Hmmmm. Not sure which "you" you have in mind, perhaps a particular panelist who made this claim? However, I shall venture a reply as to why someone might think philosophy is not merely a matter of cleverness. Beginning in Ancient Greece the practice of philosophy was distinguished from the practice of the sophists. "Philosophy" comes from the Greek the love of wisdom, whereas the Greek word for sophists (sophistes) refers to those who profess to make people wise. The sophists were judged to be clever insofar as they were well trained in argument (they were especially interested in persuasive speech, rhetoric, language), but not principally motivated by the love of the good, the true and the beautiful. Studying with a sophist might equip you to argue for or against any point, much as a lawyer or somoene in a debating society may be trained to argue or defend any point, depending upon who hires the person or what thesis the debaters have been assigned. This may, I suggest, be a matter of being...

Yes, there is a book just out that you might like, called Philosophy for Everyone: Cannabis: http://www.amazon.com/Cannabis-Philosophy-Everyone-Talking-About/dp/1405199679 The sub-title is quite fun: "What were we just talking about?" That book, just published last year, should give you lots to consider. Probably the most positive treatment of psychotropic drugs by a philosophically minded author is Aldous Huxley's The Doors of Perception.

It sounds as though you really touched a raw nerve given your professor's (or "teacher's") reaction! It might not be a great idea to write your first paper for him or her defending Rand, but, on the other hand, if your professor is truly philosophical in the best sense (open to counter-arguments) maybe that is a challenge you should consider!!!! In fact, it might even be a great learning experience for both you and the professor to not let the issue be settled by his or her pronouncement. On Rand and Philosophy: Rand was certainly an intelligent writer who engages important philosophical ideas and she was an effective novelist. Last spring I actually did a tutorial / independent study with a student on Rand's work; I believe both the student and I found the project rewarding. In the general sense of the word "philosophy" and "philosopher" I see no reason not to use both with respect to objectivism and of her, but this is not at all widely recognized in the profession. I could be wrong about this...

Thank you for this inquiry! Some philosphers have been quite frank about the ways in which their philosophy can rupture their contentment or be a source of anxiety and some philosophers have even explicitly used their anxiety as a source for philosophical work (e.g. Kierkegaard in his book The Concept of Anxiety, sometimes translated as The Concept of Dread, 1844). On a different front, David Hume famously observed how he had to seek relief from some of his skeptical worries by playing games (backgammon) in social settings. I think you are right to observe that anxiety can indeed run amok; it can either immobilize one or have one running in opposite directions (one hour accepting one theory, then embracing an alternative, then...). Some philosophers (including Linda Zagzebski and Keith Lehrer) have recently contended that a key virtue in philosophy (and perhaps in thinking, in general) is self-trust. Without trusting our own faculties and judgments (cognitive powers), we are lost. Maybe in...

A great many philosophers today think that, yes, philosophy or a philosophical approach to life need not involve any religious beliefs or practices and yet it can be deeply satisfying in what may be called a spiritual manner. Among the panelists on this site, Louse Antony is in that position or that is what seems to emerge in the book Professor Antony edited: Philosophers Without God. Owen Flanagen and the late Robert Solomon have published books arguing for an explicitly spiritual approach to life on atheistic or non-theistic grounds (there is also the UK philosopher Grayling who has published in this area). For these thinkers "spirituality" does not suggest the transcendent, but it has more to do with living life with reverence, respect, love / compassion, and more. You might check out Solomon's book Spirituality for the Skeptic or Flanagen's The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World. There is also Wesley Wildman's Science and Religious Anthropology: A Spiritually evocative naturalist...

Great question! The answer will depende on the type of philosophical claim. So, in philosophy of science, presumably a philosopher will employ the history of science, appeal to current scientific practices and discoveries, and consider a host of issues and arguments that may be relevant --these may include appeals to moral experience and ethical theories, appeals to ordinary experience or phenomenology and so on. Concerning the latter, if a philosopher is considering a claim about human nature that denies the existence of consciousness (as some have), then the philosopher may seek to reply by appealing to what it appears that we all know in our first-person experience. Galen Strawson has done (in my mind) an excellent job in exposing the difficulties of denying consciousness (as has John Searle, Thomas Nagel, and others). The point I am trying to make with regard to philosophy of science will also be true to philosophy of art (evidence for claims may involve appeals to the history of art, etc) and...

Great question! As it happens, just this fall a new book has come out: Cannabis and Philosophy edited by Dale Jacquette with multiple articles, mostly in favor of the use of cannabis in moderation. Michel LeGall and I (under the title "The Great Escape") actually defend the permissibility of moderate cannabis use in response to some moral and religious (mostly Christian and Islamic) objections. In the world of philosophy, there has been little explicit attention given to mind-altering substances except with respect to alcohol and then mostly wine. Most philosophers who do discuss drinking wine defend it or seem to assume it is acceptable in moderation. Pascal comments somewhere that if you do not drink wine you will not find the truth, but if you drink too much you will wind up in the same state (without truth). Cicero and Erasmus both wrote against excessive drinking. Although perhaps more of a novelist and free thinker than philosopher, Aldous Huxley does offer a case for psychotropic drugs in...

Great question! I have been reading and contributing to this site since last May and believe that there is very little in the way of philosophers claiming absolute I-could-not-possibly-be-wrong certainty. I believe this is why there is so little use of the word "prove" or "refute" in our discipline --unless the topic is logic. For example, I adopt a version of natural law theory of ethics as opposed to (for example) utilitarianism, but I would not claim to be able to prove the truth of natural law theory or refute utilitarianism. Moreover, except perhaps in technical matters of scholarship, I wager that very few (if any) of us would ever want readers to rely on our replies unless readers themselves considered the reasons offered good ones. Of course, I could be wrong.....

Dear Juan J., Thank you for your question! Philosophical reflection on philosophy is sometimes called meta-philosophy. There was a journal of that name that included philosophical reflection on such topics as the progress of philosophy and the challenges of arguing across philosophical frameworks. And some philosophers have famously set forth a whole system of inquiry and conclusions that address what you refer to as the form of problems and solutions, whether these concern the natural world or values or what today may be called theology, and so on. Aristotle was the first to do this with great systematic care. One can find deep progress on such matters in the work of Plato, but I suggest it was Aristotle who was able to be more systematic and comprehensive. Aquinas and Kant are also towering figures who articulated detailed, systematic accounts of philosopophical methodology as well as contributing to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and more. But as a philosophy enthusiast and future...

What an unusual and interesting question! Before replying directly, I wonder about your use of "only." Metaphors can be true or false, and are not necessarily less precise than literal or non-metaphorical terms. With that caveat, various promising philosophical conclusions do seem to involve metaphors. So, consider John Rawls' account of justice in terms of what rational, self-interested people would decide behind a veil of ignorance. I suppose one might claim this is a literal, non-metaphor, but Rawls is invoking a non-lieral usage of veil. Perhaps a more promising example (but not without controversy) would be philosophical arguments concerning God. Either pro-theisitic or atheistic arguments may well be seen as arguments which use the term "God" as a descriptive, metaphorical noun. There is a massive literature on the extent to which "God" should be seen as a literal or analogical or metaphorical term. Other examples of when metaphors seem very much to be in play: Hume's bundle theory of the...