Various experiences, considered good, bad, beautiful, ugly, etc., are believed to give life "meaning." This implies that there is some underlying purpose beyond the natural processes of growth found everywhere in nature. A tree doesn't need to "mean" anything to be a tree...Is this yearning for "meaning" in life simply a human coneptualization and nothing more?

Are the intentions of a speaker or writer relevant to determining the meaning of what they say or write? It seems common to suppose so. For example, people will often try to argue for an interpretation of a book by citing statements the author has made about her thought process in writing it. At the same time, it seems obvious that, even if there is merit to this approach, it can only be pushed so far. If J.K. Rowing said, " Harry Potter is really about a time travelling cyborg sent back to 1917 to intercept the Zimmerman telegram--that's what I intended," we wouldn't take her at her word. If she really meant to convey that "meaning" she simply failed. Considerations like this make me wonder if the intention of the author is relevant at all. (After all, it would be kind of weird to suppose that authorial intent bears on the justification of moderate, plausible interpretations, but not on extreme interpretations.)

What, if anything, can it possibly mean to deny the existence of the soul--the one and only thing that we have direct experience of? I can see why someone might deny the existence of a physical universe: we can only experience it as part of the content of consciousness: that is, of the soul. And I can understand why one might question some aspect of the soul: is it material or immaterial, mortal or immortal. But I don't see how one can question its existence without making use of the very thing they're questioning. To deny the existence of the soul seems to require some special definition of "soul"--but what? What is being asked when questions of the existence of the soul are raised? monk Herman Hanover, NM

Is it always irrational to procrastinate, or is there a way where procrastination as a choice can be rationally justified?

I often hear arguments that go like this but I don't know how to respond to them. "Not everyone who is bullied develops behavioral problems or not everyone who is sexually abused develops a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia." These kinds of arguments often imply that because something doesn't happen to everyone then there is no causal relationship between a stimulus and an event. But that seems wrongheaded because though not every ball falls into a pocket after a break in a game of pool that doesn't mean that the cue ball/stick along with the person making the break didn't cause those balls to fall in the pockets. You could also use the same form of argument to argue against more popular beliefs such as the idea that soldiers experience PTSD because of their wartime experiences. So what exactly is wrong with those kinds of arguments assuming I am right in believing they are wrongheaded?

Philosophers have argued that we are not or can not know that we are a substance which remains continuous throught out time. Hume, was especially famous for making that point. What about the fear we experience in the face of certain fates? Any reasonable person would want to avoid being tortured and it would be no consolation to "know" that the person who will be tortured is not the same person as the person who dreads it. This is essentially why I can't agree with Hume. I know it doesn't sound like an argument but it still seems like a persuasive position. Have other philosophers offered that rebuttal to Hume? What could you say to refute or bolster this "argument"?

I'm interested in the issue of whether people would have moral responsibility under determinism. So if a person in a deterministic universe would happen to commit murder, some people would say that they are morally responsible for the action, and others would disagree. When I speak of "moral responsibility" here I'm thinking along the lines of whether the person would deserve blame and retributive punishment. (If it actually happened that we lived in a deterministic universe, I assume that we would have to hold people morally responsible in some sense for practical reasons. We would have to punish to protect society and to deter future crime; but some might give up on the idea of retributive punishment and see criminals rather as unfortunate victims of the blind process of nature.) I'm not expecting a solution to the question, "Would people be morally responsible under determinism?". Rather I'm going to ask: could the issue be a conflict of opposing moral principles that may just be forever unsolvable...

Alright, so I'm a Master's student in a top-15 graduate program, and I am sending in my Ph.d. applications this fall. I definitely want to get into a good program, and I plan to devote at least 2 months to polishing my writing sample. I got recommendation letters from professors that gave me 'As' in their courses. I have two B+s, but other than that, seven As and one A-. Also, I have written a book on philosophy and skepticism that is being published. Unusual perhaps given my age and (lack of) education, but I was determined to contribute something to a debate that was important to me. Plus I'm hoping that that little extra credential will help my application stand out. All in all I'd say the strongest part of my application is going to be my writing sample. It is going to be outstanding. Only weakness, GREs, 6.0 on the Analytical Writing section, 780 on Verbal, but only 630 on Math. Talked to one admissions committee person, he said they don't look so much at transcripts, but that letters of...

What is the difference between "knowledge" and "wisdom" from both a current and a historical context.

Where on the political spectrum are Aristotle's political views?