Dear Philosophers, When philosophers write about scientific method, are they proposing a description of the actual practices of scientists or are they attempting to produce a normative theory of what science should be like? If it's the former, then shouldn't this be answered by historical study and not philosophy? If the latter, why do philosophers talking about scientific method bother to look at the history of science at all if one cannot gurantee an 'ought' from an 'is'? BMW

Can you define 'own' without using another word for it, (belong, possess, etc.?) (And I mean 'own' as in possess, not in 'I can do it on my own.') 'Cause I know everyone sort of knows what it means and entails and whatever. But, what does it really mean to 'own' something? And how can you even 'own' something? (I unserstand it's an abstract idea.)

Is friendship necessary for romantic love? Is sexual attraction necessary for romantic love?

Hello, I am just a concerned college student. I have read the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant and I am particularly convinced by Kant's Humanity as an End formulation. On this formulation, I refuse to randomly hook-up with girls at fraternity parties because I believe that would amount to using (and letting myself be used) merely as means and not as an end, which would violate the dignity of being a human. For the same reason, I deny to dabble in any sort of sexual contact unless I have a flourishing relationship with the person. My question is: Am I interpreting Kant in the right way? That is to say, does sexual contact of any sort or intensity (i.e. from making out to sexual intercourse) without a relationship amount to using someone as merely means?

In the end of the movie The Good Son , two children are about to fall over a cliff. One child is good and the other is evil. A lady, who is the evil child's mother, catches them so that she is holding the wrist of one in her right hand and the wrist of another in her left hand but she only has the strength to pull up one, so she has to choose which to let go. She chooses the good child. Did she make the right choice?

Today's world seems to be highly critical of war. It is seen as destructive, inefficent and deeply immoral. Though I very much agree with this view, don't wars -and conflicts in general- build cultures and identities? Don't they push civilization to grow? Don't they set history in motion? The real question I have is: Does culture need conflict?

Imagine I know all the songs ever made by a particular musician, and I listen to his music over and over again, so that I know them off by heart and they mean a lot to me. How well then can I claim to know and love that musician as a person? Can I assume that his songs reflect his personality and self? If I know them, can I assume that what I understand them to be gives me some insight into him? Could I fall in love with him just by virtue of his music?

If there is a person that feels no remorse over their hurtful actions, is incapable of feeling love or being loved, is severely emotionally restricted and has no interest in other people apart from using them for selfish means (maybe a psychopath), does that person have humanity? And if that person doesn't - and human rights is a concept of 'shared humanity' as Ronald Dworkin says - does that person have the same human rights as 'normal' human beings?

People equate certain qualities with femininity. E.g. soft, irrational, emotional. On the other hand, certain other qualities are equated with masculinity: e.g. hard, rational, analytical. Some feminists have said that this is an example of prejudice towards women: firstly, those qualities are largely viewed as negative, secondly, the 'male' qualities are held in higher esteem than the 'female' qualities. It seems to me that men can be just as emotional or irrational as women - but apart from this, is the connotation with those things an accident or is it purposeful and does it actually lead to prejudice? Some people also complain that words associated with blackness - darkness, black, etc, are used negatively and that is racist. Is that actually true or is it a stretch?

If I lied and told Bob that I was very pleased to see him when I really am indifferent to his existence and couldn't care less if I never saw him for the next two thousand years. My lie made him very happy. Is that as bad a lie as if I lied in an 'ordinary' way, for example lying to my father about why I got home so late or telling my mother I didn't break her favourite vase? What if it didn't make Bob happy, but it just meant that we didn't have an awkward moment since saying that to Bob is what was socially expected of me?