Do philosophers change language or does language change how philosophers think? I wonder about this when considering how attitudes change to certain things such as treatment of criminals or aspects of Human Rights. For example "Police Force" tends to be "Police Service"- sounds a bit nicer- and "Industrial Action" sounds nicer and more professional than "Strike Action". In human relations the word "Gay" has been introduced to describe homosexuals and lesbians. That seems to give a better impression although why that should be necessary given that most people accept that heterosexual does not need any other description is a mystery. The supreme example of word change is "Termination with extreme prejudice" for "Assasination"!! followed by "Rendition" for "Kidnapping". I have just read _I am, therefore I think_ and noticed that most references to people were female. An exception was in the chapter on the Environment page 104, where the example refers to a female police officer and the criminal is male!!...

I understand that Socrates went along with a death sentence because he believed it right to obey the laws of the country even when they were unjust. He had ample opportunity to escape into exile, and his friends encouraged him to do this, but he said no. Aristotle was a Macedonian. With the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC there was very strong anti-Macedonian feeling in Athens. Aristotle became a target and he sought asylum in Chalcis. He did it because he did not want comply with what would have been an unjust law/judicial process and 'to prevent the people of Athens sinning a second time against philosophy' (Socrates being the first victim). So, did Aristotle think Socrates was virtuous in not taking up the opportunity to go into exile? Is it not also virtuous to find ways of surviving?

Sometimes I'll be writing a paper late at night, and my words will appear perfectly lucid to my sleep-addled brain; but the next day, after I've gotten some rest, I realize that it's all gibberish. Is clarity an objective quality? Is it possible for someone to think that a piece of language is clear, and be wrong?

I have a theory which I would like to develop. I was wondering if it is possible that all human perception could differ from person to person. My reasoning is, if you are born into this world a seeing, hearing, smelling, feeling, tasting individual, your senses learn to describe different perceptible things form that very time. The problem with this is, is that each individual has parents, who also had parents, who had parents and so on. If I was born, and I saw a completely different world, or tasted things very differently, I wouldn't be able to communicate these things because every description I can provide is synonymous to what it is called. For example. If I am looking at what is called an apple, I see a round, object with a stem. For the sake of argument it will be a red apple. The thing is, I could be seeing a spinning vortex, but because this is how I have always perceived things, I describe it at a red apple. I suppose this isn't a question, but what do you think?

Hello, I hope you bear with my question despite its Jerry Springer-like context. My boyfriend tells me he has occasional sex with other women in a way that “doesn’t change anything between us.” We’re in a long-distance relationship that is also new, and so far he has demonstrated his loyalty to me whenever another woman advances a claim on him in my presence. I find it impossible to find a rational objection to his having sex with others in such a situation because in substance, if not form, fidelity seems to be present. Yet I am bothered tremendously by his having sex with others. Though promiscuity while being in a relationship is an old and frequently arising issue, in my experience people increasingly seek to deal with it through “full disclosure” that is supposed to enable us to grant or withdraw consent to such an arrangement. The merits of such an approach are realism and honesty, and my particular situation seems to be the scenario in which consent cannot be rationally denied. So how can I make...

First, thanks for this great website. I was talking to a friend about Descartes and Cogito and it revived my curiosity in the subject. Most of us would agree that there is an objective world out there. Is there a way to prove it? How can I prove to my self that I am not the only thing that exists? I thought perhaps because there is an order in the things around me, in which I have no will. I can not change the laws that the things around me obey, wether they are objective or part of my imagination. Does this force me to admit then that the things I perceive are objective? I could definitely use some help. I would like to read more in the subject as well so if somebody could give me ideas and refer me to some books, it would be great. Thanks in advance. Alejandro

I used to think that we needed language to think but then babies and animals can think and they don't have a language. I then came to the conclusion that they may not have a verbal language like ours but they use their other senses to have a language and that's why they can think. So would it be possible for a person who had none of the five senses to think? And if we use our senses to think, do plants think? Plants have senses so can they can think to some extent?

For giving the students a good picture of a branch of philosophy are classic authors' text, specially very hard ones, replaceable by secondary literature or not?

This question pertains to philosophical education or philosophical pedagogy: Even though I do not hold any degrees in philosophy (I hold undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science), I believe that philosophy should constitute one of the foundations of higher education. It is impossible, I believe, to be truly educated without a sound background in philosophy and logic. To this end, I have always believed that with the wonderful emergence of new technologies it should be incumbent upon every capable institution of higher learning to seek to disseminate such core foundations. This can be done, with remarkable ease these days, through distance learning. However, with the exception of a very small number of philosophy departments associated with certain universities, most departments of philosophy look upon distance learning, seemingly, with great loathing. Furthermore, the thought of actually establishing distance degree programs in philosophy (whether at the undergraduate or graduate...

On a TV program tonight, a legal show, the client was a clergyman accused of indecent exposure. He admitted his guilt to the barrister, but said that he was going to plead "not guilty". The barrister replied that under these circumstances he could no longer represent the clergyman. The latter replied "Oh, when did lawyers begin to occupy the high moral ground?" The barrister replied "Probably when the Church first began to confuse morality with ethics". I sort of understand the answer but am not really clear about the distinction, and why the reply was obviously a palpable hit. Could the duty philosopher help on this? David