I am having a big problem concerning solipsism. The theory is driving me crazy. I have had anxiety issues before and now that I discovered solipsism it is making me feel apathetic and very lonely. So what is the best refutation against solipsism?? And can that theory be refuted itself?? Is there any refutation or book that I can buy that basicaly proves solipsism wrong?? And why is it labeled an irrefutable theory?? PLEASE HELP!!

Hello, My question is the following: Is there any knowledge that cannot be doubted? That is, what type of knowledge or physical event can we hold to be true with absolute certainty? Or is doubt an instrinsic part of the human condition?

Many different intellectuals have argued that using language in a certain way conduces to certain attitudes and beliefs in the speaker (I'm thinking mostly of feminist theorists who argue that our language both betrays and reinforces sexist and heteronormative worldviews). A great deal of literature presupposes the truth of this idea. I can see why this is such an attractive theory; it seems entirely plausible, and, if true, its implications would be deep. At the same time, however, I wonder if philosophers and theorists aren't overstepping their bounds in claims like this; if a certain way of talking inclines us toward a certain way of thinking and acting, isn't this in fact an empirical question? I can imagine how using masculine pronouns could instill sexist attitudes in a person -- but imagining is very different from proving.

How is love between sexual partners different from the love between friends?

Have the advances in brain scanning techniques that allow the brain to be monitored in real-time had an effect on the philosophical discussions regarding the mind/body question? If so what are they? I'd be interested to find out what a student of Wittgenstein or Peter Winch had to say about the subject?

If science is based on observable, measurable data, what is the basis of science's belief of the origins of the 'Big Bang'? Even religions talk of the cataclysmic beginnings of the Universe, but they don't claim the Bang was of Nothing. Observable, mathematical data suggests nothing begets nothing.

How do we get better at reasoning, and what would such an ‘improvement’ be exactly? What sort of benefits would be gained that would distinguish reasoning from some other sort of guide to the truth (whatever that might be)?

Can you explain to me what is considered to be a "philosophical error"? How different is it from any other error in the common/simple world? And what are the bases under which something is considered as 'philosophical' error, as oposed to a 'regular/normal' error?

How does 'consistent' differ from 'coherent'? Two things are consistent if they are not contradictory; this is also the case for coherence. So why do the two need to be distinguished? Is there something that one has but the other not? Thanks!!!

My interest has been piqued several times when coming across Socrates' famous quote "know thyself." However, I have heard that Socrates was not the original author of this particular statement. According to Wikipedia, it has been attributed to several authors. Can anyone please expand upon this phrase -- its origin (if possible) and what the author or authors meant (also if possible). Doing a Google book search on this phrase brings up a lot of different opinions in a lot of different publications. Literature recommendations would also be appreciated. Thank you!