What I remember from my philosophy courses is the spirited debate, lively dialogue. For me this site is too question-and-answer, like the Stanford Online Encyclopedia that is often pointed to in the responses. Is there a place on the web where I can find a more dialogue-based form of philosophy?

How is "philosophical progress" made, assuming it is made at all? And on a related note, are philosophical theories ever completely abandoned (considered "wrong"), or do they simply adjust to criticism?

I am in the midst of applying to a master's program in philosophy and am wondering if a 5 page writing sample will necessarily disqualify me.

I'm just getting into philosophy, thanks in no small part to this site! I was discussing it with a friend recently - a friend I admire as hard-working, intelligent and someone who challenges himself - and found out that he was actually a philosophy major in college (now he's a businessman). Naturally I was excited, but I was quickly discouraged as he explained that he had given up doing philosophy long ago and had no interest in it. When I asked him why, I received the following explanation, which confused me and I'm hoping to gain some clarity on it from this site. I hope it's not offensive to any of the professional philosophers who read this site, though it is of course anti-philosophy, since it was his reason for abandoning it. In any case, he said that he gave up reading/doing/thinking about philosophy - and he specified "analytic philosophy" as the culprit - saying that, although he found that the material he read was highly intelligent, he was nagged by a persistent feeling (one he ultimately...

Are their any resources available on the internet that give insight into contemporary philosophical ideas/debates/schools of thought? As much as I love sifting through Wikipedia articles about Plato and Descartes, I would like to know more about the current going ons in philosophy, as well as hearing about the newest ideas from modern thinkers.

First, is it true that academic philosophers reside in ivory towers? And that their ivory tower is filled with books and greek sculptures? Second, There seems to be an interesting feature of many logicians or philosophers of language, that they have a background in the field of mathematics or being related to the field of mathematics in some other way. Is this in your opinion a coincidence? Does the field of mathematics grant those capable of handling it some clarity of mind or perspective in observing the world? This could be interpreted as a question to what sort of intelligence, if any, is more favorable to logicians and philosophers of language(presupposing that the distinctions made in the theory of multiple intelligences hold). It was an interesting and, in my opinion, true prediction of Alfred N. Whitehead when he said that science in its evolution becomes more and more mathematized.

I often hear people say that metaphysics is not really philosophy because the philosophy is based on rational arguments and metaphysics often not, it is really true? the metaphysics is only about "supernatural" things (or concepts) or or it is also about things that can be demonstrated rationally?

I was combing through the recent questions and, although it has not yet been answered, noticed one about a person and his ex-philosophy-inclined-friend. This question in term led me to wonder about a more general question: the role of feelings in philosophy in general. Is philosophy just about reasoned argument, or would any credibility be given to a prominent philosopher who said something like: "I can't pinpoint what's wrong with this paper on the nature of friendship, but it just feels off to me". Or would a prominent philosopher not dare to say something like that? When a professional philosopher reads a paper, does s/he ever have an emotional response, is it suppressed, or, after years of training, does one learn simply to have no emotional response whatever. And, if there is one, does that in turn guide the thought process to any extent? At least as an impetus?

Recently a question was asked about the nature and value of philosophy. I was surprised that only one panelist chose to respond. In his response, Gordon Marino wrote the following: "There are people who make their living doing philosophy who are really into it because they enjoy unlocking intellectual puzzles and building models." By not replying, is the implication that the other panelists agree with this assessment of what professional philosophy is? And if this is an accurate characterization of professional philosophy, why is it a department at the college level? It sounds more like the description for one of the many enrichment activities offered after school at the local elementary and middle schools. It seems to me that this cannot be an accurate description of the field, as the amount of professional philosophy done would not thereby be accounted for by the economic demand for it. Thoughts?

Hello thank you for your good website I have 1 question about research method in philosophy I like to research in this field, but I am sociologist can I use method of sociology in philosophy? would you introduce me some useful books for research in philosophy? thank you very much sara m.