I have a little theory about universal causation that I wanted to put in my personal statement and I was hoping someone could tell me if it was a coherent concept or just nonsense. What I plan to write is as follows; "Should my pre-determined future consist of my attending university, I needn’t bother writing this personal statement, as that inevitability will insure my presence regardless of my individual efforts, yet should I be determined to avoid university, then I also needn’t bother finishing this sentence." Any response would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hello, I have to do a report on women philosophers and I really am having a problem finding someone to do my report on. Does anyone know any notable women philosophers I could do my report on?

Is mathematics somehow "scientific"? Let me explain. There is a sense in which scientific theories are ad hoc. We have a set of relevant observations, and we try to formulate a theory which (1) accounts for all of them and (2) is parsimonious. A theory here is just an explanatory principle tailored to capture the data we want. What we don't do is deduce scientific theories from foundational principles. Axioms in math often strike me as very much like this. The only difference is that the "data" or "observations" of interest here are our intuitions about mathematics (e.g., that A+B=B+A). When I look at the axioms of ZF set theory (for example), I don't see where they're supposed to be coming from; rather, they're just one ad hoc way of justifying propositions we feel must be justified. Isn't there something weird, though, about tweaking one's axioms to fit one's intuitions?

Why is it thought morally right to kill an animal to end their suffering yet morally wrong to kill a human to end their suffering?

Why are philosophers interested in the topic of death?

Do you believe in all of the UFO stories like sightings, seeing little weird people, being abducted, etc.? I know that my mother-in-law and 2 daughters have sworn on a Bible that they witnessed the landing of a UFO in central Iowa. They didn't see any people but saw the space ship come out of the sky and land in the road ahead of the car. They just continued to watch it and after an hour or so they turned around in the road and headed back home.

Pornography is a topic often battled over. If the person is of legal age and accessing pornography by non-illegal means then what is the problem with it? Why do so many people have such outrage against it and want to close it down or belittle those who access it?

If I believe something is wrong, namely poverty and income inequality, then shouldn't I do as much as I can to make it right? So then my question becomes, what is the most effective way to help impoverished people? If I become completely devoted to ending poverty and spent all my time say working for a non-profit organization I believe I would be doing some good. However, if I become a successful businessperson then I could possibly be doing even more good by donating millions of dollars, although I would be more committed to business then fixing poverty at that point. How can I be sure what option will give me live the "good life"?

How is it that we are still able to enjoy works of art, especially literary works, produced hundreds and in some cases thousands of years ago? We can still enjoy, for example, The Epic of Gilgamesh or Homer or Beowulf, despite their having been produced in ancient societies with values and attitudes profoundly different to our own? Does this suggest they uphold certain values or beliefs which are of timeless and enduring importance to human beings?

A philosopher writes, "Capital punishment is immoral. It was immoral even when the majority of people were convinced it was moral. They were simply wrong." Is there any empirical, verifiable, and falsifiable method of testing a statement like "Capital punishment is immoral"? If not, why can't an advocate of capital punishment insist with equal vehemence that the philosopher is simply wrong?