According to Taoist philosophy good and evil are equal and should both exist because one cannot exist without the other. However, according to traditional ethics good is better than evil and we should strive for a world with as much good and as little evil as possible. My question is: do you think that good is better than evil, as traditional ethics says, or do you think good and evil are equal as the Taoists think, and why? Should we strive for a world with as much good and as little evil as possible or should we let both good and evil exist?

Are empirical questions inherently non-philosophical? If answers to those questions can be determined by polling or science, should philosophers never address them?

Is it ethical for game theory to be applied to conflicts which may involve mass human deaths for non-defensive wars?

Classical logic says that from a contradiction you can derive anything. I think that depends on how you define a contradiction. If you have two opposing truth values with respect to A, A is true and A is false what can we infer about the truth status of A? Well in one way to look at it you could say that to assert a contradiction means we hold that both statements about A are true regardless of whether they contradict each other. A is true regardless of the contrary position that A is false. Likewise A is false regardless of the contrary position that A is true. If we define a contradiction in this manner then we can separately infer both truth values of A. Given A is true and A is false we can conclude A is true and given A is true and A is false we can conclude that A is false. If you infer A is true from the contradiction then A or B is true. If A or B is true then if A is false then B is true. A is true regardless of whether A is false therefor we can not conclude an explosion occurs. It seems that...

For the given premises P and Not P, is P a valid derivation? Shouldn't the derivation be true for all the premises for it to be valid or is it not sound and yet valid? But aren't we determining its unsoundness by virtue of something other than the content of those premises?

Why are personal religious beliefs more respected and legally protected than personal philosophical beliefs? Could this be because religious metaphysics are more irrefutable than secular metaphysics?

Why is it important to have more women students and professors in philosophy? So long as there is equality in opportunity why does equality of outcome matter? Asians are even less represented in philosophy departments and Eastern Philosophy is given much less attention than the Feminist School of Resentment yet that isn't being challenged.

As a professional philosopher; which philosophical idea brings you the greatest joy whenever you think about it?

What are some books for a beginner to learn about Kant's critique of judgement?

Do you think that more philosophy departments in the future will either continue to have their budgets cut or be completely eliminated at both public and private institutions? If so, is this more because of administrative politics or because philosophers are unpersuasive in their arguments? Isn't this pressure a good thing, since forcing philosophers to justify the existence of their field is something philosophers ought already to be able to do ever since Socrates (who seemed to be a bad pro se lawyer)?