Why shouldn't we test drugs and cosmetics on mentally challenged or severely disabled human beings, rather than animals?

I have not written to my MP or participated in a public demonstration about my country's foreign policy, e.g., Britain's involvement in Iraq, although I do condemn it. Am I 'guilty by association'? Can you please explain this phrase. Thank you. Glen.

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once told a story that one of his philosophy professors asked, "What is time?" Young Mr. Sheen had responded that he knew what it is but wasn't sure he could explain it, to which the professor responded, "If you cannot explain it then you do not know what it is." Is it or is it not possible to know what something is and not be able to express it in language?

If humans are not born with "reason" and the rational faculty develops over time and therefore through experience, isn't "a priori" essentially an impossible concept, as the rational faculty itself is developed "a posteriori"?

As an educator but outsider to philosophy I've heard rumors about students' experiences as philosophy students in college and was wondering if the professors on this site could shed some light: One student told me that while philosophy began properly with Socrates as a relentless quest to improve the soul, philosophy as it is taught today has long abandoned the goal of improving character or deepening the philosophy student's lived experience, and that it has become an exclusively mental activity. I was also told that in disuniting learning from life, philosophy departments were only following the trend of other humanities departments which were also divorcing knowledge from soul as much as possible and keeping all assignments and discussions mental and analytic. Without intending to criticise, if this is indeed true, isn't it strange and antithetical to the essence of philosophy, literature, and many of the humanity subjects, since the goal of so many writers was to touch and expand the contours and...

I was taking a Dance History class the other day and my professor made a comment stating: Philosophers believe that if one does not possess a language to express their thoughts, they have none. Is this true? If so, how does one express the phenomenons of people with disabilities (such as being deaf) or even one of the greatest minds in the world: Helen Keller? If one does not have a language to verbally express emotion, why are other non-verbal forms of communication (especially dance) not justified in the eyes of the philosopher?

I'm puzzled by the Kierkegaardian 'leap of faith' concept. If someone announces he is the son of God and violates the laws of science (i.e. by performing miracles) to prove it, then 'faith' doesn't come into it at all as far as I can see - one has no choice but to believe, like if the current Pope levitated to prove he is Christ's Vicar on Earth. Or does this 'faith' really boil down to the belief that these ancient miracles actually occurred, and that the 'son of God' claims are attendant on and pursuant to them? I don't see how anyone can dismiss Christ's miracles and base their belief solely on faith especially when the Resurrection (a miracle) is so fundamental to Christianity. Surely 'faith' presupposes lack of evidence and is blind. (I would add completely untenable, too.)

In question 630 about the future, one answer was that "If it's true now that you will lose a finger next year, then you will lose a finger next year and zipping into the future isn't going to change that." What if the person cut his/her whole hand off? This would obviously show the loss of the finger, but with a new addition (or subtraction, ha ha!) to the picture: a missing hand. Wouldn't this prove that one could alter the future if it was seen?

Why is subtlety ("showing" and not "telling") valued in art and literature?

The more we learn about genetic determinants to human behaviour, the more, I suspect, we will learn that men and women are intrinsically different in their tendencies and capacities. Could discoveries of this sort ever justify any sort of sexism, or differential treatment of men and women, or is it incumbent upon us to treat men and women equally in a strict sense in any case?