What is the relationship between philosophy and ethics?

Rational or Antisocial? For the last few years I've focused solely on my own self-interest without regards to ethics or morality. Though I understand the importance of social restraint and exercise it regularly, it's never for an altruistic reason. The traditional Right/Wrong no longer makes sense to me. I've found that under this mindset, things like war, dystopia and all things negative don't seem to affect me on an emotional level as they normally would. I can rely on my ego to maintain mental stability under all negative situations and can then act in a rational manner to overcome them. And also under this condition, I can comfortably commit "wrong" actions towards other individuals if it results in my gain. Though I do view life as being under a constant struggle to overcome a very indifferent environment, I am glad to be alive with the ability to freely make my own decisions. So I guess what I'm asking is why would most consider this lifestyle/mindset wrong when I can live happily and function in...

Is the rise in the western world of 'mental illness' such as 'depression' a reflection of language usage or some more substantive reason(s)?

Can a work of art have value regardless of who creates it? Can, and should, we look past the character of the artist - however immoral we consider them to be - and simply experience and esteem the work itself?

Is there any instance where a philosophy of "Do anything unless your maliciously causing harm" could be seen as wrong?

Is time a philosophical concept or a scientific concept?

I am a starting my second year as an eleventh and twelfth grade global history teacher in the South Bronx this fall. In the spring I suggested that our school offer a philosophy course to some of our strong seniors and was told it would not fit into our curriculum. Much to my delight I was informed yesterday that I will be teaching the course. The only problem is that I am overwhelmed with the task of creating a curriculum. My class is set to meet for about an hour a day for a year. In addition to deep and thoughtful philosophical conversations I would also like them to read several original works of philosophy although not in their entirety. I need to be able to take my students to reading and uncovering meaning from the texts, to read and figure out Sartre for themselves. Finding resources to teach with has been very problematic. So often I find philosophy books explain philosophers well but fail to suggest reading Plato. While my students' literacy levels are not at the same level as most...

1. Cause must always precede effect. 2. You cannot be conscious of a thought before you think it. 3. Therefore, you cannot consciously cause thoughts. The logic seems infallible. However, it is intensely counterintuitive. It seems like common sense to say, "I consciously create my thoughts."

What is the difference between a sentence-type and a proposition? In the literature, sometimes they are used synonymously, sometimes they are differentiated. I can not, for the life of me, figure out what the fundamental difference is, if any. That is, are both bearers of truth? Are both considered abstract objects (nominalists excluded, of course). If they are different, then how are they related to each other, and how are they related to sentence-tokens? Please shed some light on this issue. Thanks. JJ

Suppose that Homo erectus would still exist today. Would they deserve the same respect as Homo sapiens? Should we treat them as we treat chimps?