I would like to forgive someone who is doing wrong to me. But is it asking for too much if I wanted to make sure that the person knows that I am forgiving them? In other words, they may not even know that they have offended me. I feel that if I just forgive and forget such incidents, since the other person does not know that a) something they did offended me b) I choose to forgive them, then I think it is meaningless to forgive. In reality, there is no forgiving taking place in such cases, if it is not "pre-announced". Am I thinking it right? Or is it taking a higher path to just forgive - never bother about whether the "forgivee" understands it or not? On the other hand, will it become a real forgiving if it is pre-announced and credit is taken while doing so?

Are military drafts unethical or immoral?

Can reflection destroy knowledge? Is it plausible to say that people's sense of social and moral direction can depend on not asking too many questions? Should one always justify conceptual and moral foundations of this world? Do you risk ending up in a situation where the reasons guiding your actions lose their power to guide? By demanding reasons for reasons, can reflection destroy practical knowledge?

Will science be able to explain everything? My philosophy teacher said: for in order to explain something, whatever it is, we need to invoke something else. But what explains the second thing? What explains the law of gravity itself? Why do all bodies exert a gravitational force on each other? Since nothing can explain itself it follows that at least some of these laws (in the future) will themselves remain unexplained to infinity..., in other words, unexplained explainers? Is that just the way the cookie crumbles?

We can think of a monetary system without banknotes or coins, where people would only have their money in banks, using it with credit cards and the like. Of course, there would be nothing in banks except for information on the amount of money each person would have. Now, I think that in this system there would exist nothing of which we could say "That is one euro" or "one dollar" (or whatever). But still it would be true that some people would have, say, one million dollars. My question is: if there is nothing which is one dollar, how can somebody have one dollar or a million dollars?

If I had a device that could manipulate people's wants (like make them want to give me free money for no reason) would that take away their free will?

In class, our professor discussed the impossibility of time travel. He stated that if in the future, machines are made to travel back into time, then we would be seeing people from the future right now. His argument ended there but would this be true? Is this a valid argument to disprove the possibility of time traveling in the future?

Women bring up the issue about having the right to choose to abort the fetus.It takes two to tango and it also takes two to conceive a child. Shouldn't the guy have some sort of say when it comes to abortion?

I attend a weekly "Philosophy" class which teaches us that this life is a dream and that following re-incarnations (until we are "realized") we will end up in an eternity of bliss. This philosophy is being taught by an organization which runs a junior and secondary school and is presumably teaching this same philosophy to the students. My children do not attend these schools nor would I want them to as I am especially opposed to the theory of karma and the idea that a person who suffers misfortune in this life is paying for past misdeeds. I feel that it is wrong for the school to be teaching these ideas under the guise of "philosophy" as I feel that the school in in fact teaching a religion. Am I right or wrong to be suspicious?

What determines how a religion/religious organization differs from a religious cult?