When we talk about necessary truths, do we say that they are as such simply because we cannot imagine how things could be otherwise? (Does 2+2 = 4 simply because I cannot imagine that 2+2 could be equal 5 or 6?)

My question is about the free will problem. I hope it is not too stupid or anything. Many philosophers seem to argue against free will like this: "Either everything has a cause or not. If everything does have a cause, then it looks like you have no free will, because the chain of causes leading to your actions began before you were born. And if not everything has a cause, if in particular some of your actions are uncaused, then that doesn't seem like free will either. It seems just like a random event." This is from what Peter Lipton wrote in another question. I don't understand why if it is true that not everything has a cause, it must also be true that an uncaused event must be a "random" event. Suppose that a Cartesian "soul" caused an event, but there was no prior cause for the soul's causation of the event. That doesn't seem like a random event, it seems like an event which was caused by the soul, but which was not caused by anything else. To me it looks like this would be compatible with free...

Hi - My question is as follows It is possible for anyone ( alive or dead ) to 1.Make any kind of statement ( including those made in response to this question ) which is not a statement which claims that a. Something is possible ( or impossible ) b.Something is actual ( or not ) c.Something is necessary ( or not) Please note that I am NOT asking about the truth of the statement but only the form in which it is stated - So, for example - A statement which claims that 'Triangles have four sides' ( though false) could be classified as making the claim as a possibiliy, actuality or necessity ( subject to clarification by the maker of the statement ). Also if possible could I have a response to the isues of 'Explanation' what is an 'explanation' - I've often read in textbooks that some author is not offering an 'explanation' but rather a 'description'. Regards - Colin

Do you think philosophy has any spiritual persuasiveness to turn young people away from say, joining a radical cult group, or attempting suicide? I've always thought of philosophy as spiritual but I've been reading some of the posts on this site and it seems rather mathematical instead.

What is relationship of philosophy (in particular, metaphysics) to physics? It seems to me that both disciplines, especially the "classical" metaphysics of the Ancient Greeks and the medieval Christians, attempt to understand the structure of reality, but physics focuses on the development of the material world of matter, metaphysics primarily aims at understanding the non-material world (including how it is related to and shapes the material world). Is this an adequate understanding? I would be very interested to hear your opinion(s) on this subject.

i gleaned from a review of d. dennett's "darwin's dangerous idea" the notion that scientists' dogmatic insistence upon a purely materialist frame of reference may not be as justified as most students my age probably assume (also that scientists have brought this view to bear not simply in academia but in the political arena as well). the review included this outrageous quote from feyerabend: "scientists are not content with running their own playpens in accordance with what they regard as the rules of the scientific method, they want to universalize those rules, they want them to become part of society at large, and they use every means at their disposal -- argument, propaganda, pressure tactics, intimidation, lobbying -- to achieve their aims." all this is really kind of extraordinary to me! i really don't think that many studets my age were raised to question science on such a level (i'm pretty sure that if we did at this point, we'd be laughed out of the classroom as kooky i.d. proponents). i don't...

Why does society consider it moral (as embodied in its laws) for a 60 year old man to be in a sexual relationship with an 18 year old girl, but considers it immoral for a 25 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl? Isn't that just ridiculous?!

What is a concept? How are they formed? Is there such a thing as an objectively correct way of conceptualizing something?

Is there a philosophy of 'Generalisations'? I've heard the phrase 'all generalisations are wrong' and, after getting over the irony of the generalisation (surely it should be 'THIS is the only true generalisation', wondered if it were true. Generalisations seem to be at the heart of a lot of misconceptions, including all manner of prejudices and 'isms'. There seems to be a tendency for people to see a few random events and imagine a they see a patern which everything else must follow - I notice myself doing it sometimes, and do my best to stop it! On the other hand, what if a generalisation is a sine qua non of a thing? for instance 'all female mammals are warm blooded and give birth to live young' must be true because both assertions are essential characteristic for an an animal to be classed as a true mammal. So where do we stand in relation to generalsations? What are they, where do they come from, and how do they relate to 'truth'? - Mark

I work for a voluntary organisation with a great premise that I am wholeheartedly committed to. However, there are some senior staff who, athough they are themselves committed also, are ineffectual and have over the years damaged the organisation albeit inadvertently. In order to save the organisation from ending, these people need to be removed or brought to a realisation that would probably end in them removing themselves. To do this the board of trustees needs 'evidence' or a paper trail of the ineffectualness. Should I contribute to this evidence in order to help save the organisation or should I refuse to contribute because the people concerned are very good people and only inadvertantly damaging the organisation? To me, both courses of action are wrong in some philosophical sense. And in the end both courses of action leave me damaged in my perssonal sense of what is right or wrong. But should my own concerns be put aside for the greater good of an organisation which genuinely seeks to, and works to...