(ill)Logical question: One formulation of the law of Identity states that a thing is equal to itself (e.g., "A=A"). The "thing" must always be represented (with a letter, a word, a number, a picture, etc.) in order to be communicated. These representations will have physical, measurable properties, and no two of them -- for instance, two spoken or written "A"s -- will have exactly identical physical properties. If you attempt to circumvent this mirror image comparison with, for example, an "A" with an arrow doing a U-turn back upon itself, you still must make a mental comparison, and that comparison takes time, and as Heraclitus famously puts it, you can't step in exactly the same river twice (in other words, the first thought "A" is gone by the time you think of its twin). So, without sprawling this out further with more examples, why doesn't it make more sense to assume that "a thing is NOT equal to itself"? I am probably just talking around some hackneyed epistemological issue. Can anyone sort...

What is the difference between analytical and continental philosophy? Is one better than the other? Is analytical philosophy more scientific than continental philosophy?

I am beginning to think this question is a big question mark not only to me, but to some of you Sirs as well--as I have submitted it a couple of times now, and it hasn't even been posted. But let me restate it. A position which holds that there are no absolutes (by which I refer to something akin to the noumena, in Kantian terms) is necessarily wrong. Such position could in fact be synthesized as follows: "I believe there are no absolutes." But such a claim is an absolute in itself. Thus, absolutes must exist. The alternative would be something like "I believe there might not be absolutes". Which nonetheless leaves room for the possibility of the existence of absolutes. Hence, absolutes can, indeed, exist. How do we, as "relativists", argue against the claim that seems to follow logically from what was said--and, that is, that "absolutes necessarily exist"? Thanks...

I'm a female philosophy student, and I had an argument with my sister about the lack of female philosophers taught in college classes. She claimed that this was because of current sexism in the field of philosophy -- the mostly male philosophy professors disregard many great female philosophers and don't teach them. I thought that it was just a product of past sexism -- there historically haven't been many women in the field of philosophy, and therefore very few great female philosophers. Who's right? And if there aren't great female philosophers, should texts by women be taught anyway, as a kind of affirmative action?

Are machines able to have knowledge?

Is the field of Biotechnology really posing a threat to the moral and ethical values of the people? Does this field assure us to improve the quality of life and deciphering entirely the blueprints of life!?

I was thinking that philosophy should adopt a standardized terminology that's used when discussing philosophical matters. It would be a huge task and would divert discussion for a while but it may be become indispensable because philosophy could then make good progress. It just gets frustrating to hear the answer "It depends what you mean by ..." to philosophical questions. For example, the question posed on this site "Are there really any random events"? It's 2006 and we're still discussing the definition of random? If such a simple question cannot be answered unequivocally, how are more complex questions going to be answered? What do you think? Perhaps it's already been done in academic circles? Is it just the human condition that causes all this uncertainty?

Could you explain the relationship between intellect and morality? Obviously, from the questions I read on this site, many people expect these philosophers, i.e. brilliant men, to come up with answers about living in a good manner. But why is this assumption about the correlation between morality (applied and not theoretical) and intellect so persistent and enduring?

How much does a philosopher read per day? How long do you read each day?

Do patients have an absolute moral right to the confidentiality of their medical records?