Hume said that "reason is the slave of passion". I think recent philosophers translate it as "only desires motivate; beliefs don't". But consider the belief that some action gives pleasure. Isn't it an intrinsically motivating belief? Doesn't it motivate one to perform that action?

Ernst Mach asserted the the world consists entirely of sensations. Does this make him a solipsist, and how might one refute him?

I am having a little trouble distinguishing the difference between the Dionysian and Apollinian artists that Nietzsche talks about. Any way you could clarify?

Is there a particular reason that Socrates chose to present his work in the form of dialogues (as opposed to, say, essays)?

After reading so many eulogies for Richard Rorty lately, I'm interested in learning more. What would be a good starting point for reading Rorty for a layman who took a handful of college philosophy courses many years ago?

I have been reading Kant recently and have wondered what his stance would be on homosexuality, not in marriage, but just in general. It seems that he would say it is immoral because it goes against one's duty, since if everyone was homosexual, there would be no new babies. Can this be true? Is there something else in Kant's thinking that would contradict this?

Richard Rorty is dead and I think philosophy is poorer for it. But I have found during my undergraduate philosophy studies that most Anglo-American academics are largely hostile towards most of what he has written. Perhaps some one or more members panel can confirm this widespread hostility and articulate the more common reasons behind it.

In "Betraying Spinoza" by Rebecca Goldstein, it is stated that Spinoza was influenced by Plato rather than Aristotle. As far as I can tell, this was not explained. What is the connection between Spinoza and Plato? Thank you.

Regarding Mill's (was it?) thought experiment about rather being Socrates dissatisfied than some caged subspecies with a non-ending supply of food. My thought is that the objection "YOU can't be (or justifiably imagine yourself as) someone else" is a non-trivial one. In fact, it seems to me a crushing one to the whole thought experiment. You can't be Socrates; you can't have his wisdom and your consciousness since all of it was a package and defined him, as distinct from you. I also have an inkling that this whole division of someone into parts: consciousness, wisdom, emotional control, etc., is a non-helpful one and gives us the wrong picture of our identities. From personal experience I can attest that the addition of life experience has changed my consciousness, as has the addition of book knowledge. So if I had Socrates' wisdom I would have his consciousness (if we must divide it this way) and I would BE him. Isn't it entirely more productive to think about how WE could be happy as ourselves,...

How can a rational philosopher attempt to understand philosophers, such as Heidegger, Derrida or Foucault? These philosophers claim to be against the method of reason. Can a philosopher still philosophize without using reason?