Since Hume clearly says that even children know truths about the unexamined, why do so many intelligent people take Hume to be skeptical of, as opposed to curious about the logic of (justified), inductive practice? I mean, he says, "as a philosopher who has some share of curiosity, I will not say skepticism. I want to learn the foundation of this [inductive] inference." So what's the deal?

If we changed the way we count, could 2+2 fail to equal 4? If, for example, we started counting with zero, we might count X X X as 0, 1, 2 X's. Then 2 + 2 would equal X X X X X X, and when we counted the X's, we would count, "zero, one, two, three, four, five." So 2+2=5. So, does this example show that 2 + 2 doesn't necessarily equal 4? Or, would we have to say that we were speaking another language when we truthfully say that 2+2=5?

On any given question, is there a way of identifying the proper perspective to take in order to arrive at the correct answer? This is a question that is interesting to me primarily in the areas where philosophy overlaps politics and economics. Here are two extremes to illustrate the question. Those who adopt a Marxist perspective seem to draw conclusions about what "society" should do based on what they suppose are direct observations of "society", then extending that to the realm of the individual. Those who adopt an Objectivist perspective seem to draw conclusions based on properties of individuals, and how they aggregate into "society". In this case, one is taking a macro "top-down" view, and the other a micro "bottom-up" view. Aside from ferreting out fallacies and analyzing the form of one's argument, are there any tell-tale signs of a problem that lend themselves to analysis from a particular perspective?

Is philosophy above politics?

Is it just a philosopher's presumption to think the referent of the 'because' in a statement like, "He did that because he wanted to" is a causal connection?

If everything came from nothing, then where did nothing come from? Also if everything came from something, then where did the something come from? If you believe that everything has always just existed then how did it start to just exist?

I never understood Heraclitus' river analogy. Does it mean that we are constantly changing or changing only by degrees? Why does it say the "same" river if it is in constant flux? It seems like in the fragment "one can never step in the same river twice" that we could interpret the "step" as "never step in the same river" or as "never step into the same waters". Which is correct?

First of all I want to say I'm sorry for my bad English. For I am Icelandic, I don't get a lot of English classes. ok My friend is always talking about "everything is a goat"; it makes a little sense to me but it is ridiculous. The opposite to everything is nothing. The statement "nothing is a goat" is not right. Isn't there some gap between everything and nothing? Can't we say "something is a goat"? I hope you answer :)

Can 2+2 equal ANY other answer than 4?

Isn't everything relative? For example, mathematics was invented by man — did it exist before man invented it?