I've read that Fichte believed we all a part of a universal mind and that our minds more than just being subjects in the world are the co-creators of nature. Does he mean that in the way a new age sort might take it to mean that we are creating reality at our own will?

To what extent did Heidegger's 'Being and Time' influence Sartre's ideas and works?

What is a possible world? So I read Quine's two dogmas, and he says that there is no distinction between an analytic statement and a synthetic one. If I have that right. But when people talk about possible worlds they seem to think there is. So if Quine is right there is only one possible world, isn't there?

Was Nietzsche in some sense of the word a pagan? I keep reading he is an atheist but I keep coming across stuff that suggests that he affirmed a vision of the world inspired by the Greeks of vast, beautiful- but indifferent to sentimental morality, forces at the heart of nature.

St. Augustine wrote that he once stole some peaches. When he reflected on that experience he observed that he got a rush from breaking the rules. He then concluded that he broke the rules for the sake of breaking the rules and that more broadly this meant that at least some human sins are committed for the sake of sin. I think that St. Augustine was using this example to refute the Socratic claim that lack of knowledge was the cause of sin. Is St. Augustine's claim valid? Does it follow from the fact that he got excited from breaking the rules that he broke the rules for the sake of breaking the rules rather than the excitement it generated? Are there other reasons why breaking the rules might be exciting other than a desire to break the rules for its own sake? Maybe he got excitement from stealing the peaches because it was risky or because he wanted to challenge authority or to feel less confined by rules.

Just finished reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra by philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and I can't help but be completely and utterly confused. His format of hyperbolic and metaphoric employs were incredibly interesting, but didn't quite comprehend the overall message. Maybe this novel is a bit an over-reach of a pure understanding for me. Granted, I've only read rich language in holy books. What was the philosopher trying to gift a reader with his novel?

What's the philosophical response to Nietzsche's contention that all morality is merely a trick that the weak play upon the strong to get the strong to rein in their strength?

In a review of two of Martha Nussbaum's books, the reviewer mentions how, during a meeting of the American Philosophical Association, hotel housekeepers were apparently overheard saying that (and I quote) philosophers, in comparison to other academics, "don’t screw very much, but they sure do drink a lot." I wonder, then - is there a particular kind of temperament that is unusually common among philosophers? Do philosophers tend more towards melancholia (as I assume the notion of drinking implies), and if so, why? What are your experiences in this regard?

Hi, I have chosen to write an essay about kant's moral argument for the existence of God and evaluate his contribution to philosophy of religion as an option. However, I am not getting much help. What must I read to cover in the essay and how much of Kant's philosophy must I be familiar with? Thank you for your help in advance. Greta.

Kant's contradiction of the will seems to suggest that it is inconsistent for us to allow abortion; that it is inconsistent to simultaneously will that we live and that allow that our mother could have had an abortion (meaning we wouldn't live...) However, I find this a little unconvincing but can't quite get it down. Is it not consistent to argue that the rights of me as a foetus are overridden by my mother's rights as an adult and that I will everybody to be treated according to the rights the can claim despite the consequences? Thanks a lot in advance!