Is philosophy the love and pursuit of truth? If so, do the members of this panel believe that there are other ways to attain truth (life experience, religious experience, aesthetic experience, etc.) other than by doing philosophy? Could an old man with a rich life of varied experiences understand more about morality than Kant, despite not having gone through such a rigorous process of reasoning? And, if so, can one have this knowledge without being able to translate it into philosophical jargon (aka (?) reason)?

This question is about free will: When I write this sentence I am not quite sure what I will think of to write next. Every word just seems to pop up into my head just a fraction of a second before I write it. It seems that I do not control what it is that I will write. It seems however that it is possible to not write something that pops into my head - but, then again, that counter-urge not to write a word also seems to just pop into my head. If performing any kind of action is like writing, can I be said to have a free will?

Why should we have BOTH life sentences and the death penalty? By definition, a life sentence without parole takes away people's free lives. Upon entry into the system, they are now a permanent financial burden on the state, and there is no possibility that any reform improves their life on the outside, because they are never going outside again. Isn't it, in a system with capital punishment financially gainful, saving in both maintainance and facilities, and ethically equal to kill a man outright as opposed to containing him until you cause his death? -Bunsen

I hope you can help me answer a question I've been thinking about for some time... How do we really know if objective reality exists at all and, even if it does, what is to say that our view on objective reality is correct?

My question will be introduced at the end of this post. I have thought on this question for some time now. But first off let me say that I do not know all there is to know about the theory of Solipsism. From what I gather, the definition can be summed up in the phrase: The theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. Holding this to be true, person A kills himself. Moments before doing so, he scribbles down on a sheet of paper: If You can read this when I am dead, the theory of Solipsism is false. This seems to be a great way to find out if the theory of Solipsism is true or not, but I have come up with a counter: Person B discovers person A's body and the note. If Person A kills himself, having written down what he did, then he would have only been acting in person B's perception of the world; hence, the theory of Solipsism would be true to person B, because person B can still only be sure of his own existence- and cannot be sure that person A ever did exist. This brings up yet...

I know a little that Galileo changed the Aristotelian world view; but would like to learn more. What is the Aristotelian world view? How did Galileo change it? Could you please give me some explanation? And it would be most appreciated if you kindly suggest me some helpful webpages. THANKS

Is the study of "ancient philosophy", (i.e., Socrates, Plato, etc..) just a historical endeavor or is it still an important and fruitful field of philosophical study in itself? Seems to me that much philosophy, even pre-1800 or so, has been made irrelevant through relatively recent scientific studies. (I'm thinking about early philosophy on perception, for example.)

I've often heard that Anglo-American philosophers have somewhat alienated themselves from their colleagues in disciplines like history, literature, the arts, anthropology, and so on. Is this true? (As far as I can tell, I think this is at least truer in the Anglosphere than on the Continent.) If it is, how can this be explained? Is it because Anglo-American philosophers do not feel that they share a common language with their colleagues? For example, whereas their colleagues may have no qualms using words like 'meaning', 'truth', ‘duty’, 'subjectivity' quite freely in their writings, analytic philosophers seem to take great pains even to define them.

Is there such a concept as "Aristotelian love"? - as we know there is "Platonic love"... If so, what's it like? And if there isn't, what could it be like? Lou from Barcelona

Why is it that homosexuality is not accepted in general? In society there is only the role model of man and woman to build a family and that the family is the foundation of the society. But has this necessarily to be so? Is there an ethical or philosophical argument to not accept homosexuality?