@Twirlip,
The solution (not mine) to Russell's paradox is to redefine classes hierarchically. The class of all cars is on a different level than cars. Likewise, the class of all classes is on a different level than classes. So, it doesn't contain itself.
Twirlip wrote:Explain how a person's behaviour can have motivations of which they are not conscious.
I'm not sure how that's philosophical? Explain how it couldn't? *shrugs* Where's the conceptual problem here?
Twirlip wrote:Explain the content of one of your own moral judgements (not one of someone else's).
I respond emotionally to certain situations and thereby form a system of personal values. They aren't correct values. They are simply my values and if you don't like them then we have to settle it by whatever means, violence if necessary.
One of these values is that I treat people how they want to be treated while assuming they also want the same for me. I don't hurt people because I don't want to be hurt. I don't empty my wallet to strangers because I assume they wouldn't want me to.
Twirlip wrote:What is a person?
Whatever considers itself a person.
Twirlip wrote:What is a mental illness?
A psychological condition that comes about in a way that can't be attributed directly to the person but rather the physiology of the brain itself.
Twirlip wrote:What is the role played by the human nervous system in conscious experience?
I don't think this is really a conceptual problem, at least not yet. I'm looking for armchair problems.
Twirlip wrote:What does it mean to say that a set is finite?
It contains a limited number of members.
Twirlip wrote:Are there infinite sets?
That depends on whether or not the universe is infinite. That's not a conceptual question though.
Twirlip wrote:What is science?
Science is a social endeavor to obtain beliefs about reality that are useful, robust and hopefully true.
Twirlip wrote:What is reason?
The systematic application of principles for moving from proposition to proposition.
Twirlip wrote:What is mathematics?
The study of quantity. See Wikipedia.
Twirlip wrote:What is conservatism?
What is liberalism?
I also think Wikipedia will help you better here. These are just labels people apply to certain social groups.
Twirlip wrote:What does the word 'God' or 'god' mean?
An extremely powerful intelligence beyond, even in principle, comprehension.
Twirlip wrote:What is the meaning of sexual desire? Why, as persons rather than bodies, do we need sex?
Is that even true? Speaking as a guy, my body is usually leading the way.
Twirlip wrote:What does it mean to have worth? How can this be a rational judgement?
Something has worth when you would give up other things for it. It's rational only insofar as we compare the different values we assign to things. I give up a certain number of hours for a certain number of dollars because it's worth it to me. However, that worth is a personal value that is ultimately emotional and not rational.
Twirlip wrote:How is it possible to have purpose? How can this be a rational judgement?
We give ourselves purpose. Again, this is rational in how we compare our different values but how we obtain them is based on emotion and not reason.
Twirlip wrote:What is measurement, bearing in mind that it is always approximate?
A record of quantity.
Twirlip wrote:Can a phenomenon be paranormal but not supernatural?
Yes but not forever.
Twirlip wrote:Does synchronicity exist, and if so, what does it tell us about the world?
Again, this seems like a scientific question, not a philosophical one.
Twirlip wrote:What does quantum mechanics tell us about consciousness in relation to physical reality?
Nothing.
Twirlip wrote:Is there an ontology of everyday human life which is compatible with scientific knowledge?
Pragmatic skepticism.
Twirlip wrote:Is meat murder?
Legally, you can only murder another human. Let me assume you meant to ask if killing dumb animals is wrong. No, it's not wrong because they're dumb animals. They have no appreciation for their existence. This is just my opinion though.
Twirlip wrote:Can human beings handle the truth about political power, or are we always deluded?
Again, that's a factual question not a conceptual question.
