It has recently struck me that despite my interest in both physics (as a qualified physicist) and philosophy (as a complete amateur), I have not encountered any philosophy regarding the 'origin' of the universe or indeed aspects of the Cosmos as a whole. While metaphysics is increasingly dealing with questions and dilemmas in modern theoretical physics, I have not seen anyone address the question of *why* the Universe/Cosmos exists. I raise this point purely from a metaphysical standpoint. (The religious aspect is irrelevant.) I am curious whether most philosophers would even think it is a valid question to ask *why* the Universe exists. That is, why not nothing? (I do not mean the Universe is a limited physical sense, as part of a great "Multiverse" perhaps, bus as the all-encompassing everything.) If it does not sound too strange: why does nothing not exist? The temporal problems that some consider; for example the "beginning" and "end" of time do not particularly bother me as a scientist, since time...

How does one draw the line between the sort of morality a legal system should enforce, and the sort of morality the legal system should leave to its own devices? It seems that there are some cases where the law should clearly enforce morality (special laws against child abuse, for example), yet there are clearly other cases where the law doesn't and shouldn't have much to say (for example, the law does not systematically punish people who lie to their spouses, and most would probably argue that it shouldn't). But what is the distinction between the two sides of the boundary?

Why do so many philosophers seem to have a left-wing political view?

do you think that there are certain knowledge that cannot be attained thru logic, and could only be attained thru other means like that of a meditation?

Hi, I'm having an argument with my pal. He argues since logic prescribes (creates a standard) what is a good/bad inference (valid/invalid) it is normative. On the other hand, I think Logic is like mathematics or physics - there are laws of logic, but they are not normative (they only describe). Can you help us settle this beef? Thank you, Miko

I'm struggling wit the following: I am reading an essay that states (repeatedly) that the following "p, p implies q, therefore q" is valid but that the following: "I judge that p, I judge that p implies q, therefore I judge that q" is "obviously" invalid. There is no explanation; apparently this is supposed to be transparent but I fail to see why this is obviously invalid. Why adding "I judge that" makes it invalid?

We define the empty set as the set that contains no elements, but is there more than one empty set? So is there "an" empty set as opposed to "the" empty set? May one be able to receive values, while another is truly empty, etc.? And how is it possible to define the empty set by the absence of members or by emptiness?

Is there any moral obligation to attempt to correct people who have an incorrect belief, even if their incorrect belief wasn't causing any harm? On the other hand, is it wrong to attempt to correct an incorrect belief if it does not cause harm and makes the incorrect belief holders happy? Thank you.

Is it ethical for psychologists and psychometricians to lie to their clients about their IQ if it protects them from harm to their self-esteem? I ask because I highly suspect that such a practice is both very common and something that has been practiced on me. I am told I have an IQ of a 138 which to me seems highly improbable given my academic record and my SAT scores, but I always wanted to join Mensa and I think i told my tester that. However when I applied for Mensa I had to have my records sent three times to their headquarters but each time they somehow got "lost" and so I never became an official member. It also seems improbable that so many people I have known have IQs higher than 150, it's like it's just very common for practitioners to give their clients high feel good numbers.

I know that Kant's moral philosophy is to be considered "intentional" since he focuses on intentions and not on the action itself, each of us should act "according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will". I was told that Kant didn't agreed the foundation of the concept of Good/Evil that past philosophers did; the reason was that they based their moral on an external thing (like ethical relativism or utilitarianism). Moral is for Kant universal and form a priori in the figure of the Moral Law. If I test my intention/action with the Moral Law, couldn't I be considered as looking for a universal order and so for a kind of usefulness?