Why is philosophy not taught in high school? I have heard some arguments against it, but they all seem pretty poor such as: "parents would not like their children questioning their views". It seems like philosophy has a lot to give in a high school setting, at the very least classes like Critical Thinking would give students tools for assessing arguments. I could understand if most people went on to college, but many don't and it seems like some of the skills which philosophy bestows could greatly benefit our society. I really don't see why professional philosophy has not ventured down this route. I would be very thankful for any insight on this topic. Thanks, William P.

It is said that good art communicates things. Music, though, doesn't appear to communicate anything beyond vague aesthetic-emotional sensations (if we ignore experimental music that communicates about itself by, for example, playing Beethoven's 9th using only objects taken from a lower-class family home). Yet people also say of music that it is a "universal language". I'm not a musical expert, though, so I'm not clear on all this. Does music communicate anything beyond sensations/emotions? What can it communicate? How does that communication take place?

Following the recent tragic events in Japan there has been a "wave" of jokes and puns on the internet about the earthquake and tsunami. Is it morally acceptable to joke about something so serious and tragic? Should ethical people be outraged at photoshopped pictures showing Godzilla as the true source of the tsunami or at bad puns about waves?

Is there any number larger than all other numbers? George Cantor proved that that even infinite quantities may be smaller than other infinities. Still, might there be some infinite number that is greater than all other infinite numbers?

I've encountered people who think that the complex grammar of German or French, or the complicated writing system of Chinese or Japanese, make speakers of those languages more intelligent, on average, than speakers of "simplistic" English. Do such claims make any sense?

I have a question that was prompted by a recent discussion with a female friend. We both agreed that a certain kind of voyeurism is obviously wrong. For example, we both thought that it would be wrong for a man to climb a tree to watch a woman disrobe through a window. The disagreement, however, emerged when we discussed a second case. Suppose a man is sitting on a bench minding his own business when he notices a girl sit down across from him wearing a short skirt. She doesn’t realize it, but he can see up her skirt--and she isn’t wearing any underwear. Now, let’s suppose that this girl is no exhibitionist and would be extremely embarrassed if she found out this man could see up her skirt. Indeed, let’s say she would be just as embarrassed as the woman in the first case would be if she found out about the tree-climber. Moreover, let’s suppose this man gets the same thrill out of this experience as the tree-climber. Is the man on the bench morally obligated to look away, or is it permissible for...

Do attorneys who successfully enable guilty clients to evade conviction (or who manage to convict innocent defendants) have any reason to feel that they are acting immorally? Or are they beyond reproach so long as they themselves do nothing illegal or procedurally inappropriate in the course of their work?

Is there a moral obligation upon pedophiles to voluntarily opt for castration?

Hello Philosophers Is there any axiomatized theory of arithmetic that is much stronger to be afflicted by Gödel theorems? I've read that there are axiomatized theories that are weaker than the theorem's criteria, i.e not expressive enough, and their consistency is proved within the same theory. I wondered if there would be something like that, which is stronger than the Gödel theorem's criteria for a axiomatized theory.

What do you mean by philosophy is not being clever?