Given the absence of justice for many victims, at what point does vigilante action become morally acceptable?

It was said [in a Google groups post ] that "If a [mathematical] proof requires the checking of a very large but finite number of cases, far too many for a human to check, and we use a computer to perform that check, should we count the proposition as proved?" is an open question of mathematical philosophy. Why would anyone think the answer is anything but "yes"? The proof may not have desired aesthetic qualities, but no mathematician would deny its validity even though she may try to create a more pleasing proof.

An atheistic blogger recently responded to a question about reincarnation by saying that he was certain that the mind's energy simply dissipates impotently, once its host (the body) is no more. Why, though, is the concept of reincarnation any more ridiculous than it is for my wireless laptop to transmit an intangible email, and for another computer to receive and reconstitute it, in a similar form though not exactly the same?

René Descartes said that "I think therefore I am". Would it not be more true to say: "I am therefore I think"?

What does Spinoza mean by "essence"? His geometric method in The Ethics starts from definitions, the first of which is: "By that which is self-caused I mean that whose essence involves existence." Essence itself, however, is never defined.

I study economics. In the first few pages of introductory textbooks there is often a distinction between positive economics (concerned with explanation and prediction) and normative economics (concerned with what one ought to be). I have a feeling that the distinction is not as clear as economists seem to assume, but I can’t put my finger on exactly why this is. Does philosophy have anything to say about this distinction?

"If I know I am right, I am probably wrong." Is this a true statement?

Is astrology really a science that can be proven? Can the alignment of the planets of when and where someone was born make them who they are?

If one could prove that there can be no thought without an organic host (such as a human being) to process the thought, then would we not prove that God's awareness could not have preceded life on earth, and hence, that God could not exist?

What if we look at the universe completely wrong? In other words, what if all the laws of gravity, physics, and everything are actually wrong? Would people keep trying to make a fictional world with fictional rules or strive for the truth? Nick-14