What I remember from my philosophy courses is the spirited debate, lively dialogue. For me this site is too question-and-answer, like the Stanford Online Encyclopedia that is often pointed to in the responses. Is there a place on the web where I can find a more dialogue-based form of philosophy?

I recently asked a question about the sorites paradox, and I received the following response, which seems to me to have a logical fallacy in it. In other words, the answer below does not seem to "explain" the paradox as much as it "contains" the paradox.... Here is the reply: "Because the paradox itself results from commitments of common sense: (a) some number of grains is clearly too few to make a heap (maybe 15, as you say); (b) some number of grains is clearly enough to make a heap (maybe 15,000); and yet (c) one grain never makes the difference between any two different statuses (heap vs. non-heap, definitely a heap vs. not definitely a heap, etc.). Given commonsense logic, (a)-(c) can't all be true, but which one should we reject? Most philosophers who try to solve the paradox attack (c), but I certainly haven't seen a refutation of (c) that I'd call 'commonsense.'" It seems that point (c) above presupposes that either we have 100% heap or 0% heap; however if we can have a number of grains such...

If language limits the things we can think about, and we can only think about things that our language is capable of discussing, how then do we create new terms that describe things previously not incorporated into the language?

In a democratic society, we are often called to vote. However, I don't believe there is a clear understanding of how one should vote. Are voters supposed to vote according to what they believe to be the best policy for everybody? Does democracy intend that everyone express some normative opinion about how society ought to function, and that the dominant opinion triumphs? Are voters supposed to vote according to what policy would be most beneficial to themselves? Does democracy intend that everyone express their personal interests, and that government builds a consensus or favors the dominant interests? Are voters supposed to vote strategically, in an attempt to maximize the likelihood of their desired policies being enacted? Does democracy intend for us to vote for options that don't necessarily represent something we believe in, if we believe that such a vote would best guarantee the success of the policies least abhorrent to us?

In a class on Aristotle we have been discussing the difference between the Greek's idea of Eudaimonia and what we today call happiness. Many of my classmates seem skeptical of more objective accounts like Aristotle's, instead defending subjective theories of happiness. Do you think this perhaps misguided view of happiness could be problematic? It seems to me that this view is embraced by a great number of my peers who, like me, come from comfortable middle class backgrounds. This "Do what you like as long as it makes you happy" attitude seems to result in both a sense of entitlement to whatever they happen to desire at the moment as well as a slavish need to act on any impulse. At the same time many of these people seem awfully depressed and unhappy for people with such privileged, comfortable lives. Do you think that this unique type of depression and a certain view of happiness are linked?

Why do we have some fundamental rights (such as freedom of conscience or the right to life) but not others (such as the right to sexuality, or the right to happiness)? Who decides? Who prioritizes?

Are there any philosophers who have taken Foucault's approach of looking at the history and changes of a concept, but who have applied it to ideas NOT investigated by Foucault (punishment, sexuality, mental insanity)?

Is the purpose of ethics to seek out a universal code of right and wrong? or is it's purpose merely to justify or criticize actions based on subjective beliefs about right and wrong? or perhaps some third purpose?

Is Kant's Categorical imperative overly dependent on empirical considerations? I think it is since judging the morality of an action by asking what would happen if everybody did the same thing means that the morality of an action is dependent on the contingent features of the world that produce that effect. If everyone did a certain thing then there would be chaos so that is not good Kant seems to say. Well that chaos of course depends less on the nature of the action and it underlying intentions than on the world that action took place in. If everyone stole then society would fall apart but that seems to have more to do with principles of sociology than something that pertains to ethics.

Is 20°C twice as hot as 10°C? Now, I know that the phenomenon (heat) described by 20°C is by no means twice as intense as is that described by 10°C. Yet 20 is also undoubtedly twice the size of 10, no more and no less. So we have two seemingly opposing ways of looking at the situation. Which one is correct, and what standards do we use to judge that correctness? Or is there no correct answer?