Hi. I was reading Leibniz's work Monadology and he mentions "monads" and how they make up everything and how they have no extension and do not interact with one another. My question is: if monads cannot interact with one another and if humans are monads and so is food, for example, how do we get nutrition from food? Thanks. Roniel Chand San Francisco

I am a producer at a network news organization and am working on a piece on "cultural relativism" that will be televised later this year. My particular question is: how to describe cultural relativism in a way that the average television viewer would understand and is cultural relativism a GOOD or BAD thing?

In an illegal drug such as LSD, the chemical reaction with your brain causes you to see things, such as motion trails or lighting effects, that cannot be seen by someone who is not on the drug. Assuming that is true, would it be possible that LSD gives its user the ability to see something that actually exists but cannot be seen by the human eye without the chemical adjustment of the drug in the brain?

What is pain? Does pain really affect us, or is it a trick the mind plays to help protect us?

On the issue of gay marriage. What do philosophers think about the definition that politicians are suggesting should go into the constitution that marriage is the union between a man and a women? Is the definition valid?

I consider myself a staunch skeptic, and it puzzles me that I had 3 paranormal instances in which I have no doubt that objects, after falling from my hands, have disappeared before my very eyes or reappeared later in absurd places; I like to think that this is a mystical mischief of a friendly "ghost", for there have not been any consequences; I also think there are layers of different unfathomable dimensions that we will never know in this existence. Please elaborate. Eduardo Schwank. Guatemala City

I was reading Time magazine of August 15 of this year. I was curious about the fact about what would happen if natural selection is proved wrong? Then if it is proved wrong, is our understanding of the reality relative? And if it is relative, how are we sure that the way we understand our surroundings is the correct one? I really need you to answer this question because I am afraid of devoting my life to something that later will prove completely wrong. Thanks.

Question for someone religious probably: What is the significance of "faith," in religion? For example, why is the single most important thing in Christianity to have faith that Jesus is the son of God? Why wouldn't God let people just know all the answers?

When the 1st word was spoken (i.e., Oog the caveman says "rock"), could it have been really understood without a language in place? Could Oog have really understood he was saying rock unless he already had the system in place. In other words would Oog have to have a word for "I", "am", "going", "to", "name", and "this", etc.? In other words would not the 1st intelligent being to speak something intelligible have to have a basic language in place? If this is true, then what would be the ramifications of that? Maybe the question should be posed, "Is it possible to think without a language?"

I am an atheist. If there really is a "god", why is there no physical proof that he, she, it ever existed? Except for written words ... which, for all that we know, could be all lies so people can feel better about themselves.