Do human beings search for questions that cannot be answered on purpose, or does it happen by chance?

Is there a philosophical justification for democracy? It seems that it would have to be an argument from self-interest, but if we ask, "Whose self-interest?" then it would seem that a democracy isn't the best form of government for certain minority groups (e.g., a theocracy might be more in line with the interests of religious fundamentalists). And what if democracies are even downright harmful to, e.g., the elite? Also, a somewhat related question: is there a philosophical justification for taking from the rich and giving to the poor (which it seems is what socialism prescribes)? This question is 'somewhat related' to the previous question in that even if a democracy does benefit all, it certainly deprives certain groups of advantages they might otherwise have, and so, given a history, it cannot actually benefit all equally.

If I cross my eyes, or press on one eyeball, I see double. This is explained by saying that we have two optical images, one on each retina, and they are normally coincident, whereas they are not coincident when pressing on one eyeball. I am now crossing my eyes and I see two computer monitors. Which is the real monitor: the one on the left, or the one on the right?

A spoon half-immersed in a glass of water appears bent at the surface of the water. We know that this is due to refraction of light, which bends the rays of light at the surface, so that the retinal image of the spoon is illusorily bent. So we can speak of the real spoon, which is not bent, and the image spoon, which is bent. They have to be two, because one thing cannot be bent and not bent at once. Since the spoon that I see is bent, it must be the image spoon, not the real spoon. So where is the real spoon?

Is there philosophy of humor? I want to know if any professional philosophers have written on the necessary and sufficient conditions for quality comedic material.

Does the relation of self-similarity exist? It seems obvious that it does, since nothing is self-dissimilar. But if it does then it, as a relation, must be self-similar, and this second relation of self-similarity must be self-similar, and so on ad infinitum. And surely the Universe is not crammed with an infinity of relations of self-similarity. But does that mean that nothing is self-similar?

Can we perceive relations? For example, if I have a cup of coffee I can perceive the cup as white, round, hard, and shiny; and the coffee as liquid, brown, hot, and delicious; but the relation in has no color or visual size or shape, and I cannot touch it, hear it, smell or taste it --- so how can I perceive it? It's tempting to say that I cannot perceive it because it isn't real --- but if it isn't real then how could I drink the coffee? The similarity between two oranges, the direction of a train whistle, the relative brightness of the sun and the full moon ... There are countless empirical relations that can/cannot be perceived. How come?

Why don't humans think of all lives as equal, and instead that other creatures' lives hold more importance than others? For example a human kills an animal such as cows or pigs and no one (except animal rights activists and the like) has a problem with that, but if that same person killed another human they would be charged and sent to prison. In both cases a life is taken but (one human) and that person's life for some reason holds more importance than the animal's.

How can a person love another without knowing him/her personally?

Is it possible, within the freewill/determinism duality, to posit a third pole - namely 'chance' in which spontaneity is possible albeit within a set of limiting conditions?