If the aim of the philosopher is not getting the right answers but to ask the right questions, how then can we hope to gain any further knowledge of the universe? Because questions in philosophy can only lead to scepticism or more questions, what if anything is the point in progressing philosophically if we may never find meaningful or truthful conclusions?

Does personality prove self-consciousness? If an animal has a defined and changeable personality (can get depressed, etc.), is it then self-aware?

I realize that these terms are vague and inexhaustive, but nevertheless there seems to still exist quite a bit of discussion about the "continental/analytic" distinction in philosophy. While at times the issue seems to be little more than academic bickering, it points to a pressing question about philosophy's place in today's world. From what I understand, empirical-minded analytic philosophers tend to think that vague issues dealt with by continental philosophy can be better expressed through, say, art, while continental thinkers argue that analytics are better off just doing math or science. Who's to be believed, if anyone?

Is every type of happiness or pleasure explainable (possible to articulate through reason or logic)? Should I be distraught that I am unable to articulate clearly some of my pleasures? And does an unexplainable pleasure (if it exists) suffer from its unexplainable nature or flourish because of it?

Why do some words like "gorge" sound ugly, and some words like "exquisite" sound pretty?

What is the exact purpose of math? Why is it that math was created? I know that some math has a purpose like finding out how much you may owe someone, but how about Linear Equations or Polynomials? What is the purpose of all this?

In upholding the concept of "race," do we make racism possible?

Is it right for an author to publish a nonfiction piece arguing for a view the author does not really support? For example, say a tax professor writes and publishes an article arguing for a change in the tax law. The professor believes the change is worth considering, but should ultimately be rejected. Is it appropriate for the professor to publish an article arguing in favor of the reform (acknowledging perspectives against the proposal but concluding that it should be accepted)?

With respect to the nature of consciousness, do you agree with the phrase 'You cannot be that which you observe', or can you point at yourself and say ‘this is ME’?

Is "largest" and "smallest" only a result of comparison, or is there a single largest thing and single smallest thing that actually exist? Sorry in advance if this gets more scientific than philosophic.