Philosophers typically distinguish between a priori and a posteriori beliefs, knowledge, justification, and propositions. A belief is a priori if it is derived from reason, and it is a posteriori if it is derived from sense experience. Similarly, we would say that we know a priori that ‘a closed, n-sided figure has n interior angles’ because our knowledge is derived from reason in that we understand the concept of a closed, n-sided figure and thus know the statement is true. On the other hand, we know a posteriori that ‘Americans drive on the right’ because in justifying this belief, we appeal to sense experience; perhaps we have seen for ourselves that Americans drive on the right or we've read about it in a book or seen it in a movie.

This paper articulates and defends two theses due to Richard Paul and Linda Elder. First, creative thought and critical thought cannot be separated. Second, the intellectual traits constitutive of critical thinking are interdependent. The twin theses combined with certain impact studies show that study abroad enhances both creativity and criticality. The primary value of such gains resides in their potential to realize not only the Socratic ideal of rationality but also the Diogenean ideal of cosmopolitanism. The former consists in the cultivation of fair-minded, creative, and critical individuals and societies, whereas the latter consists in the cultivation of citizens of the world and the single community to which they belong. Since study abroad can lead to intellectual growth in participants, this paper recommends certain policies and practices to help ensure the desired gain.

In his immensely popular L’Irréligion de L'Avenir (The Non-Religion of the Future) J.M. Guyau showed that the soul has been invoked to account (among other things) for the difference between the living and the dead and for dreams. The breath, he said, was the most tangible thing, other than the blood, with which life could be definitely associated. It could even be heard leaving the body at the last gasp. It seems to be immaterial and invisible, so that it is not surprising that in many languages words for soul or spirit are derived from words meaning the breath or the wind. As for dreams, Guyau pointed out that the dreamer experiences adventures, yet is assured by his companions that he did not leave the room or the tent at all during the night, and that this could be explained by supposing that there is a soul that can leave the body, roam the country, and then return to its normal corporeal abode. In dreams one not only goes on adventures, but also meets friends and talks with them, yet thereafter they know nothing of the meeting. Some semblance of them had therefore been separated from their bodies without their knowledge. Sometimes these simulacra belong to the dead and must therefore represent some portion of those persons that survived death.

Almost without exception, those in the West who think that homosexual behavior is morally wrong are Christians (the belief that all homosexual behavior is wrong is also common among the devotees of other Abrahamic religions, e.g. Islam, and perhaps among other cultural groups elsewhere in the world). But is it true that, assuming a traditional Christian worldview, there are strong reasons to think that all homosexual behavior is morally wrong? Traditionally, Christians have appealed to three independent sources to justify any given belief: church tradition, scripture, and reason. If a Christian is justified in believing that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, his reasons must appeal one of these three sources. As it turns out, however, this is a difficult trick to turn. None of these sources provides a clear reason to think that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, and at least one of them provides a clear reason for thinking that, in at least some cases, it is morally permissible.

Recently, I wandered into a substantial research library in downtown Sydney – the State Library of New South Wales. A moment prior, I had been evading cars, listening unwillingly to city noises. The next moment, I was inside the library: elegance, peace, stillness – books enveloping me. The library's reading room: an imposing collection, especially of non-fiction. So I sat; I pondered; and I raised my eyes to the surrounding walls of books. Calmness for a while; until suddenly I was troubled. A fundamental philosophical problem about the nature of that room had crept into my mind. Here is the story of my collision with that problem – and of how I tried to resolve it.

As our wealth increases, more and more of us undergo cosmetic surgery. From tummy tucks, breast enlargements and nose jobs to hair transplants and face-lifts: You name it, they fix it.

‘Mom's Maxim’ states that it is impolite to discuss religion or politics in mixed company. Instead, Aikin and Talisse want us to heed Mill's Principle: ‘He who knows only his own side of a case knows little of that.’ They want us actively to engage in debate with those who may disagree with us. To fail to do so may lead to irresponsible judgements, implied if not actually stated, of all those who hold positions different from our own. This points to a ‘dark side’ of Mom's Maxim.

According to Socrates, an unexamined life is not worth living. This view is controversial. Is the unexamined life worth living or not? Most philosophers disagree about the answer. While some argue for the worthlessness of an unexamined life, others support the superfluity of self critical examination. In his recent article, Jamison pooh-poohed the claim that an unexamined life is not worth living. According to Jamison, not only is an unexamined life worth living; the rigorous examination of life should not be encouraged due to its possible negative effects on the participants and the entire society. In Jamison's view, a consistent and unregulated examination of human life produces a feeling of ecstasy (a specie of spiritual feeling) in those who engage in it. The feeling, if allowed, could endanger both the thinker and the entire society. For Jamison, “once you get a taste of this kind of thing, you do not want to give it up”. Someone who engages in self-critical examination eventually becomes entangled with it. Socrates became entangled in dialectics, became unpopular, was accused of corrupting the youth and eventually sentenced to death.

Issues concerning the ultimate origins of the universe have generated huge public interest recently. It began with the publication of The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, in which the authors claim that, because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing, and thus there is no role for God. This has prompted heated responses from scientists, philosophers, and religious leaders in the media, many of them asking, in effect, ‘where that law came from’. Subsequently, Roger Penrose released his new book Cycles of Time, arguing that what came before the Big Bang was the end of another universe, prompting the question whether there is an infinite temporal regress of universes or not. These discussions make it very timely to examine afresh whether an infinite temporal regress of events is possible.