Wittgenstein said that anything that can be said can be said clearly; how should we view this contention in light of the fact that Wittgenstein's own writing is famously enigmatic (or at least aphoristic)?

Hegel wrote: "The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk." What did he mean? What is the owl of Minerva? And what might David Brooks be trying to convey when he writes in a recent column: "But that’s the perpetual tragedy of life: the owl of Minerva flies at dusk."

My interest has been piqued several times when coming across Socrates' famous quote "know thyself." However, I have heard that Socrates was not the original author of this particular statement. According to Wikipedia, it has been attributed to several authors. Can anyone please expand upon this phrase -- its origin (if possible) and what the author or authors meant (also if possible). Doing a Google book search on this phrase brings up a lot of different opinions in a lot of different publications. Literature recommendations would also be appreciated. Thank you!

First, I want to commend all the panelists for their efforts. I think this is a tremendous site that serves as an example of academia reaching out to the public. In my criminal law class, we are studying the purposes of punishment. We recently discussed Kant's deontological theory for why we should punish (as opposed to say a utilitarian theory, like deterrence). The argument is that Kant's theory is unconcerned with consequences. But, isn't his original moral code that binds the individual based on consequences? And if so, doesn't this undermine his theory of punishment? Thank you for your time.

Nietzsche seemed to believe that eternal recurrence was a reality if time were infinite, which we know it is not. Therefore, does anyone now take his views on this matters seriously (other than metaphorically as a guide to the type of life one might lead)?

What do legitimate philosophers think of Ken Wilber and his brand of pop philosophy/psychology? Wilber claims to have developed a framework that situates and contextualizes all of the world’s wisdom traditions and, by containing them, claims to have transcended their insights to a greater vision that can alone perceive their limitations. If Wilber (and his disturbingly devoted followers) are anywhere close to right, it would seem vital that every human involved in the search for truth should know him and his work, but he is virtually unknown outside of his undeniably new-agey audience. Does he have anything substantial to offer?

Is the study of "ancient philosophy", (i.e., Socrates, Plato, etc..) just a historical endeavor or is it still an important and fruitful field of philosophical study in itself? Seems to me that much philosophy, even pre-1800 or so, has been made irrelevant through relatively recent scientific studies. (I'm thinking about early philosophy on perception, for example.)

Is there such a concept as "Aristotelian love"? - as we know there is "Platonic love"... If so, what's it like? And if there isn't, what could it be like? Lou from Barcelona

Socrates said "It is better to suffer evil than to do it". I am trying to work out if a consequentialist could make good sense of this claim, if anyone can!

Ok, so these pre-socratics... How valuable were they? For example, could you explain how the following sentence makes any sense and what relevance it has to philosophy that has happened since Socrates? "He concludes as follows that nothig is: if something is, either what-is is or what-is-not is or both what-is and what-is-not are." (Sextus Empiricus, 'Against the Mathematicians' 7.65-86, on Gorgias)