In case I would like to know more about philosophy of education, but my background is Political Science...which authors you recomend me to start with?

Assume there is a God, who is the always-was, always-will-be Catholic version of a Supreme Being. If this is the first universe and the first earth (and, therefore, we are the first people) what in tarnation was He doing all that time before He decided to actuate the so-=called Big Bang?

Does anyone know the national average number of Americans that will study philosophy in their lifetimes?

Am I morally wrong if I can understand why my son took his own life? Am I wrong to see that his decision was a positive one, given the circumstances? Of course I am distraught, heartbroken and miss him terribly but the guilt I feel for understanding his reasons for ending his life seem to come from expectations of society. The acceptable moral viewpoints that society seems to have over suicide leave caring family members looking like we don't give a damn, when in fact the absolute opposite is true....the question in my head remains though...am I really morally wrong in understanding his reasons and believing he did the right thing for himself? To give some background:- My son was an extremely intelligent, gentle and kind young man, who had battled with schizophrenia for 7 years from the age of only 18. His hopes and dreams in life had to be abandoned through the terrible experiences of hallucinations and panic attacks. Despite the daily routine of taking drugs that left him with slurred speech...

Most Christians would agree that God is perfect. She is the ultimate: Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent. Most Christians (and most people) would agree that humans are imperfect. Surely the mere act of a perfect being (God) creating an imperfect being (humans) is an act of imperfection in itself. In other words; how is it possible for a perfect entity to create something less than perfect? I’m sure my logic has flaws in it (that’s what happens when you’re imperfect), but I just can’t seem to see it; whether that’s because I’m not able to or just because I don’t want to, I’m not sure. Any comments would be appreciated.

What is the epistemic significance of our being unable to convince other people of our beliefs? Or: Does being unable to convince someone that P give me reason to doubt that P? Let's say that a philosopher deploys all the effort and rhetorical skill he can muster, but is unable to persuade his opponent. Why has he failed to convince? There are two principle reasons I can think of: (1) the philosopher and his opponent do not share the same premises, or (2) the philosopher's opponent is irrational (biased, stupid, crazy, etc.). The problem as I see it is that there seems no way to tell who is in the right. Presumably, neither the philosopher nor his opponent can justify their premises, nor can either one show that he is the rational one and the other irrational (the philosopher could just say that his opponent is crazy, but the opponent could say the same thing of him!). It's problems like this which move me closer to the uncomfortable possibility that to be in the right is often simply to be in the...

If a person hasn't been taught right from wrong, good from bad, acceptable from unacceptable behavior, how responsible are they for their actions when they realize their "mistake"?

All throughout our educational careers, we are taught not to divide by zero. Death upon he who divides by zero. If you punch it into a calculator you get an error or undefined. But, what I want to ask is if we can display this error. In reality we can divide by certain amounts. If I have four apples, and I want two 'divide by two,' I must split the apples into even groups. I can do this for any real number. But is there a realistic model that we can divide by zero? If I get the error on a calculator, can I get that error in real life? So that this apple will simple vanish, or, God forbid, time and space unravel? I think there has to be some realistic model to divide my four apples into zero baskets.

In order for knowledge to be knowledge, does it have to be true, or in other words, when something that everyone today believes to be true turns out to be wrong next year, was it not knowledge?

A lot of thinkers (Martin Luther King, religious leaders and Jesus Himself were in my mind) have claimed that one day humanity will reach a higher plane, where all people will live in peace and brotherhood. It seems like some individuals would be capable of participating in such a Utopian society, but is it realistic to suppose that the whole of society could one day be transformed to this peaceful, cooperative way of living? Additionally, do you think that we should aim towards this Utopian ideal? Thank you- I’m looking forward to hearing your opinions!