I'm looking for essays arguing that what we whole-heartedly believe is empirical reality, is really only what we've agreed is reality. Can anyone direct me?

The imminence of severe, debilitating birth defects is often cited as a just reason for abortion; an abortion in such instances is imagined to save the would-be child from a life of suffering. I have two questions about this: 1) If we endorse this reasoning, are we saying that the handicap in question is such that life for the child would literally not be worth living? 2) If (1) is true, does it follow that anyone who endorses this viewpoint should also counsel people who are presently living with such disabilities to kill themselves? (I.e., if a life is not worth beginning, why should it be worth continuing?) -ace

Is time a logically coherent notion in the way we commonly understand it?

There is increasing evidence that there is an evolved "moral grammar" in human brains (which in some respects resembles Kantian moral philosophy). My question is, is it possible to have an ethical system that is entirely rational and unreliant on "hardwired" beliefs? Obviously any moral theory that relies on evolution commits the naturalistic fallacy (what helps animals to survive and reproduce has no bearing on what is good and bad). Case in point is utilitarianism, trumpeted as an entirely secular and rational moral philosophy. But why would "anti-utilitarianism"--the ethical theory that prescribes the greatest pain for the greatest number--be, logically speaking, any less valid than utilitarianism? The assumption that pain is bad and pleasure is good appears to be "hardwired" and without rational basis. These questions leave me in some doubt about the viability of moral philosophy, since all moral theories seem to include premises that I have no reason to accept.

What is the current take on Chomsky's 'language acquisition is hard-wired into the brain' theory? I remember reading ten years or so ago that a scientist had isolated a gene that led to kids having trouble learning to speak normally (I have no citation, unfortunately). Would this be proof that Chomsky was right?

If eyes had never evolved, would LIGHT still exist (or: be manifest)? By this I do not mean: would there still be electromagnetic radiation of a certain range of wavelengths (there would, of course). Rather, I mean: in the absence of eyes, would there still be brightness, luminance, illumination (i.e. what we ordinarily call 'light')? I am aware of course that, according to physics, light simply IS electromagnetic radiation of a certain range of frequencies. However, does this mean that things are, so to speak, illuminated "in themselves"? Or, contrariwise, is it the case that, in order to get what we ORDINARILY call 'light' (brightness, luminance etc., as opposed to Maxwell's equations), we must also take into account the way that electromagnetic waves excite our rods and cones etc.? In other words, without eyes -- and, therefore, without VISIBILITY -- would the entire universe remain 'in the dark'? Does it indeed make any sense to speak of the universe being either 'dark' or 'illuminated' in the...

In the 12-step program, used by Anonymous Alcoholics and other similar organizations, the 4th step talks about a "moral inventory of ourselves", while the 8th step is mentioning "persons we had harmed". Some of my friends say that they did morally harm themselves only and no one else. I'm sure that one can easily cause material or psychological damage to oneself, but is it possible to morally harm oneself?

Largely the scientific community argues evolution as their leading theory behind the existence of life. The Church argues creationism. What if they are both wrong and in reality it is both. For anything to exist, it seems fair and logical to say - it had to have been created in order to exist and evolution is an obvious factor seen in daily life. So if true, could the two views merge one day?

I remember reading a biography of George Orwell in which Orwell and A.J. Ayer met in a hotel in France and spent an evening together (in the hotel bar, I hasten to add). The biographer (with a literary background) described them whimsically as 'two men of near-genius'. Is the concept of genius pointless? If it depends who you ask, surely it is - John Lennon, Babe Ruth, Jackson Pollock, etc. and it can't simply be a question of aesthetics when applied to Newton or Aristotle, say. I reckon there are no criteria outside of a dictionary. How does philosophy deal with such vague terms? Thanks.

I am thoroughly confused by the ethics of vegetarianism, which to my mind seems more of a religious objection towards eating meat than a scientific point of view. Recently I attended a lecture by Peter Singer ( Animal Liberation ) on the ethics of eating meat. One thing he did not address was differentiating between the 'killing' of the (sentient) animal and the 'eating' of it. OK- so here is my question: is it ethical to eat roadkill, or animals that have died of "natural" causes or of "old age"? Further to this, is being killed by a human primate not a "natural" cause of death of a cow? If humans shouldn't kill cows to eat (because we know better), perhaps we could let lions kill the cows, then we can eat them afterwards? Isn't it unethical to tell people in the developing world they shouldn't eat meat? - especially when a huge percentage of women in the developing world are iron deficient? Thanks, Grant M.