How are branches ("or fashions") of philosophy created or are they created without consensus? For example, I see on Wikipedia, a philosophy a mind, a philosophy of science, a philosophy of pain, and so on. But why not a philosophy of the fashion industry, why not a philsophy of simple living and so on?

Utilitarianistically speaking, is there any difference between forced population transfer and ethnic cleansing?

Do philosphers think answers to questions always should mandate a philosophical response or do they think there is no such hierarchy? For example, do philosophers think they should have any more say than a politician, a political scientist or a theologian to the answer to the question, "Should there be a United Ireland?"

In a review for Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos, John Dupré, takes issue with Nagel's assertion that reductive materialism is regarded as the only serious philosophical possibility within mainstream philosophy. According to Dupré, reductionism has been almost entirely rejected by philosophers engaged in the biological sciences. I've been a regular reader of the Askphilosophers.org website and from what I've learned here, physicalism is the widely accepted position. Even the Stanford encyclopedia says that physicalism is the "default" attitude among philosophers. Is there something I am missing, or is John Dupré correct? http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/35163-mind-and-cosmos-why-the-materialist-neo-darwinian-conception-of-nature-is-almost-certainly-false/

Hello, my question is connected to Buddhist philosophy. What interests me ir the Buddhist view on sexuality and reproduction. As attachment is considered a cause of suffering and a negative aspect which keeps us away from selfless love and compassion, does this make motherhood or fatherhood a cause for low awereness? I mean, I don't think attachement can be eliminated in the case of having children or marriage, any kind of a deep personal relationship. Wouldn't that make Buddhism a very negative doctrine towards life in general? Doesn't this suggest that non-existence and avoidance is the goal?

Do philosophers shy away from discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Jewish culture in general for fear of upsetting American Jews in academia?

I want to say Hume was an idealist but this seems controversial. My reasoning goes like this. Hume thinks that all we can know comes from our personal experience (this is uncontroversial Hume was an empiricist). He also thinks that we have no justification for believing in an external world, because all we ever experience are our sense perceptions which, Hume thinks, are wholly mind dependent. So Hume thinks all we can know is mind dependent and we have no justification for believing that there is anything more than this. So for Hume all there is, is mind dependent stuff. This clearly makes Hume an idealist. So my qustion is am I right in saying that Hume was an idealist?

Is there such a thing as a philosophy of food, or a philosphy of culinary arts? If not, may I create it now?

My understanding is that we can use systems like Peano Arithmetic to prove the seemingly basic truth that 1+1=2. Do such proofs actually give us reasons to believe that 1+1=2 that we didn't have before? Are they more fundamental or compelling than whatever justification a mathematically-naive person would have to believe that 1+1=2?

How arrogant are philosophers? Are they more or less easily to have their minds changed as compared to scientists or theologians?