Often, it seems experts and critics are at odds with the general public as to what works of art are good; many well-received films have performed poorly at the box office despite marketing, for example, while many blockbusters have been derided by film critics. What is going on, in these cases? Is it just a difference of opinion, and if so, why is there such a role as a "film critic"? Or do critics detect quality that the average moviegoer can't, and do they see through the presumably shallow pleasures enjoyed by moviegoers? How is it even possible to tell the nature of the disagreement in these situations?

if two people share a thought triggered by there shared experience of a similar situation/stimuli and/or genetic wiring (i.e. there is a causl relationship between there responses), would this be considered telepatahy? for example if two people looked at a work of art and at the same time thought to themselves the word "amazing" this would surely not be considered telepathic, as it is a very common response. But why shouldn't it be considered telepathy if they share the same thought and there is a causal relationship? I'm not saying that people can read each others thoughts outright, but that similar thought patterns are brought on by similar situations and/or genetic makeup (I won't get into nature vs nurture).

Is it logical to infer a higher power given how extraordinary human life is?

Is it possible to rise above jealousy, what are the questions i need to ask myself to rise above it?

Is the concept of property a metaphysical concept?

My girlfriend and I have recently moved to a new area, and have encountered an unfortunate problem. In this area, the birth control pill is only available upon prescription by a gynecologist, and gynecologists are required by law to refuse handing out the prescription until after a woman has undergone a standard checkup. Normally, this doesn't seem like such a big deal, but my girlfriend has only been to a gynecologist once and adamantly refuses to do so again, as she is afraid the check-up will be horribly painful. She has, in fact, declared that we should simply stop having sex until we find a way to acquire the pill without her undergoing a gynecological check-up (we only ever use double-protection, condom and pill, to try and minimize the risk of unwanted pregnancies); her only idea is to get her mother (who works in a pharmacy) to send birth control pills per post. If that doesn't work, it looks like I'm in for a dry spell. I am confused as to what I am allowed to do, ethically speaking. I know...

If someone is interacting with an interactive art installation, what is their role? Are they part audience, part artist? Are they still just an audience, or do terms like audience and artist cease to make sense in such cases?

Why are wisdom and truth important? How does one defend their importance over the superficial like wealth and popularity? What is wrong with the superficial anyway? I like to think that I pursue wisdom and scorn worldly goods, but I can never justify to others why I live this way.

Are philosophers the "early adopters" of new moral beliefs? Do philosophers lead new trends in moral thinking, or do they lag behind? If, in 100 years, some moral intuition has become widely held by the general public, should we expect philosophers to widely hold this moral intuition first?

Is there any validity in the following argument? By medical science we keep people with severe chronical diseases alive and these people are free to reproduce. Already there has been an increase in people with chronical diseases, maybe because of our progression in medical science. So, in the future, it is possibly that we will all struggle with many chronical diseases, unless we accelerate in stem-cell research or genetic manipultaion. With this I see only two opportunities: either deny the chronically diseased to reproduce (Which I think is quite unethical) or "play God" and rid our selves with these plagues with either genetic manipulation or stem-cell research (which is also unethical, for some). But not matter what ethical principles one leans on, these two options are the only sensible ones, of course to the exception of not doing anything (which is also unethical). So we have here, three unethical options, depending on one´s ethical affiliation: 1. Everyone will be chronically diseased. 2....