The other day I overheard a discussion over immigration, one man obviously to the right of the political spectrum said "we should not let foreigners in the country", the second, obviously on the left said that "we owe them, that as britain managed to control over a quarter of the world at one time and we subjicated and abused the people for financial gains and power it's about time that we made up for acting like bullies". The first replied "we owe them nothing, that we never treated them like this it was people who have now all died". Leaving out the political factors of immigration the question is, can a country morally owe someone? If it can, does it only stand as long as the generation responsible are alive or can the next generation (that disagrees with imperial ideas) be held responsible for the actions of a previous, and what if the subjugated people are also dead, are their descendants owed? Where does responsibility end?

Is it possible for somebody to know nothing?

Can love happen more than once in life? Aman India Bangalore

Hello, I have a practical question. I have started reading Hegel. Maybe you could recomend some guides to Hegel's philosophy? Thank you.

What's the difference between wants and needs? Or is a need just something that I want really bad?

I hope no one is offended by this question: if you like doing philosophy much in college but are not particularly good at it (in the sense that he/she only gets average grades at it) and if you aren't quite well off economically to be reading philosophy every day, would you say that philosophy is low at the priority list? On another note: do you really need college philosophy education to understand complex philosophical books?

Why do people make fun about the theory that philosophers should be the rulers of the state? Did Plato or Aristotle or Epicurus govern their "Universities" badly?

I've seen some people romanticize about philosophy in melancholic terms, as if it's a "symptom" of the depressed and sensitive minds to do philosophy. Is this generally true? Does the intricacy of philosophy require to some level quiet reserve and conscientiousness rather than an outgoing personality?

Referring to questions 2715, 2740 and 2746 on this site. The respondents to the mentioned questions (Allen Stairs, Peter Smith and Nicholas D. Smith) seem to concur that an omnipotent God need not be able to perform a dialectical task. This idea seems to presuppose that God is subject to (under) the order of the universe and that there is little or no ontological distance between God and creation. The problem with this view is that it seems to make God determined by his own law. If we should increase the ontological distance between God and creation, whereby placing God above (not subject to) his law, it would also be problematic because it seems to make God whimsical and untrustworthy. My question: Is it correct to think that issues about the relationship between God, law and creation (and the normative implications thereof) is what underlies the questions of the type “Can God make a rock that is too heavy to pick up”? Greetings, from South Africa

Is there a difference between the words and expressions a person uses to say what he/she believes, and the beliefs themselves? Is one more important than the other?