What's the best way for someone who's really into philosophy to make their mark on the philosopical community if he or she is having trouble going to a university? I've tried sending my work to professors throughout the US, not necessarily for publication purposes, just to get it looked at, but for now, no dice.

Questions about going to school for philosophy have already been asked, but I couldn't help but ask another; I am strongly considering a search for a graduate-level philosophy school, and the panel is partially made of individuals working within grad. philosophy programs, and certainly those who graduated from such programs. I would like to know, from the panel member(s) that may respond: What exactly brought you to the point that you could say you were a constructive contributor to the philosophy field? What level of work did you have to demonstrate to enter the graduate program which you entered, and what quality of work was your output there? I'm asking you to evaluate these things to better understand what exactly needs to be sown to reap the feeling that you earned your degrees and the university position at which you teach. I think it would help to build a scale to use to quantify my own goal of professorship, or otherwise significant contributions to the field, one day.

I had a friend ask me this question some time ago and we tried to talk through it but ended up still stumped. The story went: if there is a husband and wife in a happy marriage but the husband goes away on a business trip, maybe has a little too much to drink or just has a lapse in judgement, and has a one-night stand with another woman and knows it was a morally wrong act does he have the obligation to tell her even though it will devastate her and potentially end her marriage? Or should the husband keep quiet and live quietly with the shame he has brought on his marriage? If an immoral act has already been committed does it do any good to be truthful about it and bring further harm to others, as would happen if the wife were told? It just seems that if it is immoral to do harm to others than telling the wife might just be as immoral as the act of adultery.

Hi, here comes another question about feminism and philosophy and feminist philosophers. I am 30 years old and was a student of philosophy in Germany for 6 years before graduating to Master of Arts. Recently I read a book about 19th century's feminists and stumbled over a small notice concerning John St. Mill's "Subjection of Women". Although I would describe myself as a quite diligent student of philosophy (even in high-school) and also very interested in feminist topics, I never knew about this well known philosopher being a feminist as well. Now I ask myself three questions and hope you can help: 1) How can it be explained that even at university level the discussion of a classic philosopher like Mill never touches the bad F-word (i.e., feminism)? And who is to blame? 2) If even students of philosophy do not touch these topics if not accidentally altough it should be their genuine field of activity, how will other people, to whom the matter is quite distant, ever find out? 3) How many other...

My friend and I were having a discussion about racism. He made a claim to me that he would never date a black woman, but that he wasn't racist. Now, to me, that seems like a racist comment. But he says that I am misunderstanding him. These are his arguments: "I do not find black women attractive, and so I would not date one. You might call me racist then, but if I said I didn't like women with brown hair, or women with gray eyes, does that necessarily mean that I am discriminating against women with those attributes? It would just mean that I wouldn't consider a woman with gray eyes or brown hair a prospect for a sexual relationship. Furthermore, I could say that you don't wish to have sex with men, and by your logic, that would make you sexist against men." His arguments are persuasive, but I find something very wrong with them. It seems to me that if someone is otherwise compatible with you, it shouldn't matter what race they are (or, in fact, if they had freckles or blond hair, et cetera). ...

Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Would my life be less valuable if I chose not to examine it? If I simply did everything according to the conventions and mores of my society, would my life be less valuable than someone who questioned these things deeply?

I am a different person to the person I was 10 years ago. This change has been brought about by various dramas and experiences that have unfolded over short and long time-scales. I didn't realise that the events were changing me until after they had affected me, so I could say that all the experiences I am having now are making a new me that I don't know and will not recognise until I have changed so much that I can clearly see a difference. So is there such a person or an individual as 'me' or am I a different 'me' at any time of my existence? Does the concept of self exist? (I really hope this makes sense!)

Re: Mitt Romney. Is it ever appropriate for a politician to justify policy on the basis of religious belief? Presumably, most people would answer this question with a vociferous "NO!". There's something strange about the way we ask politicians to compartmentalize their beliefs and motives, however. If a politician tells me that he has religious belief X but that he's able to separate this from his work in office, it seems to me that he doesn't really believe in X at all.

How do you think technology will affect the teaching and practice of philosophy? During my undergraduate degree (in philosophy), I took notes in numerous classes on a laptop and could download papers from a variety of journals as PDF. I have seen numerous academic perspectives regarding technology and learning - from Bert Dreyfus' idea that the podcast of his lectures at Berkeley on philosophy and literature reduced class attendance, to law schools having "laptops off" sessions to science professors encouraging (or even requiring) graduate students to blog about their lab work. I even saw a theory that ethical theories are implicitly tied to the technology of their time - the printing press linking with Kant, utilitarianism, Mill-style liberalism, the mass media of television, radio and newspapers doing the same for Rawls and Nozick. And, of course, many philosophy professors like Brian Leiter now have blogs and some have podcasts too. At technical conferences, we use technology to provide things like ...

What should someone interested in philosophy read? Although I primarily mean philosophical texts, I also mean philosophical fiction, poetry, non-fiction, plays, et cetera. Of course, movies would also be nice. Also, are there any philosophers, modern or otherwise, that are readable. I love Kant and the rest, but it oftentimes seems as if their language is purposefully obtuse. Thank you!