Is there a handy rule for determining which questions can be resolved with a correct answer, and which questions cannot? I get caught up in trying to answer questions like, "What is love?" and "Is justice a beneficial value?" No matter how satisfied I am with the answers I come up with, I find other people who offer equally satisfying answers from other perspectives. For instance, I generally argue that artistic merit exists in the relationship between an audience and a man-made production. A statue of Adonis is just a statue of Adonis, but it becomes art when I see it and I am inspired by it in some way. One of my buddies hates this view of art. To him, artistic merit exists in the independent spirit of the artist, striving against conventions. So we both dig The Velvet Underground, The Beatles, and Miles Davis, but we cannot agree on James Taylor. He thinks Taylor's music is banal and devoid of artistic merit because it panders to a mainstream sensibility, whereas I find some of his albums to...

What can make a philosophical theory "trivial"? Is triviality different from circularity?

I am a philosophy student in my second year and was disturbed by a conversation in my "philosophy of mind" course. The students were bashing philosophy as a discipline: "a fun waste of time", "sitting and thinking" for a living rather than finding a real job, etc. I'm sure you get the picture. I was discouraged by this. rather than being surrounded by others with a deep passion for philosophy, i am surrounded by shallow thinkers. My question is, how should one go about handling criticisms of this kind, both internally, as well as in social situations as mentioned above? it seems useless to defend myself to those who hold such opinions, but that doesn't mean i want the majority (and it really is most people i meet) to be holding on to those negative stereotypes. How often do you find yourself in these kinds of situations?

Is there a point at which a person can rightly dismiss a philosophical statement or even an entire philosophical system because it originated with a person of dubious character or intent, but (here's the catch) without committing the ad hominem fallacy in doing so? I am thinking of extreme examples, such as (alleged) philosophical systems created by, say, New Age healers, cult leaders, etc. Or, conversely, would it be necessary even in these extremely examples to address only the philosophical claims made by these movements -- one by one -- instead of addressing the character of the founders themselves in order to avoid the ad hominem?

Does worthwhile Philosophy start with good questions or can it start with the proper mood? I am an International Relations major and have decided on writing my honors thesis on a question of political philosophy, not because I have a burning question, but rather because it was the subject I enjoyed the most and because I want to understand whether or not it is something I'd like pursuing in the future in the form of a postgraduate degree. I often find myself in what I - and some friends- call a "Philosophical mood" -though the friends are not without irony when the employ the term- i.e. in the mood for thinking and discussing dispassionately about what I am passionate about. I think Heidegger privileged moods as a way to knowing. I've decided researching the nature of power and the use of this concept in twentieth-Century political thought because I want to satisfy my mood, not because it seems like a burning question. Can real philosophy come from this? Is it (I know it is unscientific) silly to pursue...

Why has philosophy been marginalized by society?

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?

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)?