Is it reasonable to claim that a particular language is more superior than another in terms of the way it captures reality, for instance, by having a wider vocabulary than others?

Can translations ever capture the true essence of the original word? More abstract concepts or ideas such as love, anger, or honor are fundamentally built on cultural and social understanding and context, which may be difficult to be aptly understood by outsiders. So when we take these culturally-laden terms and attempt to translate them into a different language, are we inadvertently imposing assumptions and simplifications upon the authenticity of the term? Is the art of translation so futile that only the native speakers can truly understand, or if not, how can we do these words justice when translating?

Would someone please clarify the importance of the distinction between a) either A is true, or Not A is true and b) either A is true, or A is not true I've seen answers on this site in which the difference between those two formulations is very important, but I'm not quite sure why. Thank you.

If a philosophy is widely considered difficult to understand and even more difficult to put into practice, then what good is it? Is not overthinking philosophy creating problems where none exist? For example, I sometimes read that Marxism, despite all its failures these past 150 years, has never been correctly implemented and must be given more chances to succeed. Since so many varieties of Marxism have already been tried at the cost of tens of millions of lives and an immeasurable amount of personal and economic freedom lost, why can't we say that history has "disproven" Marxist philosophy?

Are there universal principles in healthcare, or is ethics in health care relativistic?

Hi, I don't know if you can help me, by here goes anyway. What does it mean to be Disturbed by Beauty. Can a philosopher answer this, or would I be better off asking a shrink, priest or mystic? Kind regards Pasquale

Does the expression "Lose your life" imply dualism? Consider the expression "to lose your life" and related ones, "to be robbed of your life", "to have the rest of your life stolen from you". To lose something makes a division of time into a 'before' and an 'after' the loss. The effects in terms of dismay, grief and pain obviously belong to the after. Experiencing this loss requires the presence of an affected subject. This is all quite clear for the loss of everything, from a key to a beloved spouse. Everything, except if the lost object is your own life. Because if you are a materialist, there is no experiencing subject in the after when life has ceased. This means that expressions like "losing your life", "being deprived of the rest of your life" etc, all seem to presuppose a dualistic attitude, creating images of an after-life spirit sitting on a cloud mourning its lost earthly life.

Suppose someone asked me the timeless question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", is it reasonable for me to answer,"because if there is nothing, the question would still arise as to, why is there nothing rather than something?" Does the second question make sense in itself, and as a response to the first?

hello i would like to know at what point does something come into existence, for an example take a painting does it come into existence the second the painter thinks of it and can see it in their minds eye(because can you think of something that doesn't exist)or is it when the painter first makes the first brush stroke on the canvas or is it only when the painting is completed and others can see it. It could also be said that the painting always existed because all the materials the painting is made out of was already here in one form or another, they were just never put together in that certain way before. What i really want to know is does something exist simply because someone can think of it and see it in there mind or does it have to be seen touched or smelled in the physical world.For another example, the computer you are reading this on definitely exists because you can see it and touch it and so can others but the programs on it like Microsoft word or excel do not physically exist, you can not...

who decides what is "true"? What if I believe that it's TRUE that Santa Claus exists? Wouldn't it be "true for me"?