It is a vexed old question whether one should always tell the truth and, most importantly, under which circumstances one may, or ought to, lie. One angle from which to tackle the problem proceeds from a consideration of the most genuine and beautiful form of friendship: can two people lie to each other, under some circumstances, and still be true friends? The reflection on friendship in Western philosophy, which includes figures such as Aristotle and Epicurus may help out in seeking an answer. Keeping always in mind that, as Jean-Paul Sartres taught us some while ago, we are condemned to choose between telling or not telling the truth, and we bear all the responsibility for it. So, take a stance!

Here is a question that most bloggers and many philosophers have to deal with on a daily basis: How can you explain complex or obscure philosophical concepts or views (such as Descartes's proofs of God's existence) in simple, direct terms?

Recently, I have been thinking about two promising alternative approaches to the usual ones - e.g., "water down your content." The first was pointed out to me by a friend, and it involves images rather than words. London designer Genis Carreras has been playing with ways of representing tough philosophical concepts through simple logos, as this article discusses.

A second approach deals with humor, whose philosophical aspects we have been trying to understand for a while. Cathcart and Klein have shown how successful one can be in approaching philosophical ideas such as death or relativity through philosophical jokes. Drawing inspiration from Cathcart and Klein, and with a little of creativity, one may hope to teach a philosophy course through some of the best philosophical jokes involving Chuck Norris?

According to a philosophical view, humans have direct epistemic access to the present only; what is true of the past and the future is precluded to our senses. Presentists, then, go as far as claiming that only the present exists. However, it is pretty obvious that of the past we do have some traces in the present: it is also on the basis of those traces (plus a number of assumptions, more or less plausible depending on each case) that the very possibility of a history lies. What can we say about the future?

The empiricists tradition - well routed also in a certain conception of persistence of things in time - seems to hold that the future is wholly concealed to us: we have no trace of the future in the present. No assumption on the regularity of nature can legitimately be made here. On the other hand, some believe that what is present and past somehow necessitates what will be the case. Under this view, the future is not wholly concealed to us, as the present contains the seeds of the future; what is present renders what is future possible, and necessitates it. Are the empiricists right, or is the future - in a sense - already "here"?