Any "change" in the past is inherently paradoxical (to say the least). In fact, I think it is actually worse than that: Such changes would involve making it both true and false in the history of our world that the changed event did (or did not) take place. That's a contradiction, not a paradox. On the other hand, one could go back in time and do what one actually did in some time long past (or do what one actually will do, some time long in the future). If it is actually possible to go back in time, for example, and be one's own father, then one would live in a universe in which that is (and always was) precisely what happened. What are called "looping" universes, in which time did not flow linearly, but in a closed loop, would make such apparently strange events possible. And though we have good reasons for supposing that we do not live in a looping universe, it does not seem that logic makes such an idea impossible. To find out more about this topic, have a look at an article by...

The ability (and perhaps inclination) to distort or propagandize is deeply human, and I see no reason to think that one is less likely to engage in such things from an "insider's" perspective than if one takes (or cannot help but be in) an "outsider's" position. Indeed, in some ways, I would expect these tendencies to be greater from "inside" than from "outside" perspectives, since those of the former group do, whereas the latter need not, have anything personal at stake. If I follow a certain religion, or have been raised to accept and engage in a certain cultural practice, or am a member of a certain ethnic group, it is natural for me to want to defend that religion, practice, or group--and to minimize or ignore the way(s) in which my religion, practice, or group may (even rightly) be seen as mistaken or wrong. Obviously, one's access to all the pertinent evidence for sound judgment may be more difficult, the further "outside" one is from the sources of such evidence, but at least one can be free of...

Sounds to me as if you have already answered your own question: You are right to say that you used her. How about considering what you would want if you were in her position? My guess is that you would want to know the truth. (And by the way, a woman in her late thirties can certainly still find a man, get married, and have children--sheesh!) So why not start by admitting to yourself what happened, and then-- as soon as possible --let your wife know.

I can't imagine why you would think this is wrong. We're talking about consenting adults, right? If the relationship turns out to be very important to both of you, I would expect you would find ways to get back together again. Long distance relationships can be difficult, but they're not impossible!

Good looks are visible, of course--or else we wouldn't call them "looks." So, looking at a perfect stranger and declaring that person "beautiful" seems to me obviously to be a judgment about how the person looks . Looks are, however, just one aspect of a person that can be beautiful, and as the old saying goes, that sort of beauty is "only skin deep." Unfortunately, a lot of good-looking people are not very beautiful in any way other than the way they look. Remember the movie, "A Beautiful Mind"? I think some minds are beautiful, but obviously that judgment can't be about how the minds look --it would seem to be more about how they work . I also think that people can have beautiful characters , or other beautiful traits or qualities. It seems plausible to think that there might be some beautiful traits or qualities that are really more important or valuable than others, where good looks will be found to be relatively less important than some other characteristics a...

It is my understanding that depression is a medical problem--and one that can be effectively treated. My advice (not especially philosophical, admittedly) is to have a talk with your physician.

To begin with, I don't accept your example of the political sign. Putting an endorsing sign up in your yard is not an invalid argument--it is simply an expression of your opinion. If someone else is persuaded to vote for a candidate just because you have expressed your opinion in favor of that candidate, then so be it. It won't be the result of a bad or invalid argument--though perhaps their reasoning might be faulted as unsound: If S is going to vote for C, then I should vote for C. S is going to vote for C (I can tell from the sign in S's yard). Hence, I should vote for C. This isn't invalid, but at least the first premise (and perhaps the second, too, should be rejected.) On your main question, however, I do think there is somthing wrong with using invalid arguments (at least ones that we know are invalid) to persuade people, both because it might habituate them into bad reasoning habits more generally, and because it is a kind of seduction. Consider: suppose you really believe...

I tend to doubt that the correct answer to your question will come from philosophy, as opposed to psychology or neuroscience. But I would pose back to you a philosophical question: Why would it matter to you whether it is organic or developmental? Either way, you are what you are, and I see no reason to think that there is any fault here no matter what the process was that led to your being the way you are. Maybe I have misunderstood what lies behind your question, and if so I apologize. But it sounds to me like you feel you need an excuse or explanation to "explain away" your difference. If so, I disagree. Just be who you are and be prudent about foolish and prejudiced people who might respond to you in ways you would rather avoid.

Yes, philosophers do make the distinction you are looking for here, but it gets a little complicated. On the one hand, even philosophers interested in consequences can talk about character traits in the way you want--because it is obviously arguable that some character traits are more likely to produce good consequences than other character traits. On the other hand, some philosophers (called "virtue theorists") think that the evaluation of actions and their consequences is really secondary (and parasitic upon) the evaluation of character traits. But most virtue theorists do not simply regard the virtues as having the right motivations. Consider a case I recently argued professionally--I call it the case of the kindly klutz. Someone wants to help an ailing person across the street, but so misjudges her own strength that she ends up breaking the arm of the person she sought to help. I think we might give her some credit for her motivations, but would fault her for her bad judgment, and thus say...

I think the problem with cheating is the cheating part. You and your husband made an agreement, presumably in good faith, that you would not do the very thing he did. I doubt if at the time he stipulated that he might have "merely sex," but would abstain from sex + love. So...he violated your agreement, and this gives you a reason to regard him as in the wrong. Period. As to whether his violation is forgivable, I suppose it is. But that is entirely up to you--not up to him. He doesn't get to tell you that he deserves forgiveness--that adds presumption as an additional violation to the one he already committed. So the issue of forgiveness is yours to decide. He may ask for it; he may beg for it. But it is your decision entirely. I can see how loving the other woman might have added to the offense (though I don't see how the addition would convert a "forgivable" offense into one that is unforgivable--because even had he loved her, you might reasonably determine that it was...