Is Kant's project of reconciling freedom with an apparently deterministic nature still relevant given how Quantum mechanics does not (as I understand it) see nature as a deterministic totality?

Do academics in particular have a moral responsibility to be outspokenly critical of social injustice?

Being an autodidact in philosophy, while academically undertaking a Major in Political Science, can I be considered a philosopher? Not by entitlement, but by the notion that one creates and studies the philosophical world view, as anybody of such a field does regardless of academic degrees. I am so disturbed with some comments that it is only through credentials that one becomes a philosopher, that I would would like to defy and counter this confined notion by proving that it is, indeed, not the only means. Thus I require supporting views on this topic. So, once again, can I be considered a philosopher whilst also being an autodidact?

About a year and a half ago I read Henri Bergson's work Matter and Memory for one of my philosophy classes. I have begun to reread the his work and can not help but wonder: what is M. Bergson's place in the history of philosophy? I find many of his arguments to be convincing, but where do he, and his arguments, stand after the philosophical works that the analytic tradition produced? I have tried to learn more about M. Bergson as a person and thinker, but I have been unsuccessful in finding anything relevant after the advent of the analytic tradition. I do know that he won the Nobel Prize for literature for his work, Creative Evolution, but then it would seem as though his work became unimportant. So, I guess my general question is: does M. Bergson have any importance to philosophy today, and where does he stand in relation to present-day philosophy and the analytic tradition? Would a philosopher of the analytic tradition today think that M. Bergson's work is not useful to philosophy?

What are your views on Slavoj Zizek's work? Too many fallacies of equivocation? Or is he successful in what he claims to accomplish; that is, rehabilitate Hegel. I have talked to many who greatly disliked him and pointed out Slavoj's supposed 'play of words' that is aimed to confuse rather than clarify. According to them, Zizek ends up sounding profound precisely because of this equivocating word play. It'd be interesting to see what philosophers think of the matter.

is Jungs' theory of synchronicity simply nonsense? I can make neither head nor tail of it. It is often quoted by 'new agers' as sign that we are all in a way "connected" (i.e networks for a higher consciousness, etc) and I feel that they have abused the original concept, but I myself can't even understand it.

Frege said 'a fact is a thought that is true’. Does that mean truth is factual thoughts?

Hi there, I'm 17 years old and currently reading the Critique of Pure Reason in the German language (which happens to be my first language so that's no problem). While reading, one question has arised: How does Kant actually prove the existence of the thing in itself? He argues that the thing in itself stimulates the senses and thereby effects perception. This is an appliance of causality, which is -according to Kant himself- appropiate only in the realm of phenomena. Is this a mistake of Kant? Does he disprove idealism in another part of that book? Is it enough that the existence of the thing in itself is possible to think? Does this have something to do with existence being no predicate? I'm looking forward to an answer.

I was wondering whether or not there is any difference between Nietzsche's view of ethics, as consisting of life affirming values, the superman, and the will to power, and the view of Ayn Rand that morality is doing what is in your own self interest. Arent both of them saying that the moral thing to do is to do what is in your self interest and increase your power, and ignore ideas such as pity and charity?

According to Wikipedia, which I grant isn't always a reliable source, William James believed that truth is what is useful. To me that just sounds stupid. Certainly truth is not just whatever is useful. Should I be so dismissive or is there more to his theory of truth to be appreciated?