What does the term 'circular' mean in the context that it is used here on this web site?

What constitutes vulgar and obscene language: the heart or intended meaning, or the words in and of themseves? Are there words which are intrinsically bad, like the word "fuck" for instance. If I said "fuck you" that would definitely be a bad thing, but if I simply said "fuck that", implying that, for instance, I did not want anything to do with a particular thing, is that word still bad?

How can one acquire knowledge through emotions only?

Can and should we see philosophy as art? LCM

Hi, Isn't rationality highly overestimated in our western culture? The more I think about it, the more I'm getting convinced that the real 'processing' power resides at a less conscious level, in our neural network which can 'reason' with incomplete and inconsistent data in 'real time'. This power is sometimes called intuition or common sense. I believe that intuitive knowledge is the foundation for cognitive knowledge. It delivers the axioms for our rationality. And these axioms are much more than just: "Cogito ergo sum" ... Are there any philosophers who adhere this idea? Thank you very much, Eric

First, I want to commend all the panelists for their efforts. I think this is a tremendous site that serves as an example of academia reaching out to the public. In my criminal law class, we are studying the purposes of punishment. We recently discussed Kant's deontological theory for why we should punish (as opposed to say a utilitarian theory, like deterrence). The argument is that Kant's theory is unconcerned with consequences. But, isn't his original moral code that binds the individual based on consequences? And if so, doesn't this undermine his theory of punishment? Thank you for your time.

Is the translation of philosophical texts from one language to another a cause of problems? Can one really know unless one is bilingual except by being told by others who are? I found Heiddeger and Sartre very difficult in translation - is it me or them or the translation that is the problem? (Jokes welcome!) Also, what about philosophers who wrote in now dead languages like Plato, etc? Nuances and tone must be lost, even to classical scholars. At best do you get a rendering, or does this apply more to classical literature than philosophy? New translations of Homer are popping up all the time. Is the same true of Aristotle, for example, and can we ever say there are definitive texts by him in English?

There's an article in The New Yorker this week (Feb. 12) about two philosophers-turned-scientists who, in the course of their studies, developed a strong distaste for the philosophical way of things (one of them bashes Thomas Nagel's bat thought-experiment as an incompetent way to approach the mind-body problem). Is it true, as the article asserts, that philosophy is continually ceding its territory to the sciences (philosophy of the mind may be rendered obsolete by neuroscience), so that less and less is left to philosophers over time? Could science make philosophy obsolete?

Does the phrase "Who are you...," when used as an argument against someone's suggestion, hold any logical merit? Must one necessarily hold a position of authority (i.e., paid teacher, paid philosopher, etc.) to afford logical advice on any given subject? If not, how can this phrase be rebutted to a certain satisfaction of the one who spoke it (assuming the speaker of the phrase is a logical listener)? -Kemp

Is it possible to love and resent someone (perhaps, your father) at the same time? If the resentment for someone comes from witnessing them mistreat someone else (perhaps, your mother), can the love for someone you're related to (your father) balance it out just based on the faact that you are biologically related and share some history?