Is it paradoxical to ask what existence is without already knowing the meaning of the term "is"? A statement such as "there is a crate of oranges in front of me" seems like a statement about the "existence of oranges." But at the same time what does it mean to say that the "crate of oranges" exists? Existence seems like the most intuitive and indubitable metaphysical pronouncement and yet at the same time it evades clear definition. I suppose you can say "the orange crate exists because you can pick an orange up or it exists because you can observe it." But it seem like their is something more to saying something exists than that, but I can't put my finger on it.

Let's say there is some activity that your significant other wants to do together (going to the movies/opera/a sports event, or any number of things). You, personally, have a neutral attitude towards this particular activity, i.e., the activity itself doesn't give you any particular pleasure/happiness/utility in and of itself. However, you know that this activity DOES have intrinsic value to your significant other; they would be happy doing it in and of itself. However, you also know that they are not willing to do this activity unless a) you are willing to do it with them, and b) you are also getting pleasure out of it (they wouldn't want to do it if they knew that you were only doing it "for them"). My question is this: in this sort of situation, is it better to lie and say that it makes you happy, so that they will do this activity which gives them happiness, because you want them to be happy, or should you instead tell the truth on the principle that you shouldn't lie, especially not to your...

Is it possible to quantify suffering philosophically? It's a foregone conclusion that pain has long been measured for actuarial purposes (with proportionate dollar amounts tagged to various injuries) so that an insurer can say, "the loss of vision is worth more than the loss of a pinkie," but can this be sustained philosophically? In other words, can one definitively answer the old parlour game question that usually comes down to, "Which you you rather experience? A long minor pain or a short major pain?" without resorting to the cop-out that "each individual suffers uniquely"?

I am sixty and I find myself becoming removed from my life (my very nice life, I might add). I watch, rather than participate. Everything I read about, see, or experience is similar to that which I have read about, seen or experienced before. I've been down that road before, I know where it goes, it's hard to stay engaged. It's hard to care. I know that in the broadest view everything turns out fine- all good things end and all bad things end. I am not unhappy at all. Am I just old?

I have been romantically seeing a man for more than five years. We have known each other for a long time and I know he is an extraordinary man who will be there for me through anything, no matter what. However, I feel that his future is not nearly as bright as mine. The only reason he decided to study hard to get into a good college was because I urged him to. However, I admire him for his social skills and his ability to judge situations accurately and quickly (which means good social skills.) On the other hand, after going on a break with this man due to the long distance, I have met another man who I have been seeing for a while. This second man is not nearly as great a person as the first. His family is well-off, but this has led him to be somewhat spoiled and I find that I do not respect or admire him as I do the first. However, he is with me physically where I study and he had provided me with comfort and company when I needed/wanted it. Furthermore, he seems a bit more intellectual than the first...

I've had an ongoing discussion with several friends who, independently, argue that morality is an artifice and claim moral relativism permits a host of what I identify as preventable injustices. I'd love to articulate clearly what I "know" is the distinction between admittedly fluid moral distinctions (Right/Wrong, Good/Bad) and more absolute truths (deliberately harming others is to be avoided/prevented, even absent an organized belief system there are guiding principles for an individual). Am I incapable of defending the notion of an(y) Absolute Good without support from a dogmatic belief system? I may be an atheist and nihilist but just because the Universe is an unjust, entropic whirlpool doesn't mean we can't strive for moments of Grace while we're here.

If, due to unforeseen circumstances, you find love, outside of your committed relationship, what do you do? (This said, obviously you've already gone outside of your "commitment" and remember, things are always more complex than they appear.) The question is this: is your obligation to the commitment or to find your own happiness?

If we consider the norm to be defined as what the majority of people do, can homosexuality be considered normal since it defines behavior that is clearly not what most people indulge in? And would that make homosexuality abnormal? And if it were abnormal, would it be wrong to validate gay marriage?

Do (or should) public figures--professional athletes, politicians, film stars--have a moral obligation to serve as role models for society? Another way to ask this: do public figures have a moral obligation **above and beyond that of a non-public figure** to act in a morally permissible or morally good way? Take, for instance, the professional athlete who abuses his child or the politician who cheats on his or her spouse. Assuming that such actions are prima facie wrong (leaving aside scenarios in which, say, utilitarianism would morally allow or demand such actions), are there any extra moral obligations that a public figure has--or is there any extra moral weight to their actions--just in virtue of being a public figure?

How can we really know that time travel doesn't happen?