But isn't there an odd tension between saying that you would like to write and take part in the exchange of philosophical ideas and saying that you have no interest in teaching? Isn't teaching In a university (the kind of teaching for which a PhD is required) one sort of exchange of ideas? And isn't it a particularly valuable one for the teachers who are thereby forced to make their ideas as clear and accessible as they can and to respond to the challenges of their students who in turn can teach them so much? How many philosophers can do good work without the constant challenges thrown up in their teaching?

I'm not sure what is meant by "prefer to teach ideas that depend on symbolic logic". Most departments teach e.g. aesthetics, political philosophy, the history of early modern philosophy, the philosophy of mind, and so on and so forth -- and symbolic logic features little if at all in those courses. (When did you last see a quantifier when discussing how it is that we can apply emotion terms to music, or discussing whether we can justify more than a minimal state, etc., etc.?) And a concern for clarity has little to do with symbolic logic (and nothing at all to do with 'higher order' languages). Clarity matters because we want to seek the truth co-operating with other enquirers. And we can't co-operate with other enquirers by together subjecting our conjectures to stern test and criticism and proposing revisions if we can't manage to make ourselves very plainly understood to each other. Of course there are always intellectual pseuds who get off on talking to themselves with willful obscurity ...

1. I don't think there is any reason to suppose that learning about mathematical logic from Principia to Gödel will be any help at all in understanding what is going on with the Frankfurt School. (The only tenuous connection I can think of is that the logical positivists were influenced by developments in logic, and the Frankfurt School were concerned inter alia to give a critique of positivism. But since neither the authors of Principia nor Gödel were positivists, it would be better to read some of the positivists themselves if you want to know what the Frankfurt School were reacting against). 2. Of course, I think finding out a bit about mathematical logic is fun for its own sake: but it is mathematics and to really understand I'm afraid there is not much for it other than working through some increasingly tough books called the likes of "An Introduction to Logic" followed by "Intermediate Logic" and then "Mathematical Logic". Still, you can get a distant impression of what's going on...

Shame on your school! :-)After a basic logic you can either go deeper (more of the same, but pursued to greater depth), or go wider (look at logics that deal with more than do sentential and predicate logic -- modal logic, for example, which has primitive operators for "necessarily" and "possibly" -- and also look at rivals to classical logic. Going a bit deeper: try David Bostock Intermediate Logic , OUP ; Ian Chiswell & Wilfrid Hodges, Mathematical Logic, OUP (not as advanced as its title might suggest). Going a bit wider: try Rod Girle, Modal Logics and Philosophy , Acumen; Graham Priest, An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic (2nd edn: CUP ). Some of each: John Bell, David DeVidi, Graham Solomon, Logical Options (Broadview Press).

You ask a grad student ... Well, I semi-jest, but a good way of making a start on some new topic is indeed to ask someone what the two or three recent "must read" items are. And reading these will firstly tell you whether you are going to find the topic fun/profitable to pursue, and no doubt the bibliographies at the end of the papers or books will give you lots of pointers for where to go next if your decide you want more. If you haven't someone on hand to advise (or someone suitable at the end of an email, or among your facebook/twitter friends), I'd start with the relevant Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, if there is one yet. They vary from good to stunningly good, and usually have amazingly good bibliographies too. And to fill the gap between bibliographies (necessarily backwards looking, and usually a few years out of date) and the current state of play, you can look at the Philosopher's Index (a bibliographical database any university library should have access to), and ...

Isn't that simply a false dichotomy? You need the good questions and the right spirit of enquiry. If you've no clear, well-formulated, questions then you'll just produce an ill-directed ramble. If you aren't driven by curiosity actually to explore the good questions, if you lack the desire to follow the argument wherever it leads, then nothing will come of having raised the questions! But I'd just add that there is nothing at all special about philosophy here. It's the same whether cosmology or molecular biology, history or the study of ancient Athens are your thing. Enquiry needs to be guided by good questions and driven on by the right spirit of 'wonder'. Or at least that's the ideal! Of course, there's lots of routine hack work in science and history, mechanically grinding away in a low grade way. And equally --- though don't spread the word too enthusiastically! -- there's lots of routine hack work in philosophy (regrettable, maybe, but people do need publications for tenure, and...

When it comes to moving from the BA to beginning graduate studies, the only thing (in my experience) that grad schools really care about is just how smart you are at philosophy. So they will take note of how well you did in the BA, of what your referees write about you, and (probably most importantly) they'll make their own independent assessment of the quality of the samples of written work that they ask for. Extra-curricular activities and declarations of passion count for little!

The short answer is: yes, you are right, a course on modal logic would be the one that probably will relate a little to a philosophy of religion course (it will help you understand e.g. modal ontological arguments). But I think it is worth saying a bit more. I'd be a little worried if one of my first-year students said "I'm primarily interested in the philosophy of X " for any X . After all, philosophy is a subject where topics don't compartmentalize easily but connect up in deep and unexpected ways. Beginners should be exploring widely, and leaving themselves open to being gripped by all kinds of problems -- what I like at this stage is a student who says "the philosophy of Y is really exciting: that's what I want to do " one week, and then comes back three weeks later and says "wow, this philosophy of Z course is amazing". And I'd be particularly worried if someone focussed too hard too early on a small area of applied philosophy like the philosophy of religion. This is a...

Indeed, there are all kinds of commentaries written on the works of the Great Dead Philosophers, at various levels of sophistication. But it isn't clear to me why "the average person" would particularly want to read the works of the Great Dead Philosophers -- unless gripped by the idea that those works are somehow full of timeless pearls of wisdom. But that's not a happy idea. Those old works are, of course, very much creatures of their times, responding to intellectual concerns of their times (concerns which might overlap with ours, but which are also very different in subtle and complex ways), and typically bringing to bear all kinds of hidden assumptions of their times. That's why the Great Dead Philosophers can often be so baffling: they can seem to talking about issues that we half-recognize, but often in ways that initially make little sense. And that's why we need the commentaries, to help us see where our predecessors were coming from. (Think for example just how much philosophy over the...

It is rather difficult to believe that you have correctly describe your assigned task -- is it really to write at length about the notion of being in the Sophist without consulting any commentaries or interpretative essays? Well, not to beat about the bush, that project strikes me as simply ludicrous . You need all the help you can get if you are to work your way into a text some two and half thousand years old (in fact, I take it you are relying on a translation which has already made some interpretative moves that themselves raise issues): it is just absurd to pretend otherwise. Unless, I suppose, the point is to reveal to you the impossibility of the enterprise and make you appreciate that relative beginners need the commentators and the philosophical interpreters -- but then that is a pretty dumb way of getting you to see what is already an obvious truth.