How can philosophy be applied and/or related to engineering? I have a passion for both philosophy and the application of the general sciences (which is done through engineering...). I was wondering how a person can use philosophy in order to enhance his productivity and skill in engineering. (I am sorry if this question is a bit vague.)

Somewhat late in life, I have come to the conclusion that I should have studied philosophy in college - not as a career mover, but as a means of improving my mind and developing greater insight into fundamental questions that all of us deal with, to some extent. Recently, I have begun to do some reading on my own, and I am wondering whether there are particular readings or other resources that you might suggest to a serious beginner with a strictly amateur, part-time interest. Thanks to Peter Smith's recommendation, in response to a previous question I posted here, I am currently reading and enjoying "Philosophers Without Gods". Previously, I have read and appreciated Peter Singer's Practical Ethics". These reflect particular interests, but I'd like to start a broader study. Any suggestions? Thanks again. Neil

My question has to do with the idea of God’s omniscience and whether God as an omniscient being could somehow exist in time. It seems hard to imagine how any sentient being could exist knowing exactly what will happen to itself in virtually any and every single moment. The concept of time, I realize, is one fraught with philosophical debate; but perhaps we could say, at least for the purposes of this question, that time is defined as the gap between the realization of events that occur between one moment, say Moment A, and Moment B (I realize this may be a bit of a problematic definition of “time”; but I can let it stand for this question). If we are to believe that there is an omniscient being, it appears that there could be no time for it (so defined), no unknown, between Moment A and Moment B for itself as an entity realizing or actualizing events.

Is it moral to use brain-enhancing drugs that have no negative consequences?

Why do we, psychologically/philosophically speaking, put such an emphasis on things being "real"? What got me thinking about this question is the nature of our memories - while I can certainly recall some "half-memories" which probably never actually happened or even simply fabricate some, why do we place less value on these memories than "true" ones, even though they could theoretically have the effect on us?

Is there something fallacious/illogical about how the theist/atheist debate in the west is currently framed? Let me illustrate my point with an example. Consider the Irish legend of Fionn mac Cumhaill. In making sense of this legendary figure we could start by analysing arguments for and against his existence. We could count, for example, the "Giant’s Causeway" in N.Ireland to be evidence in favour of his existence. But this approach seems slightly misguided. We have jumped right into debating his physical existence without first looking at the sources of the Fionn mac Cumhaill tale. A knowledge of Celtic mythology and folklore would reveal to us the mythological nature of this figure and it consequently becomes illogical for us to debate his actual physical existence. Is the same true of the existence of the Biblical god "Yahweh"? Once we analyse the sources of the Bible, particularly noticing the influence of Near-Eastern mythologies and the development of monotheism from its henotheistic context, we...

Is it illogical to be agnostic (as defined as someone who thinks the existence of "God" is unknown or unknowable)? My problem with it is that it seems to lack historical perspective and in particular a knowledge of how other cultures conceive of the divine. For example, an agnostic from a western country typically claims that she doesn't know whether "God" (as conceived of in Judeo-Christian theology) exists. But what about someone who was born into the Buddhist tradition? It wouldn't make much sense for them to claim that they are "agnostic" in the sense that someone from a Christian country is; because Buddhism has no god. Perhaps a "Buddhist agnostic" would be uncertain about the truth of reincarnation. So does being an "agnostic" show that the person is still thinking from a Christian mindset?

I'm certain that if we could go back in time and undo mistakes, our lives wouldn't be any better. But I can't figure out why this is so. Why then are mistakes so hard to live with if undoing them doesn't make things any better?

What does philosophy say about the repetitive nature of experience? For instance, say I have five grapes that I could eat but they are not necessary for my nutrition. I would be eating them purely for pleasure. I have three choices: 1) do not eat them, 2) eat some of them, or 3) eat all of them. I have memories of eating grapes, so I could just rely on the memories to experience the pleasure of eating a grape (a pale substitute for the real thing). Or, I could eat one of them, which would allow me to experience the taste and texture of a grape in the present. Or, I could eat more than one grape which would prolong the experience but not really add more taste or texture to the experience of eating just one. However, after eating one or more grapes, I would only have another (fading) memory of eating grapes which would not really add to my previous stock of memories of eating grapes. If much of life has this repetitive nature to it, is there any value to doing anything more than once (assuming that...

I am 1 living thing. I am made up of 10 trillion cells, which are also living things. If I am alone in a room, how many living things are in the room? 1? 10 trillion? 10 trillion and 1?