Well, tell these "skeptics about the value of philosophy" that philosophy majors will probably do "real jobs" better than most other majors (see some of the links below), because they will know how to read, think, write, and communicate more clearly. Remind them that they won't remember most of what they learn in their undergrad major classes, but you'll remember what you learned about how to read, think, write, and argue, and probably more of what you studied since you enjoyed it. And remind them that when they claim that philosophy lacks value, well, they are doing philosophy --not to mention that the way they live their lives (and decide what to believe) is informed, whether they know it or not, by philosophical beliefs they hold explicitly (e.g., religious beliefs) or implicitly (e.g., realism or relativism about morality). Here are some resources for addressing "skeptics about the value of philosophy": New York Times “Philosophers Find the Degree Pays Off in Life And in Work”: http:/...

I disagree with Prof. Leaman that philosophers completely agree on the point that they never completely agree on anything. Uh oh, did I just prove his point? Anyway, putting aside the problem that if "completely" is taken literally, then almost nothing is completely agreed on (and not just in politics). But philosophers do pretty much agree on a lot, including some of the "rules" for how to disagree (e.g., we pretty much all agree that we should not accept ad hominems, we should use the principle of charity, we should reject invalid arguments--and we pretty much agree about what counts as invalid, etc.). But even among substantive issues, there's a substantial agreement about some of them. You may want to check out the results of a large-scale survey of philosophers here . Notice that the survey picked topics precisely because they are live issues of debate (so there might be more agreement about other issues that are "dead" because "pretty much" agreement has been reached). ...

The answer will depend on what your reasons are for not eating meat. For instance, I do not believe that eating meat is wrong because killing animals is wrong. Rather, I believe it is wrong to cause suffering to those animals we have good reason to believe can feel pain and suffer (unless we are justified in believing that the suffering will relieve more suffering, as is the case with some animal experimentation but is almost never the case with eating animals). So, I try to do what I can to avoid supporting factory farming, which is a manifest case of causing unnecessary suffering. I am not as good as I should be about this commitment. For instance, if I am in a situation where I have to choose between eating factory-farmed meat and not eating (or having to go to great lengths to eat), I tend to eat the meat. If I am served meat and the only way to avoid eating it is to throw it away, I will eat the meat (otherwise, one might even think the animal's pain was even more useless than it otherwise...

If by "the chemical spark has faded" you mean that you are no longer sexually attracted to him and no longer enjoy sexual relations with him, then it may be important to both of you. If you would rather be with someone with whom you want to be physical, then you will not only miss something you enjoy by staying with him, but worse, you may end up wanting to leave him if you find someone else you are physically attracted to (and whom you also find to be "a very nice guy"). And if your boyfriend is someone who enjoys sexual relations and being "wanted", then it seems you should tell him how you feel, so that you can decide together whether you should stay together (e.g., he may prefer to be with someone who is more interested in him physically). However, if you just mean that you have lost that initial spark we feel when we first start dating someone, then you are probably just like most people. That spark typically fades but without taking with it all interest in sexual relations. People often...

It's not clear what it would mean (or what it would take) to show that there was an effect without a cause (unless we just define an effect as something that is caused, in which case there'd be nothing to show). We certainly have not shown (proven) that every event has a cause in the sense that we have not, and could not, pick out the causes of every event that has ever happened. Rather, we tend to assume that all events have causes, except perhaps those people who assume that free choices are uncaused or who assume that there is a first event that was not caused by any prior event. It's an assumption that tends to work for us--that is, it helps us explain things in science and our everyday life--and it is an assumption that does not have any clear counterexamples (but again, it's not clear what a counterexample would look like). So, as you suggest, this thesis of Universal Causation (UC) might be the most justifiable. However, one might think that a possible counterexample involves...

There is not a prevailing consensus on the questions of (1) whether free will is compatible with determinism and (2) whether humans have free will. However, I would estimate that close to 2/3 of professional philosophers are compatibilists about free will and determinism (they think determinism poses no threat to free will), with the other 1/3 roughly split between libertarians (who are incompatiblists who believe that we have free will, and hence that determinism is false) and hard incompatiblists or skeptics about free will (who are incompatiblists who believe that we do not have free will because determinism is true and/or indeterminism would not help secure free will). These estimates are based on a large-scale survey I conducted (along with Thomas Nadelhoffer) and on another large-scale survey conducted by David Chalmers and David Bourget (see here ; lots of other interesting results too). These survey results may be slightly off for various reasons (e.g., for these...

Peter Smith's advice is dead on. The only thing I would add is that, while you are looking through the Stanford Encyclopedia and Phil Index and PhilPapers (which is a great resource), you look for recent articles whose titles or abstracts suggest that they provide an overview of the debate (e.g., "Recent Work on X"), and then you use the references in those articles to guide you towards other sources. Reading such articles often provides information about which sources will be most useful to you, given your interest in the debate. And don't forget to read the classic works (e.g., most cited) in the history of the debate as well. Finally, you will make your future self much happier if you keep your sources well-organized (in electronic or real-world files) and if you jot down a few sentences about each article--its main point and how it might be relevant (or not) to your project. My current self is unhappy with my past selves for not being diligent enough about such record-keeping!

Step one: Visit AskPhilosophers.org weekly! ;-) Step two (and most importantly): Don't fall out of the habit of caring about and thinking about philosophical questions. This will be hard to do. You will get busy and busier with a "real" job, paying bills, perhaps raising a family, surfing the internet, watching TV, exercising, eating, sleeping, etc. It can be hard to find the time to slow down and reflect. It is sometimes hard for me to do this, and I'm a professional philosopher! (Seriously, even when I am teaching or writing philosophy, I sometimes find myself forgetting to do philosophy, in the sense of re-considering and deeply considering the very issues I'm talking or writing about one more time.) So, try to make time for philosophical reading and thinking by building it into your schedule somehow. Step three: find sources of philosophy you like. Keep a list of books (and articles) you want to read, and find sources for information about books (and articles) you may want to read...

Given your question, you may be interested in a discussion of Strawson's NYTimes article at the free will/moral responsibility blog, Flickers of Freedom, here . There's also a discussion on retribution and punishment (and psychopaths) at the blog here . You'll see in these discussions that there are plenty of philosophers (called compatibilists) who think that free will and moral responsibility are possible even if determinism is true, and who reject Strawson's argument against the possibility of freedom and responsibility. These compatibilists will generally say that retributive punishment is justified, though they might also think that punishing (or treating) criminals for consequentialist reasons (such as deterrence and rehabilitation) is also important. My own view is that we can have free will and moral responsibility (determinism is irrelevant to this issue), but that we have less than we think (because the sciences of the mind are showing that we have less self-knowledge and...

Here's one answer I have given to a related question.