I was recently at a job interview where I was informed that, if hired, I would have to sign a non-compete clause stating effectively that, if I were ever to leave my position at the company, I would be barred from taking up employment in that profession again for two years. To me, this seems extremely perverse. I invested a great deal of time and money and effort into educating myself in building a career in this particular domain, and I do not have the skills to support my family to a similar extent in any other career (the NCC is rather broad, if unambiguous, about which fields I may not enter). Is it ethical for a company to offer to end my unemployment while at the same time effectively threatening me with two years of un- or underemployment should I ever quit or be fired? This seems like an abuse of my vulnerability as a job seeker, at the very least.

Is it possible to have a liberal attitude toward sex and be opposed to abortion?

"My body, my choice" is well known slogan from those who oppose laws that limit a woman's right to an abortion. Yet, the idea that a woman has a right to do what she wants to her body seems to have disturbing consequences. If a woman drinks too much alcohol or takes too many drugs then her baby will suffer the consequences. That child will then suffer many challenges in life because of his mothers supposed right to do what she wants with her body. Yet when I point this out to people they get angry and insist that I want to limit women's rights. In fact it makes me angry that anyone would disagree with the idea that a woman shouldn't be morally and legally responsible for the incalculable harm she can do to her baby by poisoning her fetus. I can grant that there are exceptions such as prescription medications but otherwise isn't the idea that women can't be held responsible for doing damage to a fetus that will then suffer after being born just a very extreme position even if its a popular belief? And I...

This quote, "It is harder to give rightly than to receive rightly" hit me in the face with awe but I have no idea what the meaning entails. I have not read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and so I do not know the context it was used in. I keep thinking about this quote because it makes me feel something...something I must hold on to. Can anyone please help me understand the breadth of this greatness? I appreciate it immensely.

What interests me is the idea I've been hearing about a lot that sex should be used only for reproduction. The justification that I've heard for this statement is based on the idea that any other sexual activity that invlolves any kind of contraception is preventing a possible person from coming to life and possibly causing psychological harm for the people that engage in sex and also their future children as they might be carrying guilt (this I have heard from a psychologist, that uses Hellinger's method of phenomenological psychotherapy). Also other arguments that I have heard from other sources are saying that there is no other benefit in engaging in sexual activity apart from possible children and pleasure. As pleasure is considered to have a very short term value it is said that there is no rational reason to have sex when we do not want to reproduce, because the risks and the consequences are larger than the value of pleasure. Humans according to some theories have to sublimate their sexual energy...

So I’m a doctoral student trying to become a physicist. As a philosopher though, I’m just a dilettante amateur. I might however, some day, wish to professionally develop and publish a philosophical paper (the assumption being that before attempting this, I rigorously research on whatever I wish to publish). How do I (or any amateur for that matter) go about doing that, without switching departments? I imagine that I’d have to contact a professor at some department, and if given encouraging words, I’d then submit to some journal. What is this process like for amateur philosophers in general (if it exists)?

Can space be cognized by only verbal means or does it require experience to be understood? Let me show you what I am getting at. You could never imagine what the color red is from a description of it and I think most people see that as an intrinsic limitation on language. No matter how sophisticated the person listening/describing or how sophisticated the language used you would never know what red is without an experience of it. Is space equally ineffable when it comes to descriptions of it?

Euclid in "Elements" wrote that "things which equal the same thing also equal one another." Is this true in all cases? I've read that it is only true for "absolute entities," but not to "relations," although I do not understand this exemption. Are there any examples of things that are equal to the same thing but not to one another? Are relations really exempt from Euclid's axiom, and if so, why?

I ended a very loving relationship on the basis that the man I was with was not my intellectual equal. The relationship had everything for me, except for this compatibilty. People say I made a mistake, and half of me is living in regret. However this nagging feeling would not leave me throughout it all that I would be better suited to someone who challenged me intellectually, and would thus command more respect from me (that last part I feel terrible for saying but I know there is a truth in it, indeed I yearned for a challenge). Can a person who values intellectual pursuits really have a long term relationship with somebody who can't fully share in them? Did I make a mistake?

How do you know that you are sure that your parent are your parents?