Generally in math and the sciences, theories are studied and given attention only insofar as they are judged correct. In philosophy, however, many historical views are examined which very few modern philosophers would endorse or even take seriously. Why should historical studies in philosophy be more useful than like studies in other disciplines?

Marijuana impacts the aesthetic dimensions of human life such as art, nature, and especially the subtleties of human interaction? Have any philosophers talked about the effects of marijuana from a philosophical perspective?

Let's say I'm a mad neuroscientist who successfully alters the structure of a person's brain so that they end up with a completely different personality and memory set. Have I killed this person? Should I be tried for murder?

Skeptical hypotheses (Descartes' evil demon, for instance) seem to rely on the following proposition: it is possibly that I am being systematically deceived (that all of my sensory impressions are actually infelicitous, say). My question is: is his proposition known a priori ? or is it empirical?

Many philosophers think that mental states can be reduced to physical states. It seems to me however that properties such as sadness and happiness are adjectives that apply to a person's mental states. It doesn't make any sense to say "this is happy brain tissue" does it?

Do ethical opinions need to be justified philosophically? Causing someone needless suffering is wrong but is there any indubitable facts that can be obtained through reason and logic that justifies that opinion?

Is geometry purely mathematical or does it rely on spatiality which is beyond mathematics?

Hello. My question is about law and morality. It is commonly assumed that intentionality/ purpose is an important factor in determining how morally 'good' an action is. For example if I give to charity because I honestly care about the cause and hope to improve society by supporting this cause, my action would be considered more morally good than someone who donates to improve their public reputation (why companies are often involved in charity work for example). So an act which is committed for altruistic reasons is often considered more moral than one primarily committed for selfish reasons/ reasons that will directly benefit the person. However, the introduction of laws, with associated punishments for transgressing these laws, can change the intentionality of people’s behaviour from altruistic to self-centred. For example if it wasn't illegal to steal from a shop, people’s reason/justification for not stealing would most probably be a moral one (i.e. stealing is wrong, stealing harms society etc)....

A colleague of mine is a very devoted vegan. So devoted, in fact, that he argues that it is morally wrong to wear fake fur or fake leather, or to eat any kind of non-meat food that is meant to look or taste like meat. Apparently, doing so symbolically condones tyranny over animals, supports the meat and animal-based fashion industries, and demonstrates disrespect and contempt towards animals. Now, I have nothing against veganism, but this just seems too radical. Is this kind of argumentation sound? Or are there any more sensible arguments against fake fur or leather, or meat-like food items?

Hi philosophers, i have a question about indecency. Social norms at the beginning of the 20th century would have considered women who showed any of their skin in public as indecent (and illegal). It would also have been (as one could imagine) indecent and illegal for couples to engage in explicitly sexual conduct in public (i.e. sexual intercourse) By 21st century social norms, it is socially and morally unobjectionable for women to show off their skin in public, but it is still a crime for couples to engage in acts of explicitly sexual conduct. Based on the two examples above, i would like to ask the following two questions: can you imagine some types of conduct that will ALWAYS be considered indecent irrespective of changing social norms? And if so, what properties would these conducts have that makes its indecency distinct from conducts whose indecency will change according to social norms?