Is it true that before 2006 Pluto was a planet, and now it no longer is? Or was Pluto never a planet by IAU's post-2006 definition, and still is a planet by the pre-2006 definition? You can't change what something is just by changing a definition right?

It happens repeatedly to me that when I read a poem, I may come across a feeling that the poem has actually reflected some thoughts of mine that had been floating in my mind but hadn't actually been able to express it in terms of words. Does this phenomenon pave any grounds for the argument that we may not actually need words in order to think? Would be grateful for an answer. Thanks. óAli

Suppose a man, Frank, weighs 250 lbs. To some extent, whether or not we count Frank as fat will depend on context. If Frank stands only 5'3" then we might say he's fat; however, if Frank is 7'4" then quite clearly he is not fat. There are, of course, other factors to consider, too (e.g. muscle mass). With that said, it seems to me that we can tweak his height, muscle mass, etc., to the point where it's simply unclear whether Frank should count as fat or not, and neither empirical examination nor rigorous conceptual analysis will clear up the matter. There is ultimately a problem with our very notion of what it is to be fat--and there are many, many other similar cases of vagueness in our language. Does this inherent vagueness imply that there is no fact of the matter about whether Frank is fat? What about the cases where it seems so intuitively clear that Frank is fat (e.g. in possible worlds where he's only 5'3")?

Why is it that, in so many languages, the same word (in English, "wrong") can mean both "false" (e.g., in "that answer is wrong") and "improper" (e.g., in "it is wrong to steal")? Is there some important thing common to falsity and immorality? And is "wrong" the word for it?

I'm not sure is this is a philosophical question or a linguistics question but what's the difference between "agree" and "strongly agree?" In my mind, if you agree with a statement or disagree with it, that's the end of it. I think agree or disagree are absolutes so to add an adverbial quantifier is not necessary. How can you 'agree more' with something after you already agree with it? Or, for example, say we both disagree about something. It's not possible for me to disagree 'more' than you. I see this kind of choice on those psych tests employers like to give to candidates. I don't think I've ever 'passed' one of those tests because of my problem with this choice. So is it just semantics? Please help. Confused in Lakeland, FL

There is this idea that languages can be judged and valued - take the very stereotypical image of the proud French person praising their own language's beauty and warmth while explaining that English is an impure, soulless and emotionless tongue with "stolen" vocabulary. Is the idea that languages can be judged and praised/scorned (sort of like works of art) rooted in a theory of linguistic aesthetics? Has such a theory ever been articulated? More to the point, are there any general justifications for such views, or are words really just words?

In my mind, discrimination has always been about denying people rights or opportunities based on some irrelevant aspect of themselves (irrelevant to whatever is being denied, that is). However, we also use the word "discrimination" to describe such terms as "nigger" or "retard". These terms are obviously pejorative, and shouldn't be used by anyone hoping to appear kind or civilized, but they aren't, in and of themselves, denying anyone's rights or opportunities. So this is a different kind of discrimination, then. Why is this discriminating? What kind of discrimination is this? Is it related to the presumed stereotypes we assume people have in mind when using these terms pejoratively?

Does Quine's argument that there is no real boundary between analytic and synthetic statements include purely mathematical statements such as 1 + 2 = 3? Granted, sentences in everyday languages contain both analytic and synthetic elements, but cannot formal languages support purely analytical statements? Or does mathematics, being a human creation, inextricably model the natural world around us, and thus contain synthetic information? I'm trying to understand the short and (very difficult for me) book "Knowledge and Reality: A Comparative Study of Quine & Some Buddhist Logicians" by Kaisa Puhakka, which seems to represent Quine's thinking faithfully, but my training as a scientist leaves me ill-prepared for much of it. Thank you.

What is required to truly be "sorry" for something? I've always heard that if your truly sorry for an action, you will never repeat that action. A repeat offence, therefore, means that you were never truly sorry in the first place. So how can one express sorrow?/what is required for a true "sorry"?

We like to believe that we are special, but how can everyone be special? Surely a term like that is in language in order to draw distinction. If we are all special, does that mean that no one is?