Thank you for your question. If analytic philosophy is understood as a way of engaging with philosophical questions that emphasizes clarity, rigor, and the giving of reasons for what one asserts, then Socrates has a good claim to count as an analytic philosopher. On the other hand, if analytic philosophy is construed as a logic-chopping activity obsessed with definitions and minute distinctions, then Socrates would probably not count as an analytic philosopher. I would like to think that analytic philosophy is better described by the first rather than the second account, though I admit that to outsiders, the second account may seem apt. More important, we see Socrates in many dialogues challenging his interlocutors to clarify themselves, to give arguments for their views (and he gives plenty of his own), and to face up to the consequences of their positions. That is a great deal of what modern analytic philosophers aspire to. If there is a difference between Socrates' approach and what is dominant...

Thank you for your question. If analytic philosophy is understood as a way of engaging with philosophical questions that emphasizes clarity, rigor, and the giving of reasons for what one asserts, then Socrates has a good claim to count as an analytic philosopher. On the other hand, if analytic philosophy is construed as a logic-chopping activity obsessed with definitions and minute distinctions, then Socrates would probably not count as an analytic philosopher. I would like to think that analytic philosophy is better described by the first rather than the second account, though I admit that to outsiders, the second account may seem apt. More important, we see Socrates in many dialogues challenging his interlocutors to clarify themselves, to give arguments for their views (and he gives plenty of his own), and to face up to the consequences of their positions. That is a great deal of what modern analytic philosophers aspire to. If there is a difference between Socrates' approach and what is dominant...

Thank you for your question, which is a good one. It is not, however, clear what you mean in saying that language is a cage we inhabit. That presupposes that we have a reasonably clear idea what it would be to live outside of language. However, language is so integral to human thought and experience that it is not easy to understand what it might mean to live "outside" of language. Nevertheless, there is rich and rewarding work in the ways in which language can "bewitch" us. Some of that has been produced by adherents to the so-called Ordinary Language movement in philosophy. Gilbert Ryle was among them, and his book _Dilemmas_ is an accessible and intriguing discussion of the various problems that arise for thought when it is bewitched in the way that you allude to. Even though the book was published about a half-century ago, it still repays study today. Mitch Green

Thanks for your questions. I'll address them separately since they're quite distinct. Question 1 I'm not sure that *most* philosophers talk in language incomprehensible to normal people, though I agree that some do. There are a number of reasons for why some do. (1) Some topics in philosophyare technical. You simply can't get very far these days in certain areas of metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science (especially including subfields like phil of physics and phil of biology), philosophy of language or even ethics without mastering a lot of jargon. I don't think there's much that can be done about this, since these discussions need to make use of clearly defined technical terms to avoid confusion. In this respect the situation is not so different from math or biology. Here's a big qualification, though: In these cases the discussions are not *incomprehensible*. That would imply that they cannot be understood. Rather, they *can* be understood, but this just requires...

Thank you for your interesting question. I can't speak very generally here, since I've never systematically surveyed my colleagues on this issue. I do know plenty of philosophers who don't do anything special to protect their mental health. On the other hand, many of us do try some warmup and cooldown techniques. For instance, before hunkering down to hard work I like to spend a little time reading the news as recently ingested coffee starts to take its effects. Usually within fifteen minutes or half an hour I'm ready for the heavy lifting. Similarly, metaphysics is not good bedtime reading! That is, philosophy is not the best thing for getting to sleep, not just because it's challenging, but also because it can give one some pretty bizarre dreams. Many of the outlandish thought experiments that philosophers love to dream of can make for crazy dreams later on. I know a handful of colleagues who follow this practice of taking in only l0w-key bedtime reading, and of warming up in the way I...

Thank you for your question. I can't hope to answer it at all comprehensively. Instead I'll try to give a smattering of highlights, and some pointers as to where you might look to learn more. Among the questions that philosophers tried to answer at this time were: ' What is it to be virtuous, and can virtue be taught? What is the soul, and does it survive the destruction of the body? What is the best organization for a society to follow in order to be just? What, at the most fundamental level, is the physical world made of? (Proffered answers included fire, water, and atoms.) In what sense, if any, might the future be "real"? There are lots of others. For a rewarding discussion that puts philosophical inquiry into a broader social and historical context, I would strongly suggest the classic _The Greeks_ by H.D. Kitto. Once you've gone through that, you can't go wrong by looking at some dialogues by Plato, in which the author purports to report various discussions his...

You're not the first one to observe a negative correlation between being an eminent philosopher and being married! If there's an explanation for this, I suppose my armchair sociology would lead me to expect it has to do with the fact that philosophy is both fascinating and challenging, and has a way of making its practitioners obsessive. In this way, it's perhaps a bit like mathematics. Both are topics that it's quite hard to just forget when you leave the office or study. As a result, it might not be so much that the idea of a spouse leaves one cold, but that one doesn't have the energy to pay attention to a spouse after wrestling with a philosophical problem for days or months. On the other hand, Berkeleywas married, Locke never married but was involved with Damaris Cudworth, and Mill was married. More recently, Quine and Rawls were married. At any rate, my point is that there are plenty of exceptions to your rule, and many of us who have savored philosophy also find great of appeal in...