Hello philosophers, I have a question concerning songs. I often listen rappers songs and sometimes I find verses within songs which I suppose are kind of philosophical ones. And I would like to ask you if I could use these verses in my essays as an argument to justify a proposition? I consider that these verses are type of micro philosophy. Yet my teacher can suppose that such an argument is inappropriate or invalid. Moreover, a teacher may perceive that rapper is not an influent figure. But I proclaim that he is a person who creates art. A song is a genre of lyrics like poetry. As a result, I notice a close connection between songs and poetry. People create poetry when they do a lot of thinking. Rappers create songs when they think too. They write their verses on the paper or they think before going to record a song. And it is a big similarity of poetry. Just in a different style. In conclusion, rapper song verses could be a valid argument to justify a proposition in my essays? Or it is not a suitable...

What is the role of games in philosophy? I mean both games in general, and specific games, like Chess or Go.

When I think about certain philosophical issues I sometimes get very overwhelmed and feel I'm in the grip of a serious problem. For example, arguments skeptical about the external world, or other minds, or free will really cause anxiety. I believe, in these cases, that there is an external world, that there are minds other than my own, and that free will is a necessary, emergent component of phenomenological consciousness. Yet, when I hear arguments to the contrary I worry that perhaps I'm wrong, and I worry about the consequences. In general, it seems that most academic philosophers live their lives like ordinary people, and that they believe in things like free will, and they don't doubt that their children have minds, for example. What they do is try to arrive at conceptual refinements through arguments against intuitions, and explore the limits of human knowledge. But they still tackle with these metaphysical and epistemological problems, and, for me, they can at times provoke great angst. So, aside...

Hello, as a bit of background I grew up in a non-religious household and consider myself agnostic. Recently, I've had trouble coming to grips with my own mortality and while I've read through both the religion and death sections of this great website, the more I read the more I've come to believe that Tolstoy was right when he concluded in his Confession that a simple belief in God is, for lack of a better word, the "best" way to find meaning in life. (I freely admit I could be wrong) I find that philosophy helps me deal with this issue on an intellectual level, but leaves me feeling wanting on an emotional or spiritual level. Can philosophy give spiritual meaning to people's lives the same way religion does for others?

What evidence, other than reason and logic, does a philosophical claim require? What research, if any, is the philosopher obliged to do?

Hello there, I have a question concerning Maths. If I am not especially good at Mathematics in school, should I be interested in philosophy? I believe that Mathematics is quite related to philosophy. If persons good at Maths, they have a very strong logical mind. And philosophy requires logic in thoughts. Moreover, do the universities require to pass Mathematics exam if persons want to study philosophy? By nature, I am some kind of creative person. And a creativity, I believe, is more related to breaking rules. I try to say that it is opposite from logical things. The classmates say that I am some kind of philosopher and I love philosophizing although I can't always notice it. And it is interesting thing! To sum up, what is more important considering person who wants to study in philosophy? Its creativity or logical mind?

Are philosophical thought experiments just cases of reasoning about counter-factual scenarios? I ask because it strikes me as obvious that we engage in this kind of reasoning all the time without thinking it special or suspect. Is a thought experiment, then, simply reasoning about a counter-factual which happens to be more fantastic than usual?

It seems that the psychological and emotional difficulties experienced in life by individuals such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Artur Schopenhauer and Max Weber lead many people to be more skeptical of the theories and works of these individuals than they otherwise would, regardless of the content of these works and theories. What is the meaning relationship between a philosopher's work and his psychological issues? Surely all philosophers are influenced in their thought by the things that have happened to them in their lives, so why should some have their work dismissed or explained away, in part, via their personal issues, while others don't? Where is the line?

What role can emotions, principles and personal (or borrowed) convictions play in a philosopher's reasoning process when approaching a specific issue? What role can they play in a philosopher's way of seeing things, or even in a given philosophical trend in which a number of philosophers share similar ideas about a certain number of issues? Is it possible to be completely or at least reasonably neutral when approaching a subject, in spite of your own personal background? If not, then, is it still a good idea for philosophers to try to be neutral? What happens, for example, if you as a philosopher are not aware of the fact that some of your arguments, or thoughts, are being "influenced" by something other than reason, like fear or rage, for example? Are the conclusions of such influenced ways of reasoning, something that you can refute (or at least recognize as "impure") in the long run through uninfluenced (if possible) or at least reasonably uninfluenced reasoning? And finally, are there any known...

What good is it to study philosophy? I have always wondered what it is that philosophers have actually accomplished. For example science marches on without need for philosophy of science. The philosophy of mathematics is almost completely useless to a working algebraic topologist. If philosophers are really concerned about the world, why not study mathematics, natural, social science, etc?