In what category, now that 'politics' seems to have been removed from the site would I best find questions and answers relating to the quite large field of political philosophy?

Is there an "unconscious", or "subconscious", and if so why hold that such an entity exists.

As a teacher of high school mathematics and a former student of philosophy, I try to merge the two to engage my students in meaningful conversations about the significance of some mathematical properties. Recently, however, I could not adequately defend the statement "a=a" as being necessary for our study of geometry when one student challenged "When is a never NOT equal to a?" What would you tell them? (One student did offer the defense that "Well, if we said a=2 and a=5 then a=a would be false, causing problems.")

Would we be correct to say that, in a sense, Wittgenstein(2) eliminated the need for the Kantian distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal? I'm thinking more about Remarks on the Foundations on Mathematics and On Certainty and less about the Investigations ... More precisely, if all that can be said can be said in natural language alone--therefore in the context of a language game--then aren't we unable to think/speak of a reality "behind" or "outside" of the games? If we can't express "empirical facts" otherwise but within language games, then aren't we unavoidably committed to the rules of one particular game or another? (If we attempt to deconstruct the way we "play" with phrases such as "the real world" or "the noumenal", can we go further than Nietzsche's allegorical evolution and mystification of the real world in Twilight of Idols ?) Is the noumenal nothing more than something we artificially construct by logical opposition to our mundane experience of knowing, thinking,...

If, through free will, we take only those actions that we choose to take (barring physical enforcement or life/death situations), then where does the concept of 'external influence' fit in, and are we not then ultimately accountable for all the decisions we make in life, even self-destructive ones (the battered wife, the addict, the gangbanger teenager, etc.)?

In intelligent design theory, what exactly are the ID scientists comparing life to, to determine its complexity?

Where does the universe end?

I have heard philosophers propose that thought is dependent upon language: that without language one cannot have thoughts, that we can think of thoughts as sentences, etc. There seems to be a strong correlation, in many philosophers' writings, between thoughts and sentences of a language. In some limited sense, this makes sense to me. Creatures that clearly do not have language (platypuses, say) do not seem to have thoughts; whatever goes through their heads, they do not seem to do what we do when we think. And for those of us who do have language skills, thoughts take the form of sentences in whatever language(s) we speak. But philosophers often assume that thoughts just ARE those sentences, that it is nonsensical even to say that "thoughts take the form of sentences in a language". But how can the ability to think depend on the possession of language skills? If a human baby were never taught to speak or to understand a language, and thus arrived at the age of 30 with no language skills, would...

If people did not fear death, is it likely that religion as we know it would not exist?

Why do some people have "good taste" and others have "bad taste"?