What do we really mean when we say that a theory is "true"?

Is there a genuine case to be made for outlawing marijuana given the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal? In other words, is there a way to make a distinction between marijuana on the one hand and alcohol/tobacco on the other hand such that it will appear legally justifiable to outlaw the one and not the other?

Is there a case to be made for plural voting? In other words, are governments ever justified in giving more votes to some people than others? For instance, I think a good case can be made that those with higher educational status (say, a bachelors degree) should be given more voting power than those of lower educational status assuming that certain conditions maintain (e.g. equal educational opportunity)? This dovetails with a follow up question: what is the current status of such plural voting arguments among philosophers today (are they frequently defended)?

In the past few days, the Tate gallery in London has been the target of protests because it receives funding from BP. My girlfriend and I have been discussing this, and where she finds that the use of tactics that cause damage to property are not permissible, whereas I deem them to be, if not merely permissible in fact close to a moral requirement. I often draw parallels between the tactics employed by the suffragettes, the civil rights movement in America and Nelson Mandela's ANC (as well as the ANC's military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe) and today's 'anti-climate change' environmental activists. Her argument is that the arts are important, and funding them is surely a good thing. If this means accepting money from legal, if slightly unsavoury, bodies then that is a 'necessary evil'. It basically comes down to the question "what is a legitimate form of protest to get an important point across?"

I am hiring someone for a job. My top two candidates are nearly identical. When I way the weaknesses and strengths of one candidate against the weaknesses and strengths of another, they are perfectly equal. There's a paradox here. If I am a philosopher and use reason and logic to answer problems, what do I do when all my analytic skills bring me to a point where it goes no further? Which candidate does a philosopher choose? Doesn't this show a limit of our own ability to reason?

I would like to encourage my grandchildren (ten of them, ages 5 to 17) to think about and discuss ideas. I started to compose an email (they are located in the U.S. Canada and Sweden) on the importance of the question "Why?". Among other things, I wanted them to be able to challenge, in a constructive way, the "wisdom" of their peers. I found that it was hard to do this in a way that would compel them to even think about my email! I also would like them to learn the value and the discipline of thinking, generally. Do you have suggestions (including literature) that would help in getting children to think and talk about ideas? I have found that this is very difficult - either because they find the process too much work or they don't want to embarrass themselves (or?). Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Some Professors at the department of the Law School I attend seem to have a kind of mystical obsession concerning the writings of Hegel. I really don't understand the importance of deeply studying the works of this philosopher in our present context. What is the legacy of Hegel?

Hi! I just read the five-part series New York Times published about anosognosia (the condition of not knowing what we don't know), written by Errol Morris. Since finishing the series, my existential angst is off the charts! I am haunted by the unknown unknowns, by questions I don't even know to ask. This is driving me nuts! So my question for the philosophers is: How do philosophers live with the great unknowable unknowns? Doesn't it drive you crazy that you don't even know that you don't know something? Does doing philosophy help anosognosia, or just make it worse? Throw me a lifeline here, guys!

Sculpture is divided into modeling and carving, one additive, one subtractive. They lead to very different ways of thinking. Does philosophy have anything to say about creating meaning by tasking something away (carving) as opposed to continual increase (modeling)? It seems as if almost all normal academic disciplines are now additive.

What makes a question a philosophical question precisely? For instance the question what makes a question a philosophical question" SOUNDS to me like a philosophical question But why? Is it that it's abstract? Well in what way does a question have to be abstract to qualify as abstract in a manner that makes it a philosophical question? Are there abstract questions that aren't philosophical? I suppose the question "Does so and so love me?" would be abstract in some sense since it deals with the abstract topic of love but it isn't a philosophical question. So then a philosophical question is more than simply an abstract question. Perhaps the question is philosophical because it was concerned in someway with what defines something. So the question "Do all mothers love?" seems very close to a philosophical question but it isn't since whether mothers love or not doesn't directly bear on what a mother is (or if it does it does so only by inference). But are there philosophical questions that are not concerned...