I'd like to ask a question about aesthetics and philosophy in general. As an undergraduate student of philosophy, looking around at different traditions and particular, dominant thinkers, it seems that aesthetics is generally discounted as a strong motivation or deciding force in many facets of our lives. For instance, I think that most people will find it an odd when one suggests that aesthetics is an important part of ethics, economics, politics, science, mathematics, logic, ontology, epistemology, and so on. Yet in each of the disciplines I've just mentioned, it seems that an 'elegant' definition, solution or description is strongly praised by most people over 'messy' ones. For instance, we wonder at the simplicity and power of both Newton's laws and Einstein's e=mc2. An elegantly 'neat' solution to an ethical dilemma between two parties is generally preferred to an obscure, complex one. Plato is praised by many for his elegant use of illustrative metaphors. Elegance is surely an attribute firmly...

When you give a homeless person money is it wrong to attach conditions or have expectations about what that individual will do with the gift?

If I say that all faces are beautiful, the word "beautiful" is meaningless, because, as far as I can see, it only has meaning if something can be "ugly". Now what if I say that all music is perfect, does that make sense? I think not, but it's not as obvious why not. What if I say that all days are cold, does that make sense? It might, if there was some kind of independent standard of coldness, which all days complied with. I'm looking for some kind of rule which tells me what kind of sentences of the form all X is Y are meaningless and what kind of sentences are not. Is there a rule? Thank you.

Dear Philosophers, Why do you think suicide is considered "illegal"?

I was brought up with lots of christian ideas about forgiveness and mercy and charity and stuff, "regardless of the bad stuff someone does to you or of their merit, treat them with kindness and generosity." I reckon there is something deeply virtuous about this attitude. Now I look at the effect of a system of charity on global inequality (that is, depressingly little effect) and at the justice system and it seems to me that it is in everyone's best interests for a sense of justice, even retribution, and rewards to be in human nature. In fact, I'd suggest that the fact that those attitudes are so common is precisely because they are socially beneficial and so evolved (in the loose sense of the word). So my question is, if someone punches me in the face do I turn the other cheek or put them in prison? If a nation is poor, do we offer support with lots of strings attached and hoops to jump or just give money?

Are there formal ways (outside of mathematics) in which axioms are chosen? Can you give guidelines in constructing axioms? Must axioms base themselves in sensory awareness?

I believe that rich people are responsible for a lot of the problems in this society. In fact, I believe the rich often contradict their own interest. One everyday example, a new sexy automobile comes out and is in limited quantity the first year. Dealers put a premium on the car because of the limited supply. The rich pay the premium and buy the car. But if they refused to pay a premium, along with everyone else, they could get the car without paying the premium because the dealer would have to remove the premium. Therefore the rich have paid the premium against their own interest. Why are the rich so stupid and how do stupid people get to be so rich?

Hello, My question is as follows: If we have no hope of knowing with certitude (beyond doubt) the reason behind creation itself (why it exists), whether there was choice behind it or if it was inevitable (from God´s perspective), unless we somehow "become God" in all aspects, then I don´t really understand what's the point of studying religion, philosophy, mysticism, etc., because in the end you will never aquire answers to the questions you are really after. And if there ever was a curse put upon us by a divine being, then surely this is the biggest and cruelest of them all. Any comments and reflections would be utterly appreciated. With regards, Moeed.

Should a society provide support from general funding (e.g., income tax) to individuals whose actions lead directly (and possibly predictably) to their distress; e.g., medical care for heavy smokers who suffer smoking related illness, air-sea rescue for recreational ocean-going sailors, financial support to people who are not willing to fully support themselves. Some of these examples are complex and contentious; but, what is fair and how can we administer a fair system?

Does (and should) philosophy influence other disciplines? For example, does the philosophy of science have any real impact on the work of physicists or aesthetics on artists today? Did they ever? Does (and should) the philosophy of X do more than comment on and document X?