Who was the Greek philosopher who was condemned to slavery, why so, how he got freed and by whom? thanks and thanks

Is the "theory" of the Matrix, or something along those lines, possible? We perceive the world with little signals sent to our brain, so couldn't those signals he rigged to, say, a machine? And everything happening around us is just in our heads? If you dissagree with this, what could you use to prove me wrong? ~Kris S.

Believing that once all factors have weighed in the construction of any individual (genetic disposition, cultural programming, the expectations of family and friends, the influences of the magazines on your coffee table...) that free will and freedom of choice are nothing but a comforting delusion, could anyone point me to a philosopher I might study who shares this thought?

Could a newly discovered law of physics ever change/affect a law of logic?

I remember reading A.J. Ayer quoted somewhere as saying 'All morality based on authority is worthless' in the context of religious authority which I took to mean dictates like the Ten Commandments. Am I right in thinking he meant that acting morally based on fear of punishment or reward in an afterlife is repugnant because one is motivated wrongly, i.e., purely out of self-interest, or by just blindly conforming to one's religious text of choice? If this is so are we not only left with secular humanism as a basis for 'good' acts without self-interest? All religions seem to have similar ethical commandments which would point to their human (and sociological) rather than divine origins, wouldn't you say? I believe the Vatican has 'approved' Aristotle's ethics too which surely underlines my previous point. Are there any beginners' texts dealing with these matters you can recommend? Thanks for a great and edifying site.

The recent controversy surround the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mahommad has given rise to claims that Danes and others should break taboos and that freedom of the press and free speech are of a greater value than maintaining such taboos. Could the same claim be made around dialogue concerning the Jews and Nazi Germany?

There was a recently asked question which included the following quote: "[It involves] the murder of a seaman on a liferaft. Apparently, there were not enough provisions to allow everyone to live, so they drew names/straws in order to see who would have to sacrifice for the entire boat. The men on the boat faced murder charges when they arrived on land and I believe were convicted." My question is: Is this ethical at all? Is the life of one insignificant enough to be taken so others can live? And is it any less ethical if the person volunteers to be killed? Thanks. ~Kris S.

I've been reading some encyclopedia articles on utilitarianism. As far as I can see, utilitarians have moved from (the defence of) the pursuit of happiness to the pursuit of preference satisfaction. A preference is satisfied, I suppose, when someone gets what she or he wants. Now, I think it's reasonable that we ought to try to make people happy, at least in most cases, but I don't think it as reasonable that we ought to try to give people what they want. And anyway, I think that these are two very different ethical theories. Should we call both "utilitarianism"?

What does philosophy have to say about the role of emotion relative to ethics? It seems clear that emotion cannot be relied upon to produce consistently accurate ethical judgments, yet it also seems that emotion is a motivator for people's actions (which must be considered in the context of ethics). Further, emotion seems to be used as an "acid test" of sorts for ethical judgments (i.e. things that are ethical should "feel" or "seem" right). These are three examples of the way emotion and ethics interact, but I'm interested in perspectives on what their relationship should be, in the interest of making optimal ethical choices.

If thinking proves existence, then how can you prove that anyone else exists?