If I am made up of countless organisms, who is experiencing the independent thoughts?

Is an unflinching commitment to always be a pacifist morally desirable?

If we are part of a 4-D spacetime, why do we experience past and present?

After a discussion about time travel, I asked my high school science teacher, “How can we be sure time even exists? How do we know it’s a tangible thing that can be traveled through?” His simple reply was to say that time can be measured. Therefore, it exists. That answer was never enough. As I’ve grown older, I still believe that time doesn’t exist, because all it is, is a term used to describe the interaction between matter. As matter interacts, the physical world changes, thereby creating one’s perception of ‘time’. The more gravity one has, the slower matter interacts and the inverse. One can’t go back in time, because one can’t rewind all the infinite physical changes that have taken place. However, one can speed up the interactions. So, I pose you the same question. How can we be sure time exists?

How much, if any, of our money should we donate to try and alleviate the profound levels of human suffering which exist in many parts of the world? I assume we accept that we have a strong moral obligation to alleviate human suffering if it is within our power and that this obligation becomes all the sharper if we benefit materially from the forces which keep people in poverty. For instance some would argue this is the case in Africa. Say I could live in relative if basic comfort on 50% of my salary. Am I morally obliged to donate the other 50% to initiatives which aim to redress the life-threatening poverty in which other people live? I accept that long-term solutions to the problem may be provided by government action on trade etc. over which I as an individual have little or no control. But I would like to know whether, in the absence of these long-terms solutions, the panel feels that I (together what I assume is the vast majority of westerners) am acting immorally by donating only a small proportion...

Some people define a set of propositions as science only if they make testable (or perhaps falsifiable) predictions, and those preditions are verified. Is that a good working definition of science? If not, how do philosophers distinguish scientific claims about the world from non-scientific claims? (This question comes up in the current controversy over whether Intelligent Design is science.)

Are virtues something innate within all people at birth, or are they things that one learns over time, and could the same thing be said about one's morality and motivations? Thanks, Gene Mauldin

I've read that The Prince by Machiavelli is all about how the ends justify the means. However, it seems to me that the means are also justified in themselves. I think that many of Machiavelli's tactics are just common sense that should be practiced in any case, though obviously in today's world you'd take care of political enemies by propaganda (for example) rather than killing them. Is there a philosophical case for this idea that the means are justified?

What is the best way to introduce philosophy to children? Are there any books specifically designed for this purpose?

philosohpy is for the stupid. now im not trying to offend but after reading some of your articles and some deep thinking it is. in my opinion (not to say my opinion is right or wrong) philosohphy is just big word for question and answering. its not a typical learning field, for example math and science your taught something you wouldnt know any other way. or atleast with out spending countless hours finding out yourself. so you cant say math is for the stupid. its for the inexperienced or unapplied mind. where as philosohpyQNA is common sense or ones opinion of whats right or wrong. and your born with common sense(please dont lecture me on how your not born with common sense you get the jist of what im saying) by the age of 18 your common sense you have then is pretty much all your gonna have for the rest of your life) so well say philosophy is for the stupid, unless your under 18 then its for the inexperieneced. and a person who ask questions in the field of philosophy and doesnt know the answer is...