Best answer:

Answer by good4amber
The Greeks discovered that the earth was a sphere by several methods and the philosopher Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth to within about 300 kilometers of today’s generally accepted value. In about 200 BC Aristarchus first stated that the earth revolves around the sun but most philosophers argued that everything revolves around earth.

Give your answer to this question below!

Out of these philosophers, which would fit each the most?

Plato Aristotle, socrates, st augustine, Aquinas, lockes, hobbes, nietzsche, sarte, marx, hegel, mill, bentham, kant, hume, spinoza

Which philosopher would most favor the death penalty? Who would most oppose the death penalty?

Which philosopher would most favor stem cell research? Who would most oppose stem cell research?

Which philosopher would most favor universal health care? Who would most oppose universal health care?

Which philosopher would most favor government censorship of the Internet? Who would most oppose government censorship of the Internet?

Which philosopher would most favor a military strike? Who would most oppose a military strike?

. Thanks!

Best answer:

Answer by Thought Repository
Death penalty: Plato, Bentham, Nietzsche.

Stem Cells: Sartre, Mill, probably Marx.

Universal Health: Marx, Bentham, Mill, Sartre, Kant, probably Spinoza

Internet Censorship: Plato, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel

For A Military Strike: Marx, Kant (if it was a moral imperative), Hobbes, Sartre, Mill, Locke perhaps.

Aganst a Strike: Plato, Nietzsche, Socrates…

I left out Socrates on some questions because his views are too tangled up with those of his mouthpiece Plato.

Hume was a curious figure, more like a traditional conservative politically, though in philosophy similar to Newton as a scientist.

What do you think? Answer below!

monty python guyswith their crazy ideas
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Find More Modern Philosophers Articles

Best answer:

Answer by Brian M
The Platonians, The Predeterminites, The Freewillians, and the Metaphysicians.

EDIT: you could have the predeterminites and the freewillians battle. The freewillians get to pick the question (free will) and the predeterminites have to answer the question the freewillians ask (no free will)

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Related Modern Philosophers Articles

Best answer:

Answer by nat
Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. Fantastic novel.

What do you think? Answer below!

Here is a response to variablast on the question of why stoicism is not more prevalent in the modern world. www.amazon.com

There have probably been more wars, deaths, executions, murders, torture, crime and suffering in general, perpetrated in the name of religion (God and associates) over the millennium than over any other specific cause. Anything and everything can be justified as long as ‘God is on your side’ or the Bible says so, as per holy wars, crusades and inquisitions.  I like the point – not original to me by the way – that if there were no God, no religious moral teachings, no Biblical threats of punishment, or promises of rewards, then you’d have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. Add religion and associated baggage into the mix however and you now have some good people doing evil things – all in the name of their religion and their God. As the sayings go, and apologies to the originators whose names I’ve forgotten, ‘science flies men to the Moon; religion flies men into buildings’ (as per 9/11), and ‘atheists have never killed in defence of atheism, but, religious fundamentalists have certainly killed in the name of God’. That just about sums it all up. Has all the misery religion has caused, or has been caused in God’s name, been justified? I’ll state at the outset that, IMHO, the answer is an absolute NO, if for no other reason than it’s highly unlikely that God even exists! 

So what’s then the origin(s) of religion? If there is no God or gods, no supernatural beings or deities, how come we got religions (plural since there have been and are hundreds of them)? Easy!

Primitive, ancient, cave, etc. men (and women), call them what you will, had little understanding of how the natural world, their environment, worked, including those events that most directly impacted on their day-to-day existence and survival. They had no sophisticated understanding of physics and chemistry, geology, oceanography, meteorology and astronomy. But it was obvious to them that something had to be responsible for what happened to them; maybe even more obvious that the responsible agent was probably someone – maybe plural. Since they didn’t have that sort of level of power or control, that someone (one or more) had to be a really BIG SOMEONE, yet a BIG SOMEONE who stayed out of obvious sight. Since ancient man had no way of naturally explaining things, but the existence of a BIG SOMEONE did explain things, thus a supernatural being(s) was created or born.

It’s equally obvious that you’d want this BIG SOMEONE to maximize good things and minimize bad things, and so you tried to converse with the BIG SOMEONE. But since the BIG SOMEONE wasn’t visible, wasn’t in your face and in person, conversation had to be one-way – call it prayer! It doesn’t take long for patterns and rituals to become established, and the most successful prayer person becomes a leader, a respected member of the tribe, a priest in other words. A religion is born.

This evolution of a religion is reinforced because of the nature of death. Everyone takes note of the fact that something that was alive is now something not alive – maybe it’s just the animal you killed for food, but also maybe it’s your mate or your offspring, or a tribal elder you knew and respected, or a neighbour in the hut or cave next to yours. Someone dies of old age or for no apparent reason. What exactly happened? Why did it happen? Who is responsible? Why, the BIG SOMEONE of course.

Associated with death is obviously noting that whatever is dead doesn’t respond to the environment any more, can’t eat, can’t breathe, can’t enjoy sex, or company, and the overall caveman equivalent of the good life. Also, the dead in fact will eventually decay, rot away and smell. So, death is something to be avoided, and if it can’t be avoided, well maybe there’s a continuation of the good life afterwards in some mysterious way that only the BIG SOMEONE controls. The BIG SOMEONE provides a home we all go to after we die. Tossing up the option of an afterlife, or no afterlife, when there’s no obvious evidence either way, well, it’s a no-brainer. Our number one prayer person, our priest, will tell us what we want to hear! That’s politics.

So it’s relatively easy to explain the origin of a religion and how it can take on a life of its own with loads of trappings, with do and do-not aspects, etc.

]]>

But, religions have not also come, but gone. Maybe the great prayer person had a streak of bad luck and so the BIG SOMEONE was replaced – as was the priest. The upshot is that in this age of enlightenment, we have consigned most of our historical collection of BIG SOMEONES, our gods and supernatural beings and deities to the dust bin. The prayers have failed, the priests have failed, the gods have failed or went away, so ultimately it’s now easy to accept that maybe there was no evidence at all for them in the first place – they no longer explain anything. Now all that’s basically left is now just one more final body to get rid of. It’s time God too was consigned to the dust bin.

What about our Religious concepts central to morality, ethics, values, right & wrong, etc.? It is presumed by those in a Biblical frame of mind that our concept of morality (and related) comes from God and Biblical preachings and teachings. Oh dear! According to The Bible, God commits, or commands others to commit, or condones what any moral person living today would term atrocities and crimes against humanity worthy of Pol Pot, Stalin, Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun. In fact Satan comes across as a far more moral character in the Biblical texts than God. After all, it’s God who condemns people to eternal torture or torment, not Satan. It’s God who inflicts plagues on the populace, not Satan. It’s God who condones rape, slavery and cannibalism; it’s God who demands sacrifices, executions and torture, not Satan. Satan actually comes across as a bit of a trickster perhaps, but not really evil incarnate. God is depicted in Biblical texts as the personification of pure evil. Who does the smiting – God or Satan?

Take the morality or ethics of what God dos to Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve understood that it is evil to disobey God and good to obey God, then Adam and Eve already possessed the knowledge of good and evil, and there was no need for God’s warning and they had no need to give in to temptation and eat that apple! God, being all-knowing, knew this. There would have been no moral reason to punish them. If Adam and Eve did not understand God, if they didn’t comprehend the difference between good and evil, then God punished them, and all their descendents through to and including you, quite unfairly.

I think it is safe to say that animals do not, and can not, read the Bible. Animals and humans are supposed to be separate creations, with mankind somehow something extra special – we’ve had morality bestowed upon us by God (a God who basically says do as I say, not as I do). There’s no mention of God bestowing morals (and related) onto animals. Yet, there are numerous first hand observations of animals exhibiting behaviour which we would describe as moral or ethical or showing distinction between right and wrong. Now either this behaviour in animals evolved naturally, and by implication our morals evolved naturally too, or else God breathed good behaviour into animals – again no mention of that in the Biblical literature. So, humans aren’t a special creation based on morality.

Rather than give second-hand examples of animal morality, here’s one of mine – first hand. My two companion cats hate each other and will engage in a cat fight at the drop of a proverbial hat. However, no attack will even occur when either cat is eating, sleeping, or using the litter box. Then it’s truce time. In human society it’s considered immoral and cowardly to attack someone when they are sleeping – ditto the cat community. In neither case has that come from God or Biblical teachings or passages. 

As recent and even not so recent revelations have made clear, it has come to pass that not all members in the employment of the inner sanctums of the Church (pick a church, any church) are especially moral beings. If church Vickers, priests, parsons, rabbis, bishops, and associated clergy types are to be believed, as reported in the media and acknowledged by the Church, well let’s just say they don’t apparently always do the right thing by those in their care.  

Speaking of all things moral and ethical, the Church has blood on its collective hands, right up to its proverbial elbows. There’s the Inquisition, the Crusades, all manner of Holy Wars, etc. The Church is guilty of murder, legal death by execution (being burned at the stake, being stoned to death), torture, imprisonment, exile, ridicule, harassment, and all other manner of atrocities, etc. The Church is in no way in any position to cast the first stone, as it were. 

Further examples of religious atrocities now include religious terrorism. Once upon a time, I used to view terrorism as a political act,

Best answer:

Answer by asavanu
Some 100-level (introductory) courses in departments like Modern Languages or Comparative Literature look at the history of western civilizations through a study of myths, birth of religions and development of major philosophical schools/ideas. Most of such courses and books touch upon, though briefly so, other civilizations and regions as well, usually to provide a background on their influence on Greek culture. Best is to google for their course readings and check out amazon for the reviews of those books.

I would also suggest checking Etienne Gilson’s classic “God and Philosophy” though it is more of a philosophy book than history, and starts with the Greeks.

Give your answer to this question below!

Best answer:

Answer by madoli
The most influential early postmodern philosophers were Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida. Foucault approached postmodern philosophy from a historical perspective, building upon structuralism, but at the same time rejecting structuralism by re-historicizing and destabilizing the philosophical structures of Western thought. He also considered how knowledge is defined and changed by the operation of power.

In America, the most famous postmodernist is Richard Rorty. Originally an analytic philosopher, Rorty believed that combining Donald Davidson’s criticism of the dualism between conceptual scheme and empirical content with Willard Van Orman Quine’s criticism of the analytic-synthetic distinction allowed for an abandonment of the view of the mind as a mirror of a reality or external world. He argued that truth was not “out-there”, but was in language and language was whatever served our purposes in any particular time; ancient languages are sometimes untranslatable into modern ones. Donald Davidson is not usually considered a postmodernist, although he and Rorty have both acknowledged that there are few differences between their philosophies[1][2].

The writings of Lyotard were largely concerned with the role of narrative in human culture, and particularly how that role has changed as we have left modernity and entered a “postindustrial” or postmodern condition. He argued that modern philosophies legitimized their truth-claims not (as they themselves claimed) on logical or empirical grounds, but rather on the grounds of accepted stories (or “metanarratives”) about knowledge and the world — what Wittgenstein termed “language-games.” He further argued that in our postmodern condition, these metanarratives no longer work to legitimize truth-claims. He suggested that in the wake of the collapse of modern metanarratives, people are developing a new “language game” — one that does not make claims to absolute truth but rather celebrates a world of ever-changing relationships (among people and between people and the world).

Derrida, the father of deconstruction, practiced philosophy as a form of textual criticism. He criticized Western philosophy as privileging the concept of presence and logos, as opposed to absence and markings or writings. Derrida thus claimed to have deconstructed Western philosophy by arguing, for example, that the Western ideal of the present logos is undermined by the expression of that ideal in the form of markings by an absent author. Thus, to emphasize this paradox, Derrida reformalized human culture as a disjoint network of proliferating markings and writings, with the author being absent.

Though Derrida and Foucault are cited as postmodern philosophers, each has rejected many of the other’s views. Like Lyotard, both are skeptical of absolute or universal truth-claims. Unlike Lyotard, however, they are (or seem) rather more pessimistic about the emancipatory claims of any new language-game; thus some would characterize them as post-structuralist rather than postmodernist.

What do you think? Answer below!

More Modern Philosophers Articles

Best answer:

Answer by being/non-being
Alan W. Watts! He died in 1973, but was considered the most original thinker of all of the contemporary philosophers. Google him and you’ll find lot’s. Here’s a list of most of his works at the S.F. library: http://sflib1.sfpl.org/search~S1?/awatts%2C+alan/awatts+alan/1%2C5%2C64%2CB/exact&FF=awatts+alan+1915+1973&1%2C57%2C

Add your own answer in the comments!

Product Description
Throughout his philosophical career at Michigan, UCLA, Yale, and Oxford, Robert Merrihew Adams’s wide-ranging contributions have deeply shaped the structure of debates in metaphysics, philosophy of religion, history of philosophy, and ethics. Metaphysics and the Good: Themes from the Philosophy of Robert Merrihew Adams provides, for the first time, a collection of original essays by leading philosophers dedicated to exploring many of the facets of Adams’s thought, a… More >>

Metaphysics and the Good: Themes from the Philosophy of Robert Merrihew Adams