Best answer:

Answer by Julia
kantianism is the philosophy of kant

What do you think? Answer below!

—————–
(skip these details if it is confusing)

…I know psychologist/philosopher Steve Pinker argued AGAINST it in lay terms in “The Blank State” positing that genetics attribute to the change and adaptation of behavior (which I plan on reading soon); it’s just that, is it true that history (or experience–MTheory is the bomb, he answered a similar question with most of this insight–) trumps the belief of a blank state, all the way down to the genetic level?
*’does’ having history make the difference between early man (and the lack of recorded/communicated history between the evolution of apes to man) and modern man (in that we have an accumulation of recorded history today more than anyone else in the past have ever had)

Best answer:

Answer by M T
Exactly what you are asking is unclear.

Just from your short summary it has to be some of both and not exclusively one or the other.

What do you think? Answer below!

More Modern Philosophers Articles

The present age destroys the faith and creed,
Like pagans has a bent of mind indeed.

Further he has declared that modern age is inherently anti-faith:

http://www.yespakistan.com/display.asp?http://www.allamaiqbal.com/works/poetry/urdu/zarb/translation/index.htm

Believers of Religion, is his analysis correct ?

Best answer:

Answer by gutbucket
Maybe, because knowledge and science have always been destroyers of foolish religious beliefs.

Add your own answer in the comments!

More Modern Philosophers Articles

Best answer:

Answer by g
well, to a degree… except you go off the reservation with the assumption that “getting out of the way of the people” = progress… basically you prove that gov. intervention may not always be best or moral and then you just ASSUME that the other is better based on the fact that the gov. is not always great… apparently..

overall… it’s the same situation with everything… everyone doesn’t always agree, it’s just the “community standards” overall… same with law, economics, morality…

same with economics… morality is subjective, but if most people think that it’s a good idea, then it’s generally going to get done that way…

EDIT: in short, if I prove you’re stupid, it doesn’t mean I’m smart… I could also be stupid, even stupider than you… not saying you’re stupid, but just saying that’s the idea you present…

EDIT2: to apply your idea to law… you’re saying “since the courts do make errors and some people don’t like some laws… then that proves we should have no laws…” and it doesn’t prove that at all… it only proves that there are problems with the current system

What do you think? Answer below!

Related Modern Philosophers Articles

2. Galileo and the other philosophers were alike in
a. making new scientific experiments
b. devoting their lives to collecting and publishing information
c. being social outcasts
d. holding beliefs that disagreed with the churches teachings

3. Rosseau differed from other Enlightenment thinkers in that he
a. valued education
b. admired the english system of government
c. believed that people should be directly responsible for making laws
d. supported absolute monarchy

Thanks

Best answer:

Answer by James
c, b, d

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

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

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

Best answer:

Answer by Paula
You refer to Adam Smith.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

In part:

The Wealth of Nations expounds that the free market, while appearing chaotic and unrestrained, is actually guided to produce the right amount and variety of goods by a so-called “invisible hand”…. Smith believed that when an individual pursues his self-interest, he indirectly promotes the good of society: “by pursuing his own interest, [the individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he intends to promote it.” Self-interested competition in the free market, he argued, would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

His thoughts on technical problem solving compared to participation in mysteries of being are interesting. I got to the middle section of
this article, number 6 titled problem and mystery and thought it was
fascinating. My eyes hurt now, so I have to read the rest later on.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcel/#2

This takes a while to read and put together in your mind but it is worth while – a good way to look at problems, actually mysteries we face about the meaning of life in a modern age.

What are your thoughts?
Do you agree with what he says?

Best answer:

Answer by Lou Segusi
Yes, in general people have there attention on so many things that TV and our media have got our attention on such as any number of products, wars, and survival. If we didn’t have wars and the media to program us subliminally or create superfluous desires so Wall Street can make a lot of money, people would spend more time in more natural states, like pondering the mysteries of life and turning their attention toward God.

What do you think? Answer below!

Find More Modern Philosophers Articles

Can anyone answer this please? Or summarize this for me?
Please and thank you.

Best answer:

Answer by I try my best
Locke really didn’t have much of an effect on revolutions in England because he was writing at a time during and after the English Revolution but his ideas on Social Contracts and Government commented on the best form of government. He did have an effect on Montesquieu who became inspired by Locke’s liberal ideas.

Montesquieu however had a larger impact on US history. Although having no influence on the Revolution in America he’s works, The Spirit of Law, had a massive influence on the founding fathers and the constitution. His works argued for a separation of powers into three to prevent Tyranny; the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary (you see this in the President, Congress and Supreme Court). This was different at the time as many European states had totalitarian Monarchs who had control of all three powers.

Now im not too good on Rousseau’s effects on revolutions but i do know he had a big one on the French but im unclear as to why and also the US revolution. I know that his works revolved around the idea that a state should be governed by everyone in the GENERAL WILL of the people.

Rousseau and Locke agreed in general on the State of Nature and the basic nature of Man.

What do you think? Answer below!

Best answer:

Answer by Iris
Philosophy is a power of thought and thinking. What is philosophy? It comes from the derivatives to mean love of wisdom. Philosophers follow the concept of understanding the reality, the world view and to live a life in a just way.
————————————————————————————————————————————————-

I took the passage out of forstberg.edu, it explains better than I do.

“Until now crucial decisions concerning war, peace, and the welfare of society had always been left to corrupt or incompetent politicians, ignorant voters, over-ambitious generals, and other people unsuited to run a state. Bloodshed, hatred, waste of resources, and deplorable conditions had usually been the result. There is no chance for things to become better unless knowledge and reason are put in command—the best knowledge and the most competent reason that society can muster. Lovers of wisdom may not be eager to govern, as their main passions are more intellectual pursuits. But since they are the best trained and best informed minds, they must be obligated by law to run the state—as a sort of committee of technocrats. “Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, … cities will never have rest from their evils,” as Plato suggests in the Republic. (3)”

What do you think? Answer below!