In the philosophy of mind, zombies often make an appearance. It seems we can conceive of zombies — beings physically exactly like ourselves but lacking conscious experience. There may not actually be any zombies, of course. But the suggestion that they could exist does at least seem to make sense. Or does it? Robert Kirk investigates.

The question ‘Is everything relative?’ is philosophy' equivalent of a trashy horror movie. It sounds radical and deep. One is excited by the enormity of the insight one would gain were one to find out that indeed, everything is relative. Max Kölbel argues that indeed, everything is relative, but does so by presenting a ‘sensible’ form of relativism supported by a straightforward argument.

Here's a short introduction to some mind-boggling paradoxes concerning probability.

Tibor Machan responds to James Franklin's response to the problem of evil (in Think issue 5).

Are time machines philosophically possible? Is there something fundamentally illogical about the very notion of time travel? Tony Milligan introduces some of the key arguments in this amusing dialogue.

Stephen Gardiner gets to grips with the Kyoto agreement on climate change — and asks whether our lack of commitment to seriously reducing emissions is down to the fact that the bad consequences of not reducing emissions won't affect us.

Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously

Could a machine possess an aesthetic sense? Could it appreciate the beauty of a pebble?

It's often said that it's highly improbable that evolution should produce complex beings such as ourselves. But is it? Here is a welcome clarification of how to weigh up probabilities — particularly when it comes to evolution.

The suggestion that we might grow human tissue for the dinner table is likely to provoke a ‘yuk’ response in many of us. But would it be morally wrong? Might it not, in fact, be far preferable to the current situation?

As the Fantasy Football Philosopher's League heads for its climax, we join one of the key matches, The God Squad v Humanists United. The God Squad led at half time, but the Humanists made a strong showing in the second half and after 25 minutes injury time, the score is equal and we move to the penalty shootout. In this league, the penalty shootout is held between the two team captains — each in goal against the other. The games take place in the twenty first century and team captains have been able to watch all the past matches they may have missed. Team captains are Thomas Aquinas and Bertrand Russell. You, the reader, keep the score.

Mark Vernon contrasts the Aristotelean conception of civic respect and virtues with what contemporary politicians seem to have in mind.

Wittgenstein once said that if a lion could speak, we would not be able to understand it. No doubt he would say the same about aliens. But is Wittgenstein correct? Derrick Farnell thinks not.

Kate Distin introduces the theory of the selfish meme – and questions whether we are all ‘meme machines’.

Is the law displacing morality? And should it?

‘Law is a bottomless pit and I have no inclination to fathom its depths.’

Should publishing decisions be influenced by the potential for violent reactions?

Is truth just a matter of perspective?

Joel Marks discusses the philosophical aspects of a question recently in the news: is Pluto a planet, or not?

Clarifying what creativity is the first step towards answering the question: could a computer be creative?

Aquinas and Hume view miracles in starkly contrasting ways, as Thomas Carey here explains.