I have been going through Marx's "Communist Manifesto" and "Capital" and they seem to be contradicting all base communist beliefs within each government seen in today's society. Is there any basis to this, and if so, why do we speak of Marx as being the "Father of Communism"?

If someone had a definitive proof that God did not exist (an argument so powerful it became universally accepted, like when Copernicus proved that the sun did not orbit the Earth), which of these scenarios would be most likely: 1) Most people would run out to have drunken orgies, and in general, live lives of utter debauchery; or,2) we'd enjoy an age of unprecedented enlightenment because mental energy would no longer be wasted on the distortion of a grand delusion; or, 3) A combiation of both A and B. Thanks, Jeff

Is there a non-materialistic reason to go to college? Couldn't we all theoretically get by making min wage? Is working to earn more than the absolute minimum required to support yourself materialistic as well?

World peace is mentioned in popular culture many times and appears to be an ideal state for the world to be in. However, is world peace really capable of being achieved; or is it rather an illusion in all of our minds? It seems to me that there will never be world peace due to disagreements and conflicts that happen between people. Please fill me in on your views pertaining to this topic.

Given the claim by some on the pro-life side of the abortion debate that 'life is sacred', how might we go about assessing the value of different lives in a situation in which one is likely to be negatively affected (perhaps fatally) by the birth of another?

Is it irrational to fear one’s own death?

It seems philosophy is about one's relationship with the world... yet, there is no category of "Relationships" presented by AskPhilosophers. Perhaps it's too broad a category? Perhaps the right category for the following question is "Personality"... but that's not on the list either. It seems that personalities shift as part of a relationship. Behaviors that wouldn't have ever been displayed not only present themselves but seem to be part of a persona and then are viewed as part of one's personality. How do we know the true nature of one's personality?

How are we sure that anything is true because our whole world is based off of the circular logic that we assume our logic is right?

I have stumbled across the “Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language” in the American Philosophical Association. It recommends changing, “For Aristotle, man is, above all, Political Man." to “Aristotle regarded human beings as inherently political.” Now, I could be convinced that many texts are sexually biased, but is it important to change the formulation of such propositions? In the first quote, "Man" is a metonym, standing for all humanity in a manner similar to how the word "bread" stands for Jesus' flesh when it appears in parts of the New Testament, whereas in the second, the term with the same referent, "human beings" is used. If one were translating a book into English, and it featured a similar use of a metonym, an important question then would be whether to maintain that formulation, even though it contravenes these guidlines, or to change it. Is it important to replace "Man" with "Humanity" even though they have both been used to stand for the same thing for a long time?

How would virtue ethics view terrorism? I don't doubt the terrorists were evil, but it seems hard to deny they possessed some of Aristotle's virtues (courageousness, for example). Don't we have to consider the consequences of their actions if we are to call their actions unethical? I'm sure the virtue-ethicists here have thought about the issue. What conclusions have you come to?