Some thinkers mention the possibility of a "feminine" (not feminist) form of ethical reasoning, and contrast this to prevailing forms of ethical reasoning, which are "masculine". What does it mean for a way of thinking about ethics to be masculine or feminine? What would a "feminine ethic" look like?

Are values nothing more than priorities and preferences, or is there something deeper at work?

Has philosophy adequately dealt with the mind-body problem? I am looking for a serious answer from a person who is genuinely passionate about philosophy and not mere deferrals of the question through cliche stances so abundantly available amongst hobbyist-philosophers. Not to worry I am not out to justify some sort of theological stance, I am merely curious if professional philosophers are still concerned by this question or its derivatives. I would be very grateful for a response.

Why Studying Model Theory is important to Philosophy? How much Math and Logic one needs to know to get down to study Model Theory? and does it have something to say about Hierarchical essence of scientific language?

I'm sure such situations are familiar to many people, especially those who like to think they consider problems from several angles. Bob does something morally reprehensible (cheats on his spouse, kills someone, vandalizes a home, etc). Jane and Mary are discussing the situation, and Jane offers an explanation as to why Bob committed the act (he was sexually frustrated, he was paranoid and thought the victim was watching him, he learned it from his peers). Mary is then upset or angry that Jane would justify Bob's actions. This often happens even though Jane is not actually justifying anything, and agrees that Bob did something wrong - she's only trying to speculate on why he's done what he's done, for curiosity's sake or to help convince any victims that it's not their fault. Yet it would seem that Mary is assuming an explanation for a morally reprehensible action is the same as (or implies) a justification of that action. That, then, is my question: isn't it easy to disentangle explanations of...

Early Islam meets almost every criteria for the definition of a "cult". Believers were removed their friends and families- from Mecca to "The Prophet's Town" Medina, unconditional love was given by a charismatic leader (Muhammad), believers received a new identity based on the group "Muslim", access to material critical of Muhammad or Islam was cut off (the murder of satirical poets by Muhammad), unwavering faith to the group was demanded, leaving the group was prohibited (death penalty for apostates), the beliefs of the group contradict logic and science, it was encouraged that group members only socialize and marry other group members, the threat of hellfire was used to control group members, the beliefs of the group are extremely absolutist ("Islam is the only true religion") and group members were encouraged to gain as many new followers as possible. According to these criteria can Islam still be considered a cult, or has it "evolved" into something else? Furthermore, if we can agree that it at least...

Is science really as neutral and objective as scientists claim? Let me for arguments sake use the example of "ghosts". When a person lives in a country with wide-spread belief in the supernatural they are more likely to interpret a strange event as having a supernatural component. We can say that they are not analysing the event in an objective way, but are interpreting it from the biased mindset that "the supernatural exists". A scientist looking at the same event would not have such cultural assumptions; but he is interpreting the event on the basis of what he already knows about science (ex, That cognitive processes have a biological basis, that immaterial beings violate the laws of physics as they are currently understood, etc.) Now we know from history that many scientific theories which had the support of the entire scientific community turn out to inconsistent with empirical observation in some way and require modification or to be discarded entirely. Similarly, some theories which were once...

Is a person responsible for their emotions, for the way they feel? Can they ever be held accountable for feeling a certain way?

Can "reason" or "rationality" ever truly be the final explanation or justification for any action or decision? Don't all decisions and choices need some kind of "irrational" foundation (curiosity, love, boredom, fear, indifference, excitement, desire to do something) in order for a choice to be made?

Does the wife of an adulterous man have grounds to be angry with "the other woman?"