Hello, My name is John T., a senior in high school. My question, I do regret, does include "what is evil", but before this message is ignored I wa hoping to bring the idea of existentialism into the topic. I specifically have been looking into views of Albert Camus in his book "The Myth of Sisyphus" which deals with absurdism. I will admit this does unfortunately have some connections to my Ap Literacy class. Before you decide to ignore this I'd like to narrow it down as a great personal interest. I decided to go all out and do real research. The assignment asks us to define our personal definiton of evil. As I stated before I have included absurdism. The central idea of my definition is one that completely cancels out all study of morals, ethics, psychology, religion, etc... I have decided that there is no evil. Evil is a term that humans have created to describe the world better. But beyond humans, evil has no meaning. We use it to categorize and theorize because that's who we are (which I...

Is there any way we can be sure that reality is as we perceive it through our senses, or that it is not an illusion that some third party imposes on us? I know that this subject was solved by Descartes, but I'd like to know is there any way of answering this question without an inate idea of God.

I am confused about how a conditional statement is necessarily true, and not false or unknown, when the antecedent and consequent are both false. According to the truth table, the sentence "If Bill Clinton is Cambodian, then George Bush is Angolan" is true. How can such an absurd sentence be true? It seems initially like the sentence could just as easily, or more easily, be false or unknown.

hello - i am trying to identify the school of philosophy that posits that optimal systems or societies are created only when the designers or creators are blind to the role they will play in that system or society. I haven't the foggiest idea where to start. i apologize if the question is too vague but if you can point me in a direction that would ehlp i would be most appreciative. thanks

philosophy is a mind opener to me personally, thats is talking in respect as subject in school. but i would like to know if their reasons why other people think this subject is foolish?, please be sincere

I hope this question doesn't conflict with the ''don't ask questions that are too general'' in the guidelines, but I have a question that I think goes under analytical philosophy, if I am not wrong, that I can't seem to find anywhere on the internet. The question is: what does it mean to understand? It seems like there are so many other questions that hinges on this question; so many other question that will become more intelligible if this question is answered. For example, if I am wondering whether or not we will be able to understand everything there is to understand in the universe, i.e. that nothing will remain mysterious in the end, it all depends on what is meant by understanding. It can't be the same as predicting, because one may be able to predict something without necessarilty understanding it. It can't be the same as saying some words, because one may recite something someone else have said without understanding. It can't be having the correct ''images'' showing up in your mind, because the...

Are expressions like "women are beautiful" sexist? Doesn't that imply that women exist as something to be admired rather than as beings in and of themselves?

Can you call an atheist a spiritual person in any kind of context?

Does complex and conventional language hamper the growth of true understanding in philosophy?

I am learning about the principle of noncontradiction ~(p^~p). I can see that this would work if we assume that 'p' can only be true or false. Why should I make this assumption. I can see a lot instances where we need more than 2 truth values (how people feel about the temperature of a room, for instance could have an infinite number of responses, and all would be true because the proposition is based on subjective experiences). What is this type of logic called? If this is a possible logic then can't someone argue that everything is this way?