Kant believed that Space and Time were synthetic a priori concepts that our mind imposes on experience. From this, he claimed that we can only know objects as they appeared to us, mainly as occuring in Space and Time. So, only phenomenon can be known, not the noumenon, or the thing-in-itself. My question is this: If Space, Time, and their product Causality, are concepts provided by the mind, and objects are independent of our existence (as Kant believed) then does this mean that reality is structured so the second it is perceived? Is the universe, then, chaotic the second we turn our backs to it? I basically wish to know if Kant addressed this consequence of his assertion--provided I have properly understood his assertion. I hope you can address my question for there is no one that I can ask in person, nor have I come across any mention of this problem from Kant's writings. Thank you in advance.

How can we prove that the Newton's law of Gravity is correct and how can we confirm that the Gravity is really exist?

I'm passionately interested in Darwin and evolution, but have been bashing my head against the wall recently, over the objection that 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology. The answers to this that I've read state that 'fitness' doesn't mean: "those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency" [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html]. But then the reply to this seems to be: "This charge is not repelled by substituting "most adaptable" or "best designed," etc., for "fittest," because these too are determined by survival. (That is, how do we determine that a species, or members of a species, is "most adaptable" or "best designed"? By the fact that it survived.)" [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl3.html] As an aside following on from this, I know that you can then say that there is a lot of evidence. But isn't this evidence for evolution, not the specific theory of natural selection? My question is:...

I read the other day that 48% of people over the age of 85 suffer from senile dementia, and that this number increases steeply as people age. Sufferers have difficulty remembering events and people. Even in its early stages, it impacts on decision making and one's ability to form short and long term plans. My question is, one of the reasons for having a voting age is because we believe that children and young people are cognitively unable to understand the full implications of voting. While this isn't true for all children, it is for the majority of kids, justifying an arbitrary, blanket voting age. If there is a point at which a majority of elderly people are cognitively unable to understand the implications of their vote, does this mean we should create an upper voting age limit? Thanks :)

Although I have read many responses here that demonstrate a kind of wisdom, I doubt that the kinds of moral theories like utilitarianism or deontological ethics often mentioned here have much to do with this wisdom. I also doubt whether they have much to do with any serious moral problem. It almost seems like a caricature to switch from the serious, worried thinking that I had to do about whether, say, I must send my daughter to live with her grandparents in a different country given some real set of problems, to turn to a theory to tell me the answer? Not that these theories have got it all wrong; but they make something like an academic excercise or speculative problem out of a real moral problem, changing it in ways I don't understand but still feel are there. I would be happy to be wrong about this and would like to know your opinion. I suppose a secondary question is: what are moral philosophy departments for?

During the 2004 Presidential Debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry campaign a young female college student asked John Kerry about abortion and his political position on this issue. Kerry responded first by asserting that he is a Roman Catholic and that he did not endorse or feel good about the practice; but he added that he also believed that “articles of faith”, by which I presume he meant a religious belief about the moral status of abortion, are not matters of legislation or law (a position I fundamentally agree with). Kerry’s response seems to assume that morality, or at least morality based on religion, should not be a part of law; however, it also appears to me that it is difficult to imagine where law would derive its power if not from some kind of (religious?) moral basis. I have been trying to see how Kerry’s comment is intelligible in light of the dilemma of how laws would have any kind of power, or that there would be any justification for their authority, without some kind of moral...

I have a new laptop with the ability to connect to any unsecured wireless Internet hot spot (e.g., at Starbucks). Is it ethical for me to connect to ANY free connection, even if I don't know whose it is, or if I suspect that it belongs to someone who is unaware that I am using it? On the one hand, the question seems to be, "just because my neighbor goes out and leaves his house unlocked, that does not give me the right to enter it without his permission." On the other hand, the wireless signal is in MY house, without asking for my consent, so why shouldn't I feel free to use it, since my neighbor sent it there? I realize that the legal answer to this question is all over the map, with some localities arresting people and others refusing to prosecute. I am only really concerned with the moral arguments for and against this.

Do we have an obligation from preventing one wild plant or animal species from wiping out another? For instance, is it morally problematic to introduce to an ocean habitat an exotic species of fish which goes on to drive species to extinction? (Set aside the question of whether such a thing might also be problematic on, say, practical grounds.) Or do we simply say: "Well, the exotic fish have just as much a right to survive as the natives, so let's not worry if the former kill off the latter."

Everything that happens, why does is it happen at the moment that it does and not the moment before or the moment after?

Is there any philosophical consolation for someone who's depressed?