This might be a weird question, but I'm wondering if there is some kind of philosophy of fashion. Has anyone ever commented on what the goal of fashion is, what it means to express a style, or our relationship to style? I guess if you take it to be art, then the realm of aesthetics can get at some of the questions that I sense there might be well enough. I don't know very much about fashion, so how it is thought of is interesting to me, and I haven't yet come across much philosophical thought on the subject. Maybe it is not in the realm of philosophy?

What characteristics essentially define an immaterial soul? I've heard philosophers define a soul as being an immaterial substance which possesses a range of mental capacities or dispositions, but they never really define its internal structure. Immateriality is merely a negative attribute, but I am looking for a positive characterization of the soul. Souls have the essential capacity to have consciousness (as souls can be unconscious or conscious), but what intrinsic feature(s) of the soul explains this?

What's the relationship between Greek Drama and the sorts of dialogues that Plato wrote? What are the origins of the genre of philosophical dialogue?

I am reading Neitzsch's "Human, All Too Human", in one of his aphorisms he states that logic is optimistic. Does he mean that it would be foolishly optimistic to trust logic or in its truth? Or does he mean something else I just can't seem to understand?

My question involves "moral truths" or "ethical truths." I struggle to see how anyone could claim that a moral proposition is either true or false. By calling something either right or wrong are we simply expressing our feelings on the matter? Those that I've heard defend the proposition that there are moral truths seem to try a bit of "bait and switch." To claim that moral truths exist is to claim that something is true about the world. However in defense of the proposition it seems that defenders of moral truths state something similar to "the truth of this proposition is equivalent to how it works in the world" using a James style of pragmatism.

Everyday, people set out to make the world a better place. And every now and then, people actually do something that DOES make the world a better place. Sometimes it's on a large scale, sometimes it's on a small scale, but it's still an improvement nonetheless. And I don't think anybody really TRIES to make the world a worse place. I think sometimes they do, but it's not intentional. Do you think that someday, everybody will have fixed everything once wrong with the world, there will be no more improvements necessary, and the world could be the perfect place, almost like a utopia?

Does the principle of increased entropy support or challenge the Cosmological argument? I am getting mixed messages and am unsure which if any are valid.

It seems to me that today's rationality is completely irrational in a sense that it attacks everything that is not rational. But who define what is rational? For example, many people like to back up their beliefs by scientific arguments or by pointing on the bad parts of religion. Yet in 19. century frenology was considered science. Today we call it pseudoscience. Is it lacking humility for most people or something else that they cannot accept that in 200 years people will laugh at our modern "science"? And, if we are so deeply influenced by beliefs of our times why wouldnt relativism allow for more open minded approach in a sense that it would allow people to believe anything they want (without the need for justification) instead of using relativism primarily for attacking "old" beliefs (example would be the view that christianity is obsolete)?

I notice that many of the people asking questions on your site are atheists. I am an agnostic; however, I can understand that many people see their religion as a guideline for moral/ethical behavior. Can we be ethical/moral without religion? If a person does not see that an ethical life leads to "heaven," what is his/her rationale for goodness?

Can reading Schopenhauer cure sex/lust addiction? If it can, do philosophers think that normative ethics ought to be therapeutic?