is something quite different from usage. For instance, when dictionaries quote writers who used some word, they never give information on how READERS reacted to that usage. I think that they assume that those quotations somehow prove by themselves the accuracy of the proposed definitions. On the other side, I suppose that philosophers also rely on usage when they try to define the meaning of a term (if they are not stipulating it). Aren't philosophers reporting their (or arguing for a certain) understanding of a word usage?

it seems that an entire 'philosophical system' (for lack of a better phrase) is built around the epistemological idea that I cannot escape my own consciousness (i.e. the argument from illusion). It is sometimes difficult for me, however, to take seriously the suggestion that I cannot prove that I'm not dreaming. I feel that I know that Descartes is quite right (I could be dreaming and I cannot PROVE that I'm not). However, on some very very important level, I do know that, in fact, I'm not dreaming even given the argument from illusion. Therefore, it's quite difficult for me to take the suggestion seriously. Could I be taking this all too seriously or considering it of much more import than is necessary?

Re: a third state. Sophists seem to be concerned with two things: being and nonbeing. Mathematics is based on this very same concept (the law of excluded middle): p or Non-p. What about a third state? How could we construct a logical system that would have a third state? I was told, and told again that the Law of excluded middle works fine and we should be content. Why not explore a system with more than 2 states, why not 3 or more than 3 states? I look forward to hearing from you. Ben V.

I live in Ireland where it is obligatory for students to learn the Irish language while in both primary and secondary education (for a period of 13 / 14 years) The reason for this obligation being that the Irish language is part of our heritage / our national identity. My question is should we be obligated to our heritage / national identity and if yes to what degree?

I'm in a rather unique conundrum. After much reading, listening and reflection I've concluded that there is no source of moral good or evil beyond that which serves mankind's survival. That is, one's loyalty to country and family are only meaningful in as much as they can be rationalized as serving this ultimate purpose. The result is that I now find myself at odds with what most people here in the USA and most of the world consider to be the foundation of stability -- that is religion. It's not that I'm an atheist and belief there is no God -- or even that one cannot know whether God exists. I consider myself to be an agnostic, which I define as having no belief on the matter but as having an open mind about it. Unfortunately I've seen more credible evidence for ancient astronauts than for a God. Both are intriguing notions but I can't base moral decisions on them. This leaves me with the problem of feeling quite separate from everyone I know and love. I'm aware of the historical role of religion as a...

Imagine that imediately before the happy ending of a film the good guy says to the bad guy: "You should have killed me when you could." I assume that this doesn't mean "you had the moral duty to kill me when you could." But what does it exactly mean then?!

When did the definitions of induction and deduction change from reasoning from the universal to the particular (deduction) and particular to universal (induction), to this non-distinction of the strength of support the premises give to the conclusion? When did it happen and who did it?

How can I hear my voice in my head without speaking?

I would like to know if any panelists can tell me about good programs of study for Continental philosophy in the United States - particularly taught from a Continental perspective. It has been written by Brian Leiter that "all the Ivy League universities, all the leading state research universities, all the University of California campuses, most of the top liberal arts colleges, most of the flagship campuses of the second-tier state research universities boast philosophy departments that overwhelmingly self-identify as 'analytic'" and John Searle commented "without exception, the best philosophy departments in the United States are dominated by analytic philosophy, and among the leading philosophers in the United States, all but a tiny handful would be classified as analytic philosophers." The more respondents, the merrier.