I am interested in how mathematical propositions relate to objects in the world; that is, how math and its concepts somehow correspond to the physical world. I have thought a bit about the issue, and realize that what happens, say, with numbers when we do some kind of mathematical operation with them may be the same as when we deduce one proposition in logic from another (If there is a number 2 and an operation "+", and an operation "=", then the result of using 2 + 2 = 4); but my question is this: does the proposition 2 + 2 = 4 mean the same thing as taking two objects and placing two more objects alongside of them, and then counting that there are four objects?

I have a reoccurance of Base of Tongue cancer, and this is a dehumanizing sort of cancer in that it starts to strip away some our most basic asthetic appreciations: eating food, tasting, swallowing, speaking and sexual intimacy. It is also dreadfully painful. So - I've been having the internal question of, when is enough enough, and I think there was a classical parable of how someone would choose their death.

What is the next best thing to studying philosophy at an undergraduate level? I had wanted to study philosophy for a long time — but I've decided to go another path. I'm disappointed, because I think the transferrable skills from philosophy are absolutely amazing. (This is on top of the fact that I really just enjoy philosophy.) For instance, if you look at GRE scores based on the subject majored in, those who studied philosophy were the number one in verbal reasoning and analytical writing, and pretty high up in the quantitative reasoning. People have told me that the only way to experience the depth and breadth of philosophy is to actually study it full time for a number of years. But is there a way to at least develop some of the skills that philosophers have in bucket loads without actually doing it for a degree? I am doing a law degree.

I have a question regarding referencing and I don't know where else to turn, the quote: " Our greatest weapon against stress is our ability to choose one thought over another" is all over the net attributed to James, but I can not find a specific work of his which it is cited. Can anyone help?

If the probability of death is 100%, and the probability of being alive tomorrow is uncertain, does that mean the probability of dying tomorrow is greater than the probability of being alive? If so, why am I so convinced that planning for the future is a good thing? People seem to spend large amounts of time planning for their future lives, but shouldn't they be planning for their unquestionable death?

Is libertarian free will a necessary assumption for any decision theory because “one has to suppose that one has a choice to make”? It seems to me that decision theories needn't rely on the formulation that agent1 can x or ~x regardless of preceding states-of-affairs, but that it can equally well rely on agent1 x'ing because state-of-affairs1 determines that agent1 x's or agent1 ~x's because state-of-affairs2 determines that agent1 ~x's. The point is not whether the agent can make that decision with exactly the same preceding state-of-affairs, but whether the agent could make both decisions, however the decisions are brought about. My reason for this position is that if libertarian free will is a necessary assumption for any decision theory is correct, determinists should not make normative suggestions ever. One would suggest this perhaps, because they'd claim determinists cannot ever make normative suggestions coherently. I believe this is wrong because normative suggestions a determinist makes...

Do you think that there are things humans cannot understand because our brains are limited? Philosopher Thomas Nagel was recently quoted as saying that there are surely truths that people cannot understand (and will never be able to understand), as "nine-year olds cannot understand Maxwell's equations". I don't think this is a good example: after all nine-year olds are very smart, and it seems to me that they just don't have the time and information to "understand Maxwell's equations" while they are still nine years old. Is there any reason why nine-year olds wouldn't understand those equations if they had a nine-year old brain (physically speaking) forever (always adding new information)? And what if such equations were explained to them? Anyway, I would like you to answer not about the example, but about the general issue. Of course there are things we will never know and cannot know (for instancel, many things that happened before humans existed, or in distant parts of the universe, or things people...

Hi; I was wondering if there is ever justification in Religion and or Politics for "the Noble Lie". I ask this because it seems to me that both mainly rely on this is order to maintain relevance. Oddly enough what fascinates me most is the idea that it is necessary to invent some "Bogey Man" in order to maintain Social & Economic cohesion. Anyway I'd be more than interested in your views and opinions. Cheers Pasquale. BTW,, I've just finished reading your Book, "What should I do?" Great Read. Thanks.

Suppose that all the languages in the world have the same number of vocabulary. Is it possible that one language is more superior than another in the way it represents the world, even if they have the same number of words contained in them?

Do philosophers consider psychology to be a science? If not, do they think philosophy should inform personal life values or psychiatric treatment?