Why is there anything weird about the sentence 'This very sentence is false'? If it is that the sentence seems to be true AND false, what makes it so different from certain ambiguous sentences which are true and false as well? If it is that the sentence seems to be neither true NOR false, what makes it so different from imperatives and questions which are neither true nor false as well? (The reformulation 'The proposition expressed by this very sentence is false' does not help, it seems, because it fails to express a proposition at all.)

From a philosopher's point of view, should logic be taught in grammar school or junior high in preparation for algebra, or, should algebra be taught in preparation for logic? One consideration might be that we begin learning logic as early as the first year of life, but not in an ordered or conscious way. Should we get that part of thinking straight before being introduced to its applications, or follow the usual procedure and experience the applications then be confronted with the general principles?

Alexander George has made a distinction between the brain making a decision and "I" making a decision (see http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/636). I'd like to know what exactly he means by "I" if not the brain. Unless the flesh of our bodies thinks, then it seems perfectly acceptable, if not more accurate, to say the brain makes all decisions. What more can he be referring to that is not contained within the brain?! Not only that, it seems that the brain is doing all this decision-making automatically since there is nothing outside our own brain that we can use to control it. I believe a good and simple answer to the original question, (to paraphrase) "How am I responsible for my decisions when it's my brain that makes the decisions"? is to say that the "I" IS THE BRAIN.

I have a question about philosophy itself that I hope is not too general, for you (as I feel it's important). I have my B.A. from an accredited University and am still trying to figure out how a philosopher explains the processes of intuition. I consider myself to be a philosopher in my heart---a manner with which I analyze and view the world from all different angles (surely, a logical process). I also have a side of me that is intuitive (or, that sometimes goes completely against logic, yet ends up being extremely accurate). It would seem that intuition itself sometimes (or usually) expresses a certain accurate knowledge of the universe in a different manner than logic; yet can (for some more than others, depending on giftedness in this vein) be depended on for things that logic alone cannot provide. What is the purpose and reliability of intuition, from a professional philosopher's vantage point? Do you feel this concept is tied into religion and God, or strictly to the former life experiences...

My girlfriend and I had a discussion about probability as it relates to a weekly lottery draw. She argued that the probablity of winning remains the same from draw to draw, and because of this anyone who plays the lottery more than once stands no greater chance of winning than someone who only plays it on one occasion. Against this, I argued that because any lottery operates with a finite series of numbers, given enough draws all possible combinations will eventually have appeared at least once, and as such someone who plays more than once stands a greater chance of winning. I also claimed that the probability relating to each draw is different from that which relates to a succession of draws (again because of the finite series of numbers). Which of us is right?

Ok, so these pre-socratics... How valuable were they? For example, could you explain how the following sentence makes any sense and what relevance it has to philosophy that has happened since Socrates? "He concludes as follows that nothig is: if something is, either what-is is or what-is-not is or both what-is and what-is-not are." (Sextus Empiricus, 'Against the Mathematicians' 7.65-86, on Gorgias)

How should one go about defining their own morals? I have lost track of what I deem completely acceptable behaviour; I am an athiest and hold no reverence to any one religious guide and have recently become apathetic and non-caring. I am having a hard time grounding myself morally and would like to know how one goes about questioning the topic.

I think we are all a product of our own culture. We see everything through a veil of conditioning, this veil is worn by us from a very early age, and it is worn unwittingly by most of us. All of our learned ideas, consisting of everything we have absorbed from our surroundings, history, parents, taught religion (as we all tend to be more informed about a particular religion, than religion as a whole) media and peers, have been absorbed through this cultural veil, and these new absorbtions, over time, can add to the veil and define the way we see the world through its holes more. It may also be the case that we reject some ideas as we live, thereby retaining the veils shape. But we still wear it. As an example, and it is a mild example... In the UK it is polite to finish your food when dining as a guest in someones house, to have seconds is to show you enjoy the meal. It can often, and commonly is considered rude to leave a substantial amount of food on your plate. In Nepal, in the same scenario, to...

Philosophers appeal to human intuition all the time as a sort of "data" on which to base various arguments. but what if we are simply possessed of intuitions which are plainly contradictory in an unintelligible way? I have to imagine that an appeal to thought experiments presumes that there is some underlying truth to our feelings, but what if there is no such truth? Might we simply be running in circles?

Is homosexuality ethical? If so, what differentiates it from incest? More specifically an infertile incestual relationship that has two consenting adults.