What are the names of some respected philosophers or schools of thought that believe things are as they should be in the sense that much of what we consider to be bad is in fact of value to life when considered in a larger context?

How does chaos theory effect Mill's philosophical interpretations? It seems that through chaos theory and the butterfly effect, it is impossible for anyone to know what action is the one that will create the most happiness in the world. It doesn't even have to be extreme cases like someone saving a child Hitler from drowning. But even in regular every day cases, every action we take has literally billions of results that are impossible to know about and thus a person would never know which action was the morally right one. Did Mill take this into account in his writings?

I cannot understand why Wittgenstein's considerations about rule-following had such a large impact in many areas of philosophy. May you explain it to me?

Should you always expose the truth to the ones you love, even when it may do them harm by knowing?

What happens to Justice when a state is in democratic transition (that is to say, moving from a regime that was percieved as commiting atrocities against its own people or violating its citizens' human rights in some way - Taiwan and the "228" incident, Poland and the whole issue of "lustration", South Africa, etc.)? The TRC in South Africa, for example, went for restorative justice, while in other cases many opt for a retributive justice. While the former hopes to "heal" the community there is a sense in which the guilty go free; whereas the latter punsih the guilty many see this as causing further divisions. Is there any other option for justly dealing with such transition?

What is it that separates something that looks bad from something that looks good? What is it that determines whether it's ugly or beautiful?

How much math should I know in order to delve really deeply into philosophy of mathematics? Must philosophers of mathematics be mathematicians, as well?

Living things have perception. When a sensory cell is disturbed, a chain reaction is caused which sends the sensory data to the brain where, through very physical means, it is analyzed and thoughts and emotions are created. If this is all done by physical means, by the complex physical reaction which is the nervous system, do seemingly non-organic things such as my computer have perceptions as I do?

How do you read philosophical texts? Do you try to outline its structure and the parts of its argument from the beginning? Or do you first give the text a quick reading to get a general picture of the whole? Do you approach philosophical articles differently from philosophical books? Finally, if the work is a difficult one from the history of philosophy, do you rely heavily on secondary literature or do you try first to approach the work without the aid of others' interpretations?

Are there as many true propositions as false ones? More of one than the other?