I'm interested in knowing if there is anyone who has written about philosophy in contemporary Canada. Many thanks.

We've made incredible scientific and technological strides as a society, but do we as individuals know anything more than we ever have? Everything I know about science I've learned from books, magazines, newspapers, teachers, family and friends. I mean, I haven't done any of the research myself, and I can't imagine being able to do enough of the research myself to really know even a small fraction of what the scientific facts we take for granted. So do I just take all these books, teachers, friends, etc. at their word? If so, how is my situation any different than somebody who lived 500 years ago and also got all his information from books, teachers and friends?

Intro: I have recently been having a discussion/debate with a chap regarding the political works of a particular professor. I have studied this person's works for more than 20 years and feel as though I know them about as well as one can possible know another's works. The other chap hasn't read a single book by the person, and only a few out of context references from which he jumps to making absurd assertions and conclusions. Below is a basic example of the problem. A refers to the other fellow, while N refers to myself, and X to the professor in question: A: X thinks that 2+2=11 N: No, X's position is that 2+2=4, and there's nothing in his writings at all which would indicate that he thought 2+2=11. A: Prove it. N: I can't prove that somethings not there. (Hence the can't prove a negative.) A: Then it's likely to be there if you can't prove it. N: No, it's NOT there, nor has it ever been. And as I have read all of his material, listened to hundreds of hours of lectures, talked to him personally, I can...

Two eight year old children keep their rooms in immaculate condition. One does it because she believes Santa is coming. The other does it because she simply believes it's the right thing to do (i.e., helping out her parents, being responsible, etc.). Both girls behaviors are identical. Which is the more moral? Thanks, Jeff

My question is about the relationship between God, determinism and ethics. In my opinion if there is no God, then it looks like people do not have any non-physical "soul". I think most people would agree with this, partly because people usually reject God in favour of a naturalistic worldview in which the soul similarly has no place. But if people do not have any "soul" then that must mean that that people do not have free will, because they are entirely physical. But if people do not have free will then I don't understand how any ethics could exist, because ethics surely requires that people can choose. So, if this is correct, then if you want to argue for some kind of ethics, then you have to accept the existence of God. But there is clearly an endless amount of Philosophers who don't believe in God and do argue for some kind of ethics, such as David Hume or Bertrand Russell. But how can they do this? What I think you will say is that maybe ethics can exist even without free will. But surely this...

Sometimes people seem to think pacifism is passive-ism, and that to interject or intervene in some way in a potentially violent scenario, is of itself violent, or likely to bring violence on oneself. I call myself a trainee pacifist (and have done for nearly 30 years) because I don't have the answers to what pacifists should do in these situations. Any ideas? thanks

What do you recommend as a course of action for someone who suffered from depression as an undergraduate (and got poor grades as a result), but is nevertheless very competent and wants to pursue graduate school in philosophy?

How is Zeno's paradox solved? Thanks, andrea

It is often claimed that certain actions - usually in the field of medical and biological science - amount to 'playing God' insofar as the foundations of life are manipulated and synthesized artifically. However, isn't this merely a rhetorical claim given the impossibility of humans acting as gods? Also, what strength does such the 'playing God' claim have against the irrefutable claim that all knowledge demands risk, and an initial ignorance to provide the impetus for the research?

What is the difference between a "right" and a "privilege". For example, is driving a right or a privilege? Is higher education a right or a privilege? How can one differentiate between the two?