Hume lobs some pretty convincing skepticism at the entire discipline of philosophy in the last chapter of his Enquiry . Besides Kant, have other philosophers tackled these doubts head-on? Since his skepticism is not just about metaphysics, but about all philosophy, do contemporary analytic philosophers regard these doubts seriously?

What's the difference between philosophy of language and semiotics?

The best, general definition of love I've come up with is: one's willingness to do what one truly considers best for another without regard for personal desires. There are 2 things I should point out: 1) by "willingness to do" I mean that which will be done unless impossible or prevented by something external -- if I am willing to do X and X is possible then I will do X unless something or someone prevents me from doing it. 2) I say "truly considers best" to draw a distinction between the lazy "this is what I was told is best" or "I don't really know but I think this is best" and the more difficult "best" that is determined by effort, honesty, study, research, etc. Likewise, I disallow a "best" determined according to what the lover desires, or wants. Is this a good (accurate, useful) definition?

I'm applying to very competitive doctoral programs in philosophy. Everything in my application package is stellar except for my GRE scores. How much do admissions committees at competitive programs weigh GRE scores? Does Math matter more than Verbal? Is there a general baseline score I should try to aim at getting over?

A friend of mine has informed me that she has secretly stopped using birth control in hopes of becoming pregnant and forcing her boyfriend to quit the theological seminary program he's in to be with her. (He's training to be a Catholic priest; she's in love with him; obviously if he becomes a priest he cannot be with her.) My question is: Do I have any moral or ethical obligations to do anything? I don't really know the boyfriend that well. I think it's an interesting question because none of these people are purely good or purely evil. While my friend may be acting very selfishly, so is the boyfriend, since he's essentially just stringing her along until he reaches priesthood. What to do?

Many describe the pleasure that crack-cocaine brings as completely outside the normal range of human experience. It is said to offer the most wonderful state of consciousness, and the most intense sense of being alive the user will ever enjoy. Isn't part of the meaning of life, to feel alive? If so, then shouldn't we all try crack cocaine, because otherwise we may not ever experience that intense sense of being alive? From here also stems the arguments against using crack cocaine: the extreme low and obsessive craving that follows the most "intense sense" of being alive. But is it wrong to experience extreme bliss just because it will set a higher bar for pleasure and we will be harder to please later on?

I recently read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy , and it claimed that the universe is so big that any thing you can imagine is true somewhere. If that is true, does it mean that as I or someone else imagines a place that it blinks into existence right then or was it there all along? In a way are we all collectivly creating the world we inhabit now? I apologize for my spelling and grammar. I've never studied philosophy so sorry if that was a bad question.

Dear Philosopher, If I and many others believe in true democracy, where everybody votes, why do we still have war, civil and with other countries? Tate Putnins, 13 yrs, Box Hill (Melbourne), Victoria, Australia

Are nuclear weapons kosher?

How do we tell apart bad science from good science? For example, suppose one textbook says that magnetism demonstrates that the deity is able to make opposite poles attract, while a second textbook says it illustrates a force between electric currents. Defenders of the first book say its description provides the better account because it is more consistent with reality (namely scripture). Defenders of the second book say its description provides the better account because it is more consistent with reality (namely certain other facts about the physical world). On what basis (if any) can we say that the second book’s description is better science than the first book’s?