In our society, any modern way of making one's daily life easier is considered an advance. I am only fifteen, so I might not fully understand the importance of technology in our lives yet, but my question stands: If these advances ultimately have a consequence (an example being television, which may provide temporary distraction and entertainment, but in reality just distracts us from doing something more constructive), is it really an advance at all? My mind is in conflict because many of the examples I think of often have many pros as well as many cons. Is that the nature of advancement: with every move forward there is a risk of developing problems? ~Juliet

Courage is considered a virtue and is defined in the dictionary as "lack of fear". How can "lack of fear" be a virtue?

No art exists but what man calls art, and man is partial. If this is true, and if it means that art is only valuable to men, and is thus immaterial outside of that context (the Human Context), then what is the true value of art-—the objective value? I would presume that it is valueless. Further, if an artist knows this, how can he still appreciate art, knowing it to be esoterically meaningful? …*Why* should he continue to appreciate art? --Darwin K.

Many great thinkers are pessimists and often reach the conclusion that everything is pointless. Tolstoy even said that life is just a "sick joke". I started to read a lot of philosophy and I reach the same conclusion, that there is no absolute meaning and life is pretty pointless. And please don't reply that we should live in the now or we make our own happiness, etc.

I was recently having a conversation with a friend about what should be the ultimate goal of life. I suggested that happiness (although this was not strictly defined) may be one of the most worthy goals to aim for in life since it is not a means to anything else but an end in itself. In response my friend argued that if happiness were to be the ultimate goal of someone's life then it would be best achieved by taking a 'happiness' drug or otherwise stimulating the brain in such a way as to induce a state of perpetual happiness. Although this seemed inherently wrong to me it nevertheless seemed to fulfill my criteria of the purpose of a life. It is an important point to bear in mind when answering this question that my friend tends to offer explanations in terms of reductionist science. He is an undergraduate biologist and for him even emotions, such as happiness, can be simply reduced down to chemical reactions and electrical impulses. As a result it seems to me that if happiness is seen in these...

Is it possible to for me to suffer a misfortune or a harm of which I am completely unaware? At first sight the idea seem ridiculous. It's like someone telling you they were suffering a toothache yesterday but were quite unaware of it at the time! If I am harmed surely I must undergo a disagreeable experience of some kind? On the other hand if I lose the chance of promotion in my job due to some malicious gossip put about by a colleague surely I have been harmed as I have been deprived of a benefit I would otherwise have enjoyed. This must be true even if I never know about it. Rob W. United Kingsdom

Is happiness really all that important? A lot of people think so, but that being happy just for happiness' sake is a waste. If there was a "happiness pill" that could make me happy for the rest of my life, I wouldn't take it. Because if I did, I'd get lazy and wouldn't accomplish anything. It seems like the pill would be cheating. But on the other hand, I'm not so sure I'd want to be the most successful person in the world if it meant I could never be happy. So I have to wonder: is it happiness or the things that make us happy that we should value?

Is scientific research a good use of government funding when hospitals, schools and social services are suffering from tight budgets??

This is a question about happiness. I am a student who is very serious about academics and is always looking for ways to challenge myself to do better. I take hard courses that require a lot of work. But I often find that I sit in the library reluctantly reading for long periods of time. I am not sure if I am having fun. I see my friends who are taking courses like photography and book-making, and are having loads of fun. (Note that I do realize that photography and book-making have their own merits as a subjects of study, but they are not challenging to me.) I remind myself that the skills I'm gaining in my difficult courses will contribute to my happiness in the long run. I do believe in living the happiest life one can possibly live. But I wonder if the friend who is taking photography has a better approach to living a good life (and that is my question). The reason I think that is because I feel she is living happily now, without looking to the future for happiness.

Why do we desire authenticity? Why do we want to be the cause of our own happiness rather than, say, medication? Why do we want to know that the jazz musician is truly improvising her solo rather than playing some pre-composed part crafted to sound improvised? Why is it so important to us that we experience the real world, and not a utopian virtual reality fed to us by machines?