I often recommend double-majoring. (Philosophers often disagree with each other.) Don't do it for strategic reasons. But if you find yourself enjoying courses in cognitive science (or some other subject), then take more, perhaps to the point you double major. Personally, I think philosophers should be as "widely educated" as possible, especially if the philosophical questions they are pursuing would benefit from information from other fields--and I think philosophy of mind certainly benefits from information from the cognitive sciences.

You are probably thinking of the informal fallacy, Argument ad Populum or Appeal to the Masses, in which someone suggests a conclusion is true because many people believe it to be true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum While large-scale belief might provide inductive evidence for some claims, we know the masses can be wrong about lots of things, especially in cases where the underlying explanations are complex, as in medicine. That most people believed the sun goes around the earth did not show that claim is true. That most people did not (do not?) believe tiny things (germs) cause disease does not show that belief is true. That many people think homeopathy works provides little or no support for that claim. However, there's an interesting twist in this case: the placebo effect is remarkably powerful--if people believe some medical treatment works, that belief can have effects, especially when it comes to pain. So, many people believing homeopathic treatments work might...

I think there are three primary reasons philosophers are interested in questions about free will, at least they are the ones that motivate me to spend most of my time on them. 1. Free will is often used (by philosophers and non-philosophers) to pick out the sort of control over decisions and actions that agents need in order to be morally responsible for what they do--that is, to deserve praise for the good things they do and blame, and certain kinds of punishment, for the bad things they do. If we lack free will--defined in this way--then we would not really deserve praise and blame, reward and punishment, and perhaps even gratitude, indignation, and forgiveness. Figuring out how to define 'free will' as relevant to these questions is one of the most significant debates in the current discussions. And figuring out whether we have such free will, in the face of the possibility of determinism or physicalism or certain scientific discoveries, is another. 2. Furthermore, some people think ...

Some people think empathy is overrated, including psychologist Paul Bloom, who offers a nice summary of his views here: http://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy There are some responses to him as well, including one by philosopher Jesse Prinz, who has also argued that empathy is overrated: http://cultureofempathy.com/references/Experts/Jesse-Prinz.htm Personally, I think much depends on what we mean by empathy and in what ways one thinks it can guide moral thinking and behavior. I think Hume and Smith were right that certain emotions (or sentiments) are essential to making moral judgments and motivating moral actions, but it's not clear whether they are focusing on empathy as we typically understand it today. I suspect that most slaveholders and racists that supported that horrific system (as well as those who perpetrated the Holocaust and other genocides) did not have much empathy for their victims, because they lived in and/or helped to create a culture in which their...

I haven't read Rebecca Goldstein's biography of Spinoza, but she's a great writer (with PhD in philosophy) and my dad liked it. I can't vouch for how thorough it is, but it will give you a sense of his philosophical views as well. http://www.amazon.com/Betraying-Spinoza-Renegade-Modernity-Encounters/dp/0805211594

Yes. And 100%. OK, perhaps those answers are too short and uncreative. But yes, I think reading philosophy, thinking about philosophical questions, and trying to come up with and write about philosophical issues can stimulate creative thinking and improve one's creativity (perhaps not artistic creativity but new ways of thinking about things, new ideas, etc.). I think philosophy students tend to become better at imagining different options and solutions and at writing new types of arguments. I'm allowing my current senior major students to do a creative project to engage with the topic we're discussing (death and the meaning of life), and we'll see what they come up with, but music, drama/dialogues, short films, and video games are possibilities. And it's 100% because original thoughts happen all the time. Each one of us experiences things in ways no one else has. If you meant original answers to philosophical questions, well, then it's probably much lower, but those are not so...

Well, I was going to say "High Phi" but then I googled it and remembered that it's the name of an organization trying to get philosophy into high schools. See here: https://www.academia.edu/1873708/Project_High-Phi and here: http://teachhigh-phi.org/ So, you might want to become affiliated with that organization and use some of their materials (and maybe the name). Or you could let the members brainstorm for a name or have a contest or something. After you have them read a couple pieces, like Plato's Cave or Descartes first two Meditations, or whatever, they might use the ideas as springboards for clever names, like Mind Spelunkers or Living the Dream ... or something more clever than that!

Well, I think your plans sound great. But of course I would, since I helped develop the Neurophilosophy Track in the MA program in philosophy at Georgia State University (www.gsu.edu/philosophy). I'm not just advertising! (though you might consider our program.) I'm suggesting that your view of philosophy of mind as continuous with the cognitive sciences is a prominent one (and the right one to boot!). Many PhD programs in philosophy (including MIT, but also Washington University's PNP program, UC San Diego, CUNY, Pitt HPS, Indiana, and others) have people and programs focusing on empirically-informed philosophy of mind. Most of them would appreciate your taking some time to study neuroscience or other cognitive sciences. Most of them would allow you to pursue such courses while doing your PhD in philosophy (and some have certificates in cog sci). So, go get an MSc in neuroscience and/or apply for MA or PhD programs that would allow you to get some rigorous training in the relevant...

See here for some relevant discussion and studies by Eric Schwitzgebel: http://schwitzsplintersethicsprofs.blogspot.com/

Your view, dear reader, seems to presuppose that the only reason anyone should care about global warming (or any other problem that will affect future generations) is that one may have (biological?) descendents that might be affected. That presupposition seems false. On the one hand, it's not obvious why I should care more about my distant descendents (e.g., great-great-great-great grandchildren) more than other people who live 100+ years from now. If we care about any other people (i.e., are not egoists in the strictest sense of the term), then it seems we have good reasons to care about (and we have obligations to) lots of living people we don't know at least as much as distant descendents we don't know. If biological relatedness is supposed to support your presupposition, it would suggest that we should care less about our adopted children than biological ones, which seems false. And my relatedness to distant descendents gets cut in half each generation, so after enough generations, I'll be...