The laws in our societies tend to be more and more complex, both in content and amount. Nobody can be supposed to know or understand all of them. Yet, as a citizen you are obliged to know and understand all the laws. Isn't this a dilemma? /Lars

I have a friend who is a top philosophy student. She is also one of the top English students, but bristled at the suggestion that an excellent grasp of language did, in some way, confer upon her her superior ability in conducting philosophical argument. Is this link between proficiency in the language of philosophical argument and one's ability to make philosophical argument too tenuous? Or is philosophy like mathematics, bound by certain axiomatic rules which must be mastered and manipulated with discipline in order to authoritatively address philosophical problems(with the language of the axioms being insignificantly marginal)?

My question arose from responses to questions 40 and 2062 on this site. In question 40 it was asked why something exists, rather than nothing. In question 2062 it was asked whether there are any questions which can not be philosophized about. My question is: why is the question "why is there something rather than nothing" considered a false philosophical question? Is it somehow even less answerable than all the other philosophical questions? And why does this seem to disqualify the question as being a "good" philosophical question. Thanks for the opportunity to ask this (and for your time).

Will somebody please enlarge on the difference between Linguistics and Philosophy of Language? Many thanks, Jordanne.

There are fairly obvious reasons that preventing someone from achieving their desires is immoral. But is it also immoral to influence just what those desires are (e.g., through advertising)? Do we have rights, not only to pursue our goals, but to have goals which are autonomous (so to speak) from external influences?

Do you think that volunteer organ donors should get preferential treatment over non-organ donors in regards to receiving organs?

Great site. How does our approach to knowledge about the past differ from our approach to knowledge about the future?

Supposing I am involved in an argument in which I am claiming a certain kind of behaviour to be wrong and my opponent points out that I have behaved in this way in the past. Would this constitute a strong response? If I make no attempt to claim that it was 'ok' for me to have behaved in such a way can I escape the charge of hypocrisy? Alongside this, if the person is able to accuse me of hypocrisy does it reject the point or merely my alleged 'right' to speak about it? thanks Alastair

I'm a philosophy student, and like most philosophy students (and philosophers), I've been known to rhapsodize about Plato. Even if I don't agree with all of his views, he is 'the' philosopher, a great man, and so we put him up on a pedestal. But I've had a sort of crisis of consciousness. The Republic is, more or less, a fascist book, no? If I met anyone in real life who held the views Plato claims to in the Republic, I would be horribly disturbed-- I wouldn't devote my life to seriously considering her philosophy. I understand the merits of distancing yourself from emotions when doing philosophy, and just considering the ideas on their own merits. Isn't that what philosophy's all about, actually? But at the same time, I don't really want to seriously consider fascism, I don't think it deserves it. And why are people still seriously discussing Plato's ethics like they might have something useful to tell us? Shouldn't we stop at "Plato was a fascist"? And what does it say about philosophy that a fascist...

I married from back home because of certain cultural pressures. He seemed like an all around nice guy but when he got here he changed. He admitted that he had put on a show in order to convince me to bring him here and now he is trying to control me. He also always fights with me over money matters. At the moment we are separated but not divorced and I am contemplating whether or not I should divorce him. He does not leave me alone but constantly hurts me and thinks I am cheating on him. I also caught him trying to start affairs with women both abroad and local and I feel I cannot trust him. When he came here I liked him but now I feel little to nothing towards him and I think he wants to use me for some end (hence why he wants to get back). Also he frequently hints that it's good to use women for money and etc., and then dump them for other women... Although this may not be the right place to ask such a question but what do you philosophers think of the situation? I think it would be interesting...