This is a nice question, and one variants of which have been turningup lately in the advice columns in newspapers. I don't have anyfirsthand experience of cybersex, but from what I understand, it is akind of virtual sex, involving assumed identities and purely electronicinteractions. So, is it a sexual encounter? I would say 'yes' and 'no'.On the 'yes' side, it is an encounter of some sort--it involvescommunication, back-and-forth response, mutual acknowledgment--and itclearly has a sexual content or character. On the 'no' side, it is notliterally sex, which would seem to require, at a minimum, physicalproximity and contact, and certainly it has little of the practicalconsequences or risks of literal sexual interaction. I suppose it iscloser to phone sex than it is to literal sex, but with greatershifting or concealing of identity. (I should say, for the record, thatmy knowledge ofphone sex comes only from Seinfeld episodes and Nicholson Baker's novel Vox !) Anyway, the answer to whether you are...

Assuming that in some sense no statement can be true unless it corresponds to reality or to how things are, which is not that bad a principle, the possibly true statement in question, note, is not, say, that absolutely nothing exists (which, as the other respondent suggests, has a tricky logical grammar), but most likely, that there being absolutely nothing is possible, or a possible state of affairs. Well, that might indeed be true, but then it does also correspond to reality, in the sense that reality, as we understand it, indeed contains or admits of that possibility.

I don't disagree with the first respondent, but I'll give you a somewhat different response, and taking my cue from the 'Bonjour' with which you open, will give it en français. (If the cue was misleading, I'll be happy to translate subsequently!) Premièrement, la beauté est une chose rare et précieuse, et ceux ou celles qui s'en réjouissent ne devrait jamais se sentir coupable à son égard. Deuxièmement, même si la beauté n'était qu'une affaire d'esthétique, qui dit que l'esthétique est moins importante que l'éthique, ou que l'esthétique ne comprend pas, d'une certaine optique, un aspect éthique? (Certainement pas Kant!) Troisièmement, personne n'arrive vraiment à négliger ou à nier complètement les valeurs de la societé entourante; de plus, ces valeurs ne sont jamais avec du moins une certaine justification. Quatrièmement, c'est vrai que la beauté ouvre beaucoup de portes qui autrement resteraient fermées, mais ce n'est pas la sagesse de refuser d'y entrer pour cette raison seule; on n'a que d'y entrer...

I think you are correct to think that expanding one's vocabulary expands one's ability to think, because it expands one's ability to formulate thoughts of greater complexity and sensitizes one to subtle distinctions one may not otherwise have noted. It also makes one's thinking and communication more efficient, if one is able to deploy 'flange', rather than 'something that sticks out from something else with some purpose or other...', and or to categorize someone as 'pusillanimous', rather than as 'someone who behaves in such and such ways...' Relatedly, one of the fascinations of learning other languages is becoming more aware of the distinctions and categories recognized in one's own language, which are not always the same as those recognized in other languages. Both expanding one's grasp of one's native language and acquiring facility in other languages is in effect a way of becoming more aware of one's conceptual scheme, or perhaps equivalently, of alternate ways of dividing and organizing reality....

I think it's true that philosophers tend to be single more often than non-philosophers, but I'm not sure I would attribute that to their being bound by the dictates of practical reason to regularly and overtly draw the attention of their partners to their moral or prudential failings. It may rather be, perhaps, that philosophers are on the average more argumentative, more idiosyncratic, more perfectionist than other folk, and more needful of personal time and private space for reflection and writing. But going back to reason, I think there's no good argument that a commitment to rationality, which we'll assume no respectable philosopher will shirk, requires one to act as a monitor and corrector of those around one, especially those one loves, since as you suggest, love is more important than being right or improving others. That isn't to say that you should never try to modify the behavior of others for the better by your own, presumably fallible, lights, and in ways that will also benefit them,...