If the Sun were to explode we could not know of it until eight minutes later, because that is how long it takes for light to travel from the Sun to Earth. So for eight minutes we would see an unexploded Sun, while the real sun would be exploded. It follows that we do not see the real Sun. But everything we see must be later than reality, because of the time it takes light to travel from reality to our eyes, so nothing we see is real. Can this be true?

I read that David Hume is called the "amazing". Why was this? Allan Whatley

Should the retrospective ideas, advice, and wisdom of a dying person be heeded and followed in our own lives? That is, if a dying person wishes they would have lived in a different way, or says that certain things were the most valuable, should we follow this advice, and even change our lives to suit?

Do you think a government that is becoming (or is) ineffective should be strongly reorganized ("overthrown" is a misleading word)?

If I believe that God does not exist, but at the same time think that the idea of God is meaningful, am I an atheist? If not, then what position - philosophically - do I take?

Is there a way to perceive the real world? Thanks.

Is it fair to say that when Western philosophers who are religious (such as a few who answer our questions here) profess 'faith' as a justification, they are effectively going against all the tenets of the logic and philosophical analysis they are quite happy to apply elsewhere to epistemology, ontology, &c? Is it an effective shrug of the shoulders and a 'There ya go! let's move on!' cop out? This seems particularly important to me in the light of Christians masquerading as Intelligent Designer advocates. I find it hard to believe any scientist or philosopher who was not religious to start with would find the mechanism of the eye or whatever 'irreducibly complex'and use it to deny Darwin's theory. They are simply trying to bolster beliefs already held, as no philosopher would dispute. And the 'faiths' some philosophers cling to are surely the dominant ones in their societies and/or the ones they were brought up to believe in. Are we now in the realms of anthropology and psychology in the above beliefs...

I have just been introduced to the works of Heidegger, and have been shocked by the way some commentators condemn his writings. Is such condemnation justified?

Can an ideal be achieved? If my understanding of what ideals are is correct (i.e., a mental conception regarded as a standard of perfection), then it seems that they are, by their very nature, unattainable (at least in a corporeal sense). Yet, nations are built, wars are fought, and people are killed over ideals. If they are only "perfect ideas", doesn't that seem a bit absurd and irrational? Is my understanding of what an "ideal" is incorrect?

I was once asked at a University PPE interview, Does time have a colour? I found it both extremely interesting and baffling. My opinion was that as time was not a physical property it could not have a colour yet I questioned myself countless times. What's your opinion - could time have a colour? K(17)