I have read that there exists a Buddhist belief that one's incarnations might not occur in chronological order: that is, I might die and be reincarnated in what currently appears to me to be the past. Following this line of thought, would there be any logical inconsistency with or contradiction of Buddhist belief in the mechanism or purpose of reincarnation if I were to suppose that I might encounter this other incarnation during my lifetime, or even that many or all living things are various incarnations of one entity?

I have always been curious how the typical, bright Western philosopher views Eastern philosophers and sages. Quite a few sages and philosophers of the East seem to feel as if they have attained 'truth' or 'enlightenment'. I wonder sometimes what a Western philosopher is hoping to reach or attain in life through philosophy. Is it the same 'truth' or 'enlightenment' that the sages of the East strive for? Is there a common goal between the two different philosophies? It seems to me as if the stress of Western philosophy is on sound logic and reason and clarity of thought. Many times, this is not the stress of Eastern thought. It stresses intuition, metaphors, meditation, and faith (at least in Vedanta). So I guess what I'm really interested in is, does the Western philosopher believe that a 'sage' or great philosopher of the East has truly attained truth or enlightenment (even though the emphasis and stresses in 'philosophy' are very different [often times])? Or, rather is the eastern sage or philosopher...

You have no doubt heard this example of the problem of identity before, but bear with me. Say you are given an axe for your birthday. Upon using the Axe on a length of wood you smash the axe head on a rusty bolt. You venture to get another Axe head from your local hardware store, return home and replace the damaged part with the new. Upon striking the wood a second time you consciously avoid the bolt to no avail as now the Axe handle shatters. You, for a second time, venture to the hardware store to get a replacement handle, return home and install it. Now, the question you probably saw coming is – is this still the Axe you were given for your birthday? I say yes, because you attached the replacement parts with respect to its original condition, not with intent to modify or improve. The deeper problem with saying that, indeed, the Axe SHOULD now be considered a different Axe is that the human body replaces all its atoms every 7 years (or so), yet nobody says that we are doppelganger (many times over)...

Is it fair to say that analytic philosophy of language has been more concerned with language as (actual) use and language as (actual) knowledge than with the problem of correct interpretation? When I say "the problem of correct interpretation" I mean the problem of giving good reasons to justify the claim that some interpretation (a paraphrase or a translation) is correct or the correct one. I am aware that much has been written on the "indeterminacy of translation", but isn't it possible to give arguments for or against the correctness of a certain interpretation in spite of such "indeterminacy"? Where can I read about it?

Hello, Is there such thing as the 'best' philosopher?

When does artificial intelligence just become intelligence?

Is the value of democracy purely instrumental? To put it another way: if 'the republic' truly worked, would it be better than the misfiring democracies that we see in the world?

Do we think in our native language? Can we speak German but think French? My French friend insists that we cannot as his native language is French yet when he speaks English he thinks in English and vice-versa.

Many coutries of the world are populated by the descendents of aggressive invaders, but we do not hold these people responsible for the atrocities their descendents committed. For example, most reasonable people would not blame modern Americans for the genocide of the Native Americans. How many generations does this cleansing process take? Are a second generation of settlers whose parents took their homeland through violence already blameless?

My understanding is that Buddhists believe that the self does not really exist, but that reincarnation does. If the self does not exist, what is it that Buddhists believe is reincarnated?