Recently, I have reached the conclusion that I no longer 'believe in science'. Many people have found this hard to understand, and I myself am struggling with the concept. Is it even possible to disregard something which so many hold in such high esteem? I feel that the basis for my beliefs, or lack thereof, lies with the question of infallibility. Upon broaching the topic with friends from my philosophy class, I was told that not believing in science was simply not an option. I had to believe in it, because it was all around me. My counter argument was that science was elitist, something for the select few, in that there are very few people who actually 'know the truth'. One friend in particular pointed out that I had to believe in gravity, as it was acting on me all the time, and that the clothes I was wearing and the dye I use in my hair were all products of science. I remain unconvinced though, as neither my friend, nor anyone I know, can actually prove these beliefs they regard so highly. Has no one...

What kind of questions did philosophers ask in Ancient Greece?

For ancient philosophers, like the Stoics, Metaphysics, logic, and ethics were all united, working together to form a single self-coherent world view that could provide its adherents with the good life. Is the fact that fields such as ethics and metaphysics are often taught distinctly in modern universities (at least in the analytic tradition) a good or bad aspect of the way we do philosophy today? Should our goal be a single complete world view or should we be satisfied with a successful explanation of a single phenomenon (like language) even if it screws up our understanding of another field?

My question is about poetry's relationship with the languages from which it is constructed. Many words from the vocabularies of natural languages are onomatopoeic (where words sound like sounds they describe: 'bang!'; 'crack'; etc.) and some argue that other words 'sound' like the objects they describe. In one of his novels' insightful footnotes, Terry Pratchett proposed that "There should be a word for words that sound like things would sound like if they made a noise, he thought. The word "glisten" does indeed gleam oilily, and if there ever was a word that sounded exactly the way sparks look as they creep across burned paper, or the way the lights of cities would creep across the world if the whole of human civilization was crammed into one night, then you couldn't do better than "coruscate"." (Equal Rites by Terry Pratchett, pg 207) Whether or not these observations can be considered correct is the first part of my question. Although "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", it seems...

If we imagine an intelligent alien race, could we also imagine philosophical questions they have come up with that have eluded us and vice versa? Or are all philosophical debates necessarily universal? My understanding of our application of philosophical analysis is that it is all-encompassing and would even have to apply to any god or advanced alien civilization (I mean the method not the conclusions). Or can something else be conceived? NB I write this as an arch-skeptic and atheist.

Does there exist a type of thing which could be called a mathematical fact? That is, are there true entities which would exist even if there were no minds to do the maths to discover and describe them? In other words, it is the understanding of all numerate human beings that the square root of 81 is 9. Would the square root of 81 still be 9 if there were no minds, human, numerate or otherwise?

My question is about analytic philosophy. Is it true that analytic philosophy aims to approach philosophy ahistorically, and that when asking questions like "what's the meaning of life" it considers itself to be dealing merely with language puzzles and not with a legitimate question that actually matters in real life? If so, it would seem a strange place for philosophy to have evolved to. Then again, I'm sure strange mutations have happened in philosophy in the past, and have gained a large following. Is it possible that the people who practice analytic philosophy today, especially those who don't question it rigorously as a method and simply see it as the only lucid approach - is it possible that these people will ever come to see it differently, as containing some sort of fundamental mistake within itself?

This is more a technical than a philosophical question, I think. When referencing Greek philosophers, what is the significance of providing the original Greek word(s)? (e.g., “Your eagerness [PROTHUMIA] is worth much if it should have some right aim.”) Is there something about Greek (as opposed to other foreign languages) or about philosophy that makes this useful? As a reader, what am I supposed to be doing with these?

When I look at the marvels in technology that mankind has produced in this past century I can't help but wonder: Why are we so proud of our accomplishments and in ourselves? What has mankind created that hasn't already been created in us and in nature, in an even more refined and excellent form? Is not what mankind has created on this earth a mock counterfeit of the human body? We have a governmental head that for millenniums has failed to bring peace, order and stability to the rest of the body. We have a left and right hand that cannot work together toward the same purpose such as universal peace. We have eyes that cannot focus on the the true underlying causes of all our problems. We have a mouth that cannot speak a cohesive sentence to express one unified thought. We have nerve endings that cannot sense the pain of hunger and disease that plague entire nations. We have ears that cannot listen past our religious differences to hear the unified, pleading cry for salvation. We have legs that can take us...

How far down into philosophy does the mysterian attitude penetrate? I realize it's nothing new, since Christian and other religious philosophers have thrown in the towel when it comes to describing Deity. The problem of consciousness is now producing the same helplessness. When is a problem decreed beyond human competence and when is it just beyond your and my current competence? Is continued frustration the deciding factor?