Was Zeno unfair toward Achilles in his paradox? Last week I was reading the Croatian edition of Bryan Magee’s “The Story of Philosophy” and he reminded me of Zeno’s famous “Achilles and the tortoise” paradox. Here is how the paradox goes (taken from Wikipedia): “In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 meters. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (here instead of ‘one very fast and one very slow’ I would stick to the original: Achilles is twice time faster than the Tortoise), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 meters, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, 50 meters. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever...

It seems that logical fallacies are regularly committed in the course of daily political dialogue. For example, many politicians support their policy decisions through appeal to the emotions of the electorate rather than their faculties of reason. If philosophers possess the tools to dissect the logic and substance of political discourse, why don't philosophers play a greater role in public life? Why isn't their a panel of philosophers to transparently dissect and scrutinise the speeches, policies and actions of contemporary politicians?

Stephen Hawking has claimed in his new book that "...philosophy is dead...(it) has not kept up with the developments in science, particularly physics". What do philosophers think of this claim?

What schools have the best undergraduate philosophy departments in the US? By "best", I mean most academically rigorous, most qualified faculty, and most extensive course offerings. I've been trying to research this online but every opinion I can find on the subject seems to come from one website - philosophicalgourmet.com - and I have no idea what this site's credentials are. If anyone has an opinion based on their own research or personal experience, I am eager to hear it.

Is it true that knowledge is the same as truth

There's a logical scenario which often comes up in discussions around the question of voting. We all know the conversation... Person 1: I don't vote because my vote has no impact on the outcome of the election. Person 2: Not on it's OWN it doesn't, but if everyone thought that, no one would vote, and THEN what would happen?! Person 1: But I don't decide whether all those other people vote, I only have control of my 1 vote! My question here relates not to whether or not one should or shouldn't vote, or to the voting example alone, but rather to the logic of this situation. For this example let us assume (for the sake of the point I am interested in) that it is universally agreed that all people (including Person 1 and 2) agree that nobody voting is an outcome that everyone wishes to avoid. And also assume (despite the conversation above!) that everyone decides privately whether to vote or not, such that their decision cannot influence others decisions) Finally assume that the election involved has...

It seems the general consensus that human dignity is the basis for human rights. However, it seems to me that human dignity makes more sense as the goal of human rights program; that is, in applying and respecting a set of human rights, we ought to be aiming to help everyone live dignified lives. So how is it that dignity shows up as the justification of human rights, rather than their goal?

From an ethical perspective, what does potential count for? My motivation for this question stems directly from a discussion on abortion I once had. In general, it seems to me to be evident that the fetus is not yet a person, but it is a potential person, and it seems that potential might count for something. For example, if we consider the case of a child who has the potential to become a masterful musician, but deny him the ability to ever play music, it seems that a moral wrong has been done.

Is there an infinite number of colors? It occurs to me that, given our neurophysiology, there is only a finite number of colors that any human can actually see (the same could surely be said for any animal whatsoever). In order to claim that there is an infinite number of colors, then, I think that you would have to be able to talk about colors which are only "in principle" perceptible--but it seems weird to talk about colors which no perceiver can actually perceive.

What would we have to know about dolphins in order to conclude they are non-human persons?