If there was to be a theory of everything, like all theories it should be able to predict certain events, would it predict human action and behavior? Then wouldn't this theory destroy our ideas on free will? -Rafael Gomez, 15

If one is upset that the places they visit are too populated, such as coffee shops, beaches, museums, etc., is that frustration a sign of hypocrisy? To put it another way, if I resent crowds and wish that people would leave, but I don't leave, am I being a hypocrite?

I read an article in Scientific American magazine discussing the existence of parts of the brain that regulate awareness of the self. Part of the article examined the damage or destruction of these neurological pathways through diseases like Alzheimer's. If it can be scientifically shown that the self ceases to exist in some Alzheimer's patients, what is left that walks, talks, thinks, and remembers? Is it a new self or a non-self or something totally different?

Is there such thing as true freedom? (My thought is that only in an anarchist society there would be-meaning that even the slightest rule or law would detain one's freedom to do as one pleases...)

Is this a probable way to think about death?: the same "nothingness" we 'experience' before we are born and have memory is what we will 'experience' when we die. (It just makes sense to me - what about to whomever reads this?)

Would you please explain two quite philosophical terms, "semantic" and "syntactic", to me in plain and ordinary language? It seems impossible for a person without much philosophical knowledge like me to understand these two terms...

One of my teachers says that there is no such thing as "absolute truth". Could you tell me if she is correct in this statement?

Hello experts, I have a question that burns my mind. Rorty is usually considered as one of the most significant philosophers of today. However, I simply cannot understand him. Firstly, he speaks against epistemology, yet he argues for "pragmatism" (which I presume is a theory of knowledge). Secondly, he argues against metaphysics, yet he argues for "eliminative materialism" (which I presume is a theory of metaphysics). What is happening here? Seems illogical to me.

What is meant by the phrase "owing it to yourself"? How can you "owe" anything to yourself? What "loan" are you repaying when repaying a debt to yourself? Do we, as a matter of fact, ever "owe" anything to ourselves?

Why do many philosophers posit that there are no members in the set of necessary beings? There seem only two explanations if they are correct: 1) Necessary beings are logically possible, but none exist in this world or 2) Necessary beings are logically impossible. Explanation 1 seems untenable since if a necessary being exists in one world (is logically possible), then it must exist in all worlds (and thus this one) by virtue of its necessity. But explanation 2 (which seems likely the more preferred one) seems to do no better, since the set of necessary beings is made a subset of the set of impossible beings. While perhaps this is merely a trivial case, it still seems unsettling, if not contradictory. Is the existence of at least one necessary being necessary? Or is there some other explanation for how none could exist?