Can one be happy, and sad at the same time, where the definition of happiness leans more towards a state of content, rather than joy, and sadness defined more as frustration (helplessness). For example, if one is currently experiencing a state of frustration, of helplessness, to a strong degree (perhaps crying)- and than, at the exact same moment experiencing happiness, or a feeling of content with life. Is this not paradoxical or contradictory? I must say that I have myself have experienced this. I suppose I would describe it as a state of currently being discontent with the specific situation one is in, but content with the general direction their life is going. But to experience the emotions at the exact same moment (NOT to feel frustrated, and after rationalizing their feelings, feel content).

What is an abstract concept, exactly? Is there any consensus regarding their definition among philosophers? What would be an example of a non-abstract concept then? And why? Thanks for your time (Juan J.).

We often deride others by referring to them as childish. Why is this an insult? What's so bad about being a child? The only major disadvantages of being a child I can think of are physiological and intellectual, and yet when we say someone is acting childish, we usually don't mean they can't perform complex reasoning or that they haven't reached the peak of their physical prowess. So how are we to understand accusations of childishness as insults?

How reasonable is the way we speak about causality? Say a person catches a cold. The cause of that cold might be said to be the effect of the cold virus; or it might be said to be the contraction of the cold; or the failure to prevent the contraction of the cold; or the presence of the virus or of the victim wherever it was contracter; or whatever brought either of them to that place; etc. For most things (leaving aside the thorny issue of free will), things that happen are caused by other things. So when we speak of causality, does it make any sense to say that some causes caused whatever we're talking about, and to ignore other, more proximal or more distal causes?

Imagine a novel or film that satirizes sexism by pushing it to extremes in order to make it seem ridiculous. Assuming there aren't any explicit criticisms of sexism within the work (i.e. the only criticism is the satirical extremes to which the sexism goes), is the work actually a sexist work, despite its satire? If we ignore what the author(s) might say about their work, how can we distinguish satirical sexism (or sexism, or xenophobia, or anything else) from the real thing?

Beauty seems to be the main quality of concern in philosophy, when it comes to aesthetic judgements. But do philosophers also busy themselves with questions of the appreciation of the cute, the cool, or the funny? What about other qualities, ones that are also, in a sense, aesthetic?

Are reasons causes, as relates to free will? I.e. does having reasons for acting not, in a sense, constrain me? Why would I act in one way when I know I have better reasons for acting in another? The only way I can see that this might happen is if I am weak of will - I know it's best I go jogging, but I'm too lazy. But that doesn't exactly sound like freedom, certainly not an admirable kind. So in what sense can our actions be governed by reasons and still be free?

Was Shakespeare REALLY a philosophical genius? I've read many impressive interpretations of his work from the various literary schools of theory but none of them seem to sort out Shakespeare's philosophical views in a straightforward and clear way. Have analytic philosophers deduced a coherent Shakesperean belief system from his works?

Is the role where men financially support a woman in a marriage compatible with the feminist belief in the equality of the sexes?

I am now taking a medication once a month to manage a symptom of a slow-growing cancer that I have. I just started Medicare last year and see by my statements that the cancer center charges my Medicare an enormous sum of money for this treatment and my oncologist says that there is not a generic equivalent that can be administered this way. Is it ethical for them to charge this sum (over $10,000) for an injection and is it morally "acceptable" for me to take this, at great cost to my fellow taxpayers?