In an earlier question (http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/875) the following was asked: "Am I morally bound to tell my sex partner if I fantasize about someone else whilst making love to her? Or the subject of the fantasy for that matter?" T. Pogge responded: "Now ask yourself whether such disclosures from her would really be in your interest: Would you want to know what she fantasizes about when the two of you make love? Would you be happier if she gave you this information, or do you think she would be happier if she gave it to you?" Is the duty to disclose determined by self-interest? (how many people are sufficiently aware of their self-interest to thus determine their duties? e.g. how many people enact patterns of self-destructive behavior, particularly in their sex and/or love-lives?) Can the duty to disclose be determined by the interest of the person to whom the duty is owed? (How many people know what is in the interest of another person? particularly, again, with regard to their...

How can was say that a variable such as x exists as a number or at all in an equation when by using a variable we claim to know nothing of what "goes in there" to complete the equation?

Is infinity a number or not and why?

I am looking for a good introduction to Continental philosophy, giving an overview of the key players, but written in lay-accessible language. Any suggestions of good books or the like?

Is it possible for it to be proven that evolution is wrong? Could there not be (or have ever been) a missing link? If so, how did we get here? Were we put here? Thank you for your time. ~Kris S.

The questioner for http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/149 got the question wrong, so the response was wrong too. The question isn't do animals feel pain, because the consensus among animal behavorists is that they certainly do experience pain sensations which are in almost every way akin to the pain which humans feel. The correct question is whether animals can experience "suffering", and by extension, whether it is possible to "torture" an animal. For example, if someone were to step on your toe accidentally, a human (or animal) would feel a sensation of pain. But the pain would be momentary, and you wouldn't "suffer" from it unless you thought they had done it on purpose or vindictively. For that matter, a human can be harmed or "suffer" from some real or imagined act done to them when there is no pain (or even when there is pleasure) associated with the event. The argument being made by some researchers is that all animals (including apes, dolphins, etc.) except humans lack the...

Why is it that Christianity is so hugely believed as the absolute truth? Many religions appeared before Christianity, and why aren't they believed true? Could you please explain why millions of people dedicate their lives to a religion based upon a book with questionable origins?

If reproducing is our "ultimate goal" in life, is it possible that evolution made an "error" of some kind by allowing us to think? Biologists say that evolution happens to allow a species to thrive more than it previously did, and that evolution experiments with combinations of properties that species have. Is it possible for evolution to undo our ability to think? Could you say according to this theory that instead of the human species being smarter it has actualy masked itself from its ultimate goal by being able to ponder the question "why?". These days, some people have no plans of creating offspring because they can choose whether or not they want to have children, and I believe choice is a product of thought. Is this theory plausible?

Did Einstein ever engage the "scientific method" of empirical investigation in the course of his work on special and general relativity; and if not, wasn't he more a philosopher of science (albeit an exceptionally productive and influential one) than a scientist? If Einstein simply engaged in a priori reasoning and conceptual analysis (using his famous thought-experiments) then I don't see why the physics community has any more claim to him than the philosophical community. After all, it seems that his methodolgy bore a much stronger resemblance to that of contemporary philosophical efforts than it does to anything going on in or commonly associated with physics departments. -Will Leonard

In relation to the debate raging in the US about evolution and Intelligent Design, I would like to know whether positing the existence and prior activity of an intelligent designer is a scientific or a philosophical question. Is it scientifically conceivable that the existence of a designer and of things having come about purposefully as opposed to randomly could ever be deduced from available or putative evidence?