Have Zeno's paradoxes of motion actually been satisfactorily solved? Physicists and mathematicians I've read on the matter seem to regard them as no longer important, but never explain convincingly (for my money) why they're not still important. Have philosophers said anything interesting about them recently? Could you either succinctly explain how they've been solved or point me in the direction of good recent discussions?

In paradoxes such as the Epimenides 'liar' example, is it not sufficient to say that all such sentences are inherently contradictory and therefore without meaning? Like Chomsky's 'the green river sleeps furiously', it's a sentence, to be sure, but that's all it is. Thanks in advance :)

Can you define logical validity? I'm engaged in a debate on the subject, with a friend, whom will not easily accept anyones word on the matter, so i would ask that you perhaps post your credentials? thank you for you time and effort!

How important is the study of logic in philosophy, independent of any one particular philosopher or school of philosophy? Is 'logic' considered a 'neutral' subject about which 'everyone' agrees? or are there some contentious issues about what 'kind' of 'logic' applies in different kinds of situations?

On what grounds are the three classic laws of thought rendered 'true'? Is there a more fundamental law which enables us to see the law of identity, the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction as true? If not, how can we claim that they are anything more than guidelines for thought?

Hello All, My question is if someone makes an argument using conditional statements is the argument necessarily deductive? Basically the person claims because I am using If . . . .then clauses then that makes my argument deductive by default. I was under the impression that some conditional arguments can still be inductive based on the context of the argument. So if I claim not all conditional arguments are deductive am I correct or incorrect?

What is the metaphysical nature of logic itself? When we refer to a basic principle of logic (such as non-contradiction) are we referring to something that exists which we call “non-contradiction”? Or is it simply an abstraction that doesn’t exist naturally or non-naturally?

It has been said that if there is human freedom, then we are responsible for our actions. By this, it seems natural to suppose that "given that there is no human freedom (let's just suppose for the sake of argument) then it would follow that we are not responsible for our actions." But this seems an instance of what is called the "fallacy of denying the antecedent". Is this really an instance of the fallacy or is it an exemption to the case because personally I don't see any error in the form of the argument.

I often hear arguments that go like this but I don't know how to respond to them. "Not everyone who is bullied develops behavioral problems or not everyone who is sexually abused develops a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia." These kinds of arguments often imply that because something doesn't happen to everyone then there is no causal relationship between a stimulus and an event. But that seems wrongheaded because though not every ball falls into a pocket after a break in a game of pool that doesn't mean that the cue ball/stick along with the person making the break didn't cause those balls to fall in the pockets. You could also use the same form of argument to argue against more popular beliefs such as the idea that soldiers experience PTSD because of their wartime experiences. So what exactly is wrong with those kinds of arguments assuming I am right in believing they are wrongheaded?

Would someone please clarify the importance of the distinction between a) either A is true, or Not A is true and b) either A is true, or A is not true I've seen answers on this site in which the difference between those two formulations is very important, but I'm not quite sure why. Thank you.