How do (many) philosophers respond to the logical fallacy "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend"? It is not uncommon if I am having a conversation with someone about a public policy proposal, in which I criticize an idea advanced by one political party, for the other person to respond "how can you possibly favor the idea advanced by the OTHER political party?" when in fact I favor NEITHER party's idea? I'm actually a bit surprised at how widespread this kind of fallacious thinking is. Many times neither "side" of a public policy debate has useful ideas (in my opinion) and I would prefer a third alternative very much over either "side's" position. Any suggestions about how to escape this enforced box would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. PS does this fallacy have a formal name? if it does, then at least in on-line debates I can merely link to the Wikipedia article about the fallacy. Thanks again.

I saw a quote once by Nietzsche that was something like "When we try to examine the essence of a reflection in a mirror we see only the mirror, but when examining the mirror we see only the reflection." I would like to find the exact wording but have not been able to find a match with Google. Could you help me?

Is freedom of speech distinct from freedom of behavior? For example, is burning the Bill of Rights distinct from calling for the revocation of the freedom from unjust imprisonment?

I'm currently reading Simon Blackburn's "Think", in which he claims to use metaphysics to all but explain away the idea of Cartesian dualism. He claims that if it were true that the mind is distinct from the body, that it would create the possibility for "zombies" to exist who function just like us, but without a consciousness, and for "mutants" to exist, who have different mental responses to stimuli than most people. Because he believes that both of these conclusions are ridiculous, he rules out substance dualism. However, I don't see how the idea that the mind is not contained inside of the brain necessarily makes either of those options possible. As to the zombie theory, just because the two components of mind and body lie in different realms, it doesn't seem to make it necessarily true that the body would be able to function without the mind. The two could be separate but still rely upon each other in order to function. For the mutant idea, I don't see how that would be any less possible if the...

Suppose you have been wrongly accused of murder. You know you are innocent but you also know that the states attorney believes you are guilty. The attorney offers you 25 years if you plead guilty but If you go to trial you will be executed if you are found guilty. You are unsure of your chances of winning the case so to prevent the possibility of death you accept the plea. Does the fact that you chose the plea bargain mean that you acknowledge that it is better to have a plea bargain than not have a plea bargain? If it is better for you to have it than not have it then does that mean that someone who would consider such a plea bargain to be coercion is wrong?

Are definitions always human made? If so, do they not exist on non-human planets?

Does what I think affect what I do or does what I do affect what I think?

Do all philosophical problems reduce to the metaphysical question of "why"?

According to consequentialism, is it less immoral to steal from a multi-billion corporation like Walmart than it is to steal from a corner grocery store?

Are there any philosophers who deny that the principle of explosion is a valid principle while at the same time both being not accepting of a paraconsistent logic and being accepting of the Law of Non Contradiction?