I've noticed, perhaps incorrectly, that many philosophers and ethicists regard logical coherence as an integral component of forming and defending moral positions. While I can understand why logical coherence would be necessary for, say, a scientist who is trying to describe how something works, I do not seem to see why logical coherence would be needed for ethics -- where, presumably, there are no objectively right or wrong answers.

Partially inspired by some responses on this website, I am currently pursuing teaching licensure toward the eventual end of teaching philosophy at the secondary school level. However, a cursory canvass of philosophy professors from the local university and some on the internet via their blogs has left me slightly disheartened about my future career choice. They argue that philosophy cannot (or perhaps should not) be taught to pre-college-aged students because their abstract reasoning faculties are not yet adequately developed. In other words, they claim that philosophy could never be effectively taught at the secondary level because students (for the most part) are not yet biologically ready for philosophy. How do I go about discovering whether this objection is sound or not? And can the panelists specifically share some of their own experiences with teaching pre-college-aged students about philosophy in regards to the aforementioned objection?

Imagine I have a phD in philosophy; nothing special, just your run-of-the-mill doctorate in philosophy from a University with a decent philosophy program. How difficult would I find it to land any lectureship at any University, even if I am willing to move to anywhere in North America or Europe? I would like the same question with regard to community colleges and liberal arts colleges (whatever they are???) as well. For instance, is it a lot easier to get a professorship at a Community College than a University?

Can somebody oppose physical pain (felt by other people) and be indifferent to other kinds of suffering without being irrational? I'm affraid that the answer is "yes": you can hate or dislike anything without hating or disliking anything else, and these are perhaps the best grounds for opposing something. But on the other hand I can't help seeing here some kind of contradiction... What do you say?

As in literary or film criticism, often some aspects or compositions are "over-analyzed." I mean this in the same way that a metaphor can be belabored. Could such a thing be true of philosophy? Can a work of philosophy be "over-analyzed" or belabored? Is there any theory or treatment of the problem of "over-analysis" or do you think this could never possibly be a problem since analysis is always good. N.B.

Can you please suggest some good or essential readings on necessity as a concept? Or where it is useful to start as a beginner?

Two weeks ago, a caterpillar wove a chrysalis, and turned into a butterfly. There was no butterfly two weeks ago, only a caterpillar. Nonetheless, can I still point to the butterfly and say "that buttefly existed two weeks ago"?

Hi, this may seem very strange but what do you love about philosophy (not specific areas, I mean essentially)? What is it to you? Please answer! Oooh I'd be so interested. I'm not trying to waste anyone's time!

Atheists often deride theism -- and Christianity in particular -- for the lack of empirical evidence supporting it. Interestingly, however, the very type of God Christianity advocates -- one which values faith -- is not likely the sort to leave behind any scientifically demonstrable proofs that such people are looking for. If he were to, people could potentially know He exists, and the faith He is claimed to value so highly would become superfluous. It is often noted that the lack of empirical evidence for God suggests he does not exist. But consider: a world without physical evidence for God's existence is precisely the type of universe many Christians would expect. Why, then, is this considered to be such a coup de grâce to the theist? Keep in mind: I'm not saying that we should believe in God because there is no evidence. Such a position is clearly absurd. Instead, I'm merely pointing out that attacking theism on evidentiary bases seems unconvincing to a Christian who posits a God who wants...

Has the "epistemology project" failed? I tell students that you cannot make any knowledge claims without begging the question, falling prey to the problem of the criterion, or getting stuck on an infinite regress. The only way of escape is to make dogmatic assumptions regarding basic beliefs, coherence, and corrsepondences about reality...I still enjoy the study of logic and epistemology but acknowledge its limitations and flaws. As philosophers I am sure you're not willing to dismiss epistemology this quickly.