Dear sir or Madame, I have a question about patents in philosophy. I have had ideas about science and society for quite a while now (like everyone). And I have (I think) created a small philosophy. I was wondering, if I would come op with a complete new philosophy, how one could patent it. For example, Any Rand gets the credit of being the founder of Objectivism, not someone who stole her idea. In the industry and sciences, one can easily patent something, via institutions. But how does this work for a philosophy? Thank you very much and with kind regards,

How does who’s doing the philosophy influence how philosophy is done? I read an essay on how the mostly white publishing circle hinders the full expression of diverse voices. “Minority students may be told to scrap what is striking to them in favor of what is striking to the dominant perspectives of their workshops.” I agree. Writing always comes with personal elements. Philosophy in contrast seems more general and impassive. Is philosophy not supposed to be sensitive to racial, class, gender or personal perspectives?

What are some questions that we might be reasonably tempted to believe are answerable by psychology but that are actually only answerable by philosophy? Thank you very much.

Do philosophers generally reject that philosophical reasoning relies on axioms? The way I've always thought that philosophy worked is that philosophers have a certain set of tools (deduction, laws of thought, [basic sources of knowledge](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#SourKnowJust)) which they use to come to reasoned answers to questions. Most importantly, these tools are taken as axiomatic. That is, they are seen as starting points from which all reasoning must proceed. To question these axioms wouldn't be possible. However, I've recently seen an attitude that has puzzled me. Many philosophers state that very rarely does reasoning in philosophy rely on axioms. Axioms are things to be avoided and go against the spirit of philosophy. What am I misunderstanding here? If philosophers don't take their tools of reasoning as axiomatic, how do they go about doing philosophy? More importantly, if philosophical reasoning is so pervasive that it questions its own tools, from what framework does...

Is theology a subset of philosophy? Even if in theory it is, in practice is it treated as a separate discipline? I notice a contradiction in thought in an organized religion and wanted to ask about it, I'm not sure if this is an appropriate forum. Thanks!

I have recently heard that, according to physics, you can never actually touch anything. This seems clearly false and I feel it should be refuted with philosophy (if not physics). Can you comment on this? p.s. See for example https://futurism.com/why-you-can-never-actually-touch-anything which seems to claim that, according to physics, you can never actually touch anything

Can philosophy make you go crazy? If you think too much about philosophy, will you end up not being able to think properly?

Is philosophy something that everyone uses? Should people use philosophy more, than they already do?

Are all philosophical questions unsolvable?

Can philosophy prove/disprove anything or it is just inconclusive and useless?