What is understanding? How do we know when something is really understood? If I get up in front of 200 people and read a speech written by a great nuclear physicist flawlessly, yet without knowing what it is I'm talking about, have I understood what I'm reading?

Are aesthetic judgements entirely subjective?

How does a political theory differ from political philosophy? The former is empirical; the latter is not. Is that right?

Imagine I am a scientist working for a pharmaceutical company and I spend 25 years working on a drug that will cure a disease. I patent my work, but the patent only lasts for 8 years. In that time, the pharmaceutical company sells the drug at a high price but uses most of its profits to fund more research. After 8 years, anyone can replicate my drug. Why should I allow generic brands, in that 8 years, to make my drug? I know many more people would have access to it if I did, but at least when my company is in control of it there are quality controls and secondly, my work is not only funding more research but is something I invested a great portion of my life in. Is it fair to argue for generic drugs in that case?

When a real object causes an image of itself to form on each of the retinas of our eyes, the image is upside down. It used to be thought that there was a 180 degree twist in the optic nerve to turn it right side up again, but then it was found that there is no such twist. So now it is believed that the image is reoriented in the unconscious mind. Does it not follow that when we see something, we see a twice inverted image of the real object, not the real object itself?

Recently, in the final game of World Cup, French midfielder Zinedine Zidane headbutted Italian defender Marco Materazzi for insulting him. In the aftermath, Zidane apologized in an interview with a French television but added that he didn't regret hic actions. Can one coherently apologize for an action yet not regret that action? Or is Zidane false in one of his claims (the apology or the lack of regret)?

When two objects of art are in different categories, are they judged by the same criteria? Compare a modern pop song and something written by Mozart. Or Citizen Kane compared to the latest Ben Stiller movie? Andy Warhol compared to Rembrandt. I've heard critics argue that even a dumb movie is good, because that's what it was intended to be. If everything is judged by a different criteria, then the adjustable criteria could allow for all objects to be judged highly.

Can any piece of artwork ever be bad if it stems from real emotion that the artist feels?

Do both the following phrases express a proposition? (1) "Jill is ill." (2) "Jill's being ill." What about these same phrases as part of the following sentences? (3) "I noticed that Jill is ill." (4) "I noticed Jill's being ill." Thanks, Velho

If you kill someone in self-defence, is that still an immoral act or does it depend on what form of moral philosophy you subscribe to? If an act is justified does that mean it's moral?