On May 28, 2009, Jennifer Church wrote: "A more abstract reason for disallowing suicide concerns the apparent contradiction in the idea that we can improve a life by ending a life. The suicide's thought that she will be better off dead seems to contradict the fact that, if dead, she will not be anything. Her desire to retain control over her life by ending it in the way she wants to end seems to contradict the fact that there is no control over a life that has ended. There are other ways to express a suicidal intention, though, that do not lead to such contradictions." This has been haunting me since I first read it. As suggested, I am unable to devise a non-contradictory logic of suicide (for argument, base this thought on life being a biomechanical phenomenon, no after-life, and really no proof that anything at all remains in existance if you (the contemplator) are not conscious of it. This has taken on a particular poignancy as a friend has recently killed himself. I see existence continuing...

What is meant by the question "why is there something, rather than nothing?" Or rather, how can it be put into simpler terms so it can be more easily answered?

Do holes exist? Or are they pockets of nonexistence?

Two weeks ago, a caterpillar wove a chrysalis, and turned into a butterfly. There was no butterfly two weeks ago, only a caterpillar. Nonetheless, can I still point to the butterfly and say "that buttefly existed two weeks ago"?

If everyone died, would Kansas still exist? Or does Kansas have to have someone recognizing it to exist?

What does it mean to exist?

I have been reading a little about realism and anti-realism which has left me thinking that my metaphysical beliefs put me in both camps? Let me explain. I'm inclined to accept the correspondence theory of truth which, I think, puts me in the realism camp as to my ontology. However, while I believe there exists a world external to mind, I do not think we come to know that world directly. Our experience and knowledge of the world is mediated by the brain which uses conceptual frameworks to make sense of all the raw data we are bombarded with daily. So it would seem, ontologically I'm a realist but epistemologically I'm an anti-realist. Does this make any sense?

Setting aside worries about quantum mechanics, would it be possible for there to be a plank of wood which is an irrational number (say, pi) of feet in length?

What makes a bottle to be a bottle? The matter that forms it can't represent the actual bottle without the substantial form of a bottle. On the other hand, the substance itself of the bottle has an accidental form. So what exactly happens when the bottle falls down and breaks into small pieces? Is it an accidental change of the form of the substance (Aquino's 'dough' example) or is it a substantial change that leaves behind only the matter of the bottle?

It's a bit difficult to understand the difference between 'Being' and 'Existence'. From what I know, bring is the state or quality of existing. But to me this state or quality sounds extremely ghostly. Could you please elaborate? Thanks Shamik C. New Delhi India