Great question, one that many people have been asking and trying to answer recently. Led by Morgan Thompson and with some other former MA students at Georgia State, we carried out an empirical investigation of why women are less likely to major in philosophy than men (about 1/3 for several decades, lowest among humanities). Without more majors, there will be too few grad students and then professors. There's a discussion of our work here: http://dailynous.com/2016/03/31/why-do-undergraduate-women-stop-studying-philosophy/ I hadn't noticed how few women philosophers are panelists here. I hope more will be invited and accept!

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 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...

Well, I don't see any evidence that AskPhilosophers.org or the philosophers on the panel think they are answering the big questions in two paragraphs. Most of the responses suggest the beginnings of an answer, one or two of the many answers that philosophers have offered, more questions, further reading, etc. Sometimes panelists, including me will offer what we take to be the best answer to a question, but I suspect we rarely think we've said all there is to say. But sometimes the questions aren't that philosophical or basic (like this question!). So, sometimes we can offer a pretty definitive answer, like this one: No, this website is not "anti-intellectual." (I hope it is accessible, even fun, but that doesn't rule out being "intellectual," or at least, philosophical!)

Yes, yes, no. There are new fields and insights and its not just old problems rehashed (though the new fields certainly contribute to the old problems). Google "neuroethics"; check out discussions of artificial intelligence or extended mind; look at the way most of the problems considered in philosophy of mind intersect with discoveries in the sciences of the mind. You'll see many ways that new scientific discoveries and technologies raise new philosophical questions and influence the answers to old philosophical questions.

Also, see resources being put together by Mitchell Green at UVA. See here: http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=12739

It might not disqualify you at some programs, but it will certainly count against you at most. The writing sample is the primary way of distinguishing applicants' philosophical talents, at least once they have been narrowed down using other criteria (such as coursework in philosophy and grades, letters--though for the competitive candidates, they tend to be equally gushing--and perhaps GRE). A 5-page sample is unlikely to provide evidence that you can develop an argument responding to a particular position that you have adequately and charitably explained. (Of course, Gettier's famous paper is quite short!) I say all this with empathy--I was a philosophy minor (not major) and did not have a good, long piece of writing to submit when I applied to grad school. I had to use a mediocre, long piece, and was lucky to be accepted in the few places I was. But that was (too) many years ago when the competition was a little less fierce. I would try to work with one of your professors to develop one of...

No, my not replying was not tacit agreement with Gordon's assessment of professional philosophy, and I suspect some other panelists also disagree. We're philosophers--you'll always find differences of opinion. But, looking back at his answer, he simply said there are some people who enjoy the puzzle-solving aspect of philosophy, not that all or most of professional philosophy works that way. I suspect that many or most professional philosophers enjoy both the puzzle solving and the engagement with the big questions about the meaning of life, morality, what we are, etc., and many probably like the intersection of the puzzles with the big questions. But trying to find a single accurate description of philosophy or philosophers or even academic philosophy is like trying to find a single accurate description of the meaning of life. Ain't gonna happen. Having said all this, I am sometimes disappointed at the rarity of professional philosophers who are able to connect their academic...

Hmm, I don't know why you think there are exactly three characteristics, but since you asked it that way, I'll give it a go: 1. Philosophical questions tend to concern (to paraphrase Led Zeppelin) what is and what should be (and also how we can know what is and what should be)--that is, they tend to be about metaphysics (what exists and how it exists), ethics (what we ought to do and what a good life is), and epistemology (what can we know and how). They are the questions kids ask: "Why?" and "Why should I?" (and "How do you know?") 2. Philosophical questions typically look like they are (a) not objective (such that we know just what it would take to figure out the one right answer), (b) not subjective (such that the answer depends just on whatever someone thinks about it), and (c) difficult. As we discover agreed-upon methods for finding objective answers to questions, they tend to migrate into the sciences (and become "easy"--just kidding, scientists...

I begin my Introduction to Philosophy classes by saying that philosophical questions are those that children ask, "Why?", and those that adolescents ask, "Why should I?" I share your feeling that there is an energetic curiosity in children (and "pre-adults") that is often drained as we age--alas, in some cases by our educational system and media. I think we should try to fight having that philosophical feeling sapped by trying to explore new questions and fields, reading widely, talking with others about the big questions, and reminding ourselves how each thing we learn also illuminates how much we have yet to learn. But it is hard to force oneself to feel. So, we just have to inculcate the best habits we can and hope the feeling of love of wisdom (philo-sophia) will wash over us occasionally as we age. (It always helps to engage philosophically with children too and hope some of their questioning curiosity is contagious!)