Can a white male ever legitimately speak about racism or sexism?

Is modern philosophy too abstract? I mean when it asks questions about being does it ask questions that about any kind of being when perhaps it could be asking question about the particular kind of being that we live in? I guess you could say the answer is no because philosophers deal with questions about science and science is about the world we live in. But is the kind of being of science the only "concrete" form of being that philosophers can ask about? I personally think that their is more to being than either physics or hyper-abstractions that only look at being in terms of temporarily, causality and quantity, etc. Is a disagreement about what we think is "being" perhaps one of the central splits between analytic and "continental" philosophy?

Hello Philosophers! Can anyone defend the Ontological Argument against Kant's criticism that existence is not a predicate?

Are their any resources available on the internet that give insight into contemporary philosophical ideas/debates/schools of thought? As much as I love sifting through Wikipedia articles about Plato and Descartes, I would like to know more about the current going ons in philosophy, as well as hearing about the newest ideas from modern thinkers.

Given ever-increasing population compared with the fixed size of the Earth, is it ethical for me to want to raise my children in a house with a yard, when a handful of houses could make room for apartments that could house hundreds of people?

I seem to remember the "heap paradox" being a very old one (given a heap and repeatedly removing a single grain of sand, when does it stop being a heap?). Yet I don't ever recall hearing a solution to it. No doubt there are different views of things, but is there at least a generally accepted solution to this paradox?

What is the difference between a "fallacy" and a "cognitive bias"?

How is the death penalty worse than a lifetime of imprisonment? If you kill them it's over and you killed them back case closed but, the have the oppertunity for eternal bliss still based on the final judgement of him, right? Improbable maybe but, a chance non the less. What else? Lifetime in prison gives the person limited to no freedoms, dependent on their behavior in prison, a life time of guilt, if capable of feeling it or if they do regret the crime, a chance to redeem themselves to the family/friends of the victim, be found not guilty and set free, write a book, make music or do work for the prison. In both cases they won't be able to hurt the public. So, it's just the value of existence vs freedom with morals thrown in.

It is said that happiness should be attained from the "inside out". That it should be unilaterally seeked, and not externally determined. On a philosophical standpoint, is this view tenable, considering that we do not live in a vacumn? It is, to a large extent, true that we can choose the way we respond to a situation. But wouldn't undesirable or negative events (or even harassment) trigger the need to choose to respond in a way that does not allow for the event to determine one's happiness, and that that itself connotes that external events have a role to play? I may be stretching the notion too far, in which case, a rephrasing of the question would involve asking the extent to which happiness should/could be unilaterally determined? On a general level, is happiness a concept that is consensually determined (a social construct) or is it a subjective pursuit, such that one can "choose to be happy" for real?

First, is it true that academic philosophers reside in ivory towers? And that their ivory tower is filled with books and greek sculptures? Second, There seems to be an interesting feature of many logicians or philosophers of language, that they have a background in the field of mathematics or being related to the field of mathematics in some other way. Is this in your opinion a coincidence? Does the field of mathematics grant those capable of handling it some clarity of mind or perspective in observing the world? This could be interpreted as a question to what sort of intelligence, if any, is more favorable to logicians and philosophers of language(presupposing that the distinctions made in the theory of multiple intelligences hold). It was an interesting and, in my opinion, true prediction of Alfred N. Whitehead when he said that science in its evolution becomes more and more mathematized.