What do you professionals think of when the common person thinks about philosophy? I often look around book stores, and see tarot cards in the 'metaphysical studies' section, a section that separates itself from the 'philosophy' section but it's right next to it. In the 'philosophy' section, I see many books on existentialism, Nietzsche has an unofficial row to himself, lots of Ayn Rand in some stores, it has many of the classics, a few postmodern works, and there's many books on pop culture and philosophy. Perhaps this is just my experience in my section of the United States of America, but in the book stores I go to, this is what I see. Does the public have the right perception on what philosophy is or should be? What is the general reaction of people when you say you're a pro philosopher? What do most people think philosophy is? What are your general thoughts on what us layman think of when we think philosophy?

When I write a philosophy paper, should I be concerned with developing a personal style? Or are philosophy papers best written in a manner similar to physics lab reports or mathematical proofs--that is, in a technical, impersonal way.

I've had as good a time as anyone else discussing armchair philosophy based on cosmology and human nature, but now take the position that it would be professional negligence to engage in same without a firm grounding in e.g. particle physics and evolutionary biology. Other than a Dan Dennett (on evolutionary bio side), who are some contemporary philosophers who are exploring this space? For example, I would love to read the extent to which Aristotle survives or thrives in the light of scientific discoveries over the intervening millenia.

I would like to encourage my grandchildren (ten of them, ages 5 to 17) to think about and discuss ideas. I started to compose an email (they are located in the U.S. Canada and Sweden) on the importance of the question "Why?". Among other things, I wanted them to be able to challenge, in a constructive way, the "wisdom" of their peers. I found that it was hard to do this in a way that would compel them to even think about my email! I also would like them to learn the value and the discipline of thinking, generally. Do you have suggestions (including literature) that would help in getting children to think and talk about ideas? I have found that this is very difficult - either because they find the process too much work or they don't want to embarrass themselves (or?). Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Sculpture is divided into modeling and carving, one additive, one subtractive. They lead to very different ways of thinking. Does philosophy have anything to say about creating meaning by tasking something away (carving) as opposed to continual increase (modeling)? It seems as if almost all normal academic disciplines are now additive.

What makes a question a philosophical question precisely? For instance the question what makes a question a philosophical question" SOUNDS to me like a philosophical question But why? Is it that it's abstract? Well in what way does a question have to be abstract to qualify as abstract in a manner that makes it a philosophical question? Are there abstract questions that aren't philosophical? I suppose the question "Does so and so love me?" would be abstract in some sense since it deals with the abstract topic of love but it isn't a philosophical question. So then a philosophical question is more than simply an abstract question. Perhaps the question is philosophical because it was concerned in someway with what defines something. So the question "Do all mothers love?" seems very close to a philosophical question but it isn't since whether mothers love or not doesn't directly bear on what a mother is (or if it does it does so only by inference). But are there philosophical questions that are not concerned...

Does it put me in any particular philosophical camp to believe that most questions taken as philosophical questions could be made more tractable by first settling (or agreeing not to settle) issues of definition and acceptable evidence?

Is there a proper role for faith in philosophy, or do they function in distinct realms?

In one hundred years, will an accomplished philosopher also have to be an accomplished neurologist, or does the subject have something to say independent of advances in brain science (posed another way, if we become ultra intelligent humans/machines with thinking capacities far in excess of our current brain, will we still partake in philosophy)?

Is there such a thing as neurophilosophy?