Question by Rachel_not: I need some help with Alchemy? Puffers, spiritual, etc.?
I’m doing a report on Alchemy, and have a couple questions
-How did modern Alchemy come from the Puffers?
-Is the Philosophers stone really a stone, or an idea that could be of any substance?
- In general, and in a way said as simple as possible, can you explain spiritual alchemy to me?
Thank you so much, it is VERY confusing!
Best answer:
Answer by Gray Bold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher%27s_stone
Question by Evan: Philosophy… a quest in need of a starting point?
I am looking to read up on the core principals of the greatest philosophers and modern philosophy. What books should I read over the summer to familiarize myself with such?
Best answer:
Answer by Lion Sack Alice in Wonderland.
Catch-22.
J.M. Coetzee: Slow Man, Diary of a Bad Year.
Question by Evan: Philosophy… a quest in need of a starting point?
I am looking to read up on the core principals of the greatest philosophers and modern philosophy. What books should I read over the summer to familiarize myself with such?
Best answer:
Answer by Lion Sack Alice in Wonderland.
Catch-22.
J.M. Coetzee: Slow Man, Diary of a Bad Year.
Question by Darzak: What persons do we need the most?
Hi, what kind of “smart” people do we need the most? Philosophers, or scientists? We need both of them in our modern society, but what is the most important? This is an question i always wanted 2 ask. When i think of Philosophers, i think of wisdom. When i think of scientists, i think of knowledge and intelligence. Also, i think that scientists are more book smart. What do you guys think?
Best answer:
Answer by yyyyzz (wise) Every person you meet, you need. Those you meet for a short time have a short message to deliver and those you know for longer a longer or more complicated lesson. Thus, a scientists needs to be a philosopher and a philosopher needs to be a scientist. The good once that get paid fortunes and are a service to human kind are usually both. Somewhere in the thinking there must be an experiment that can proof or disproof the thought. Scientist don’t do experiments just for the sake of doing experiments, it must substantiate a philosophical thought.
Peace.
Question by lucy: Need a topic. Please help!?
I have to write an essay (about 1000 words long) on Modern (1800-1960) Epistemology. [which is the study of knowledge]
I need to think of a thesis/ argument but can’t… the teacher suggested thinking “What did modern philosophers think of knowledge?” but that didn’t really give me any useful ideas.
Thanks a lot in advance!
Best answer:
Answer by Hannah um idk if this helps but why not write about how children see the joy and miracle in everyday things, but as we get older we take everything for granted.
Omnes and Sangalli in their text, Quantum Philosophy (Princeton University Press, 1999) speak about “the fracture” which occurred within the realms of philosophy, logic, and science, forever designating Aristotlean thinking as “classical” while quantum philosophy is termed as “formal”. Their fine text engages in a comprehensive study, the details of which go beyon the scope of this article. But I open with a quote from another work by Roland Omnes: ”. . . the deepest forms of questiong arise. . . from quantum physics”. As Omnes rightly assets, the line between quantum sicence and philosophy is a blurred one. When I speak of the need for a cohesive theory, I am speaking of one that will appeal to the general, intelligent public, and not specialized academic theories, which nonetheless are the origins of popular ones.
My interest is in applied philosophy: That which it has to offer the culture, in ethics, counseling, and popular theoretical discourse. A robust theory which could speak to general interests in an elegantly simple way would be the best beginning. Much of current “New Age” theory is so sloppy, soft, sentimental, and plain silly so that the rift between science and philosophy in academia, and popular culture would seem to be widening irrevocably. When I first read Anthony Peake in 2007, it was an accidental encounter. A random search on the internet showed his essay, Cheating the Ferryman: A New Pardigm of Existence? Leaving aside personal bereavement issues and a background in Nietzsche studies which made Peake extremely appealing to me , I was taken by his ability to fuse quantum physics with one of the central docrtines of Nietzsche: the eternal return of the same.
I have often wondered if the popular culture could be made to leave its juxtaposition of old world religious ideas and new fangled new age fantasies. Peter Novak made an excellent start in The Division of Consciousness. But matters did not unfold well: Novak became pre-occupied both with reincarnation and Armageddon. In Anthony Peake, I thought I saw a better Novak. One more subtle and less given to mania. Of course Peake has had to go it alone in many senses: He has been labled by turns as a pseudo-scientist, a solipsist, an author whose key role is to engage in sophistry, an afterlife theorist, and a new age icon. What he has not been taken seriously as is a theorist who has much to offer Nietzschean philosophy , and by association , the thinking of Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Jaspers, and Kierkegaard. Is Peake an existential messenger? I think so. But rather than expounding on his ideas here, I welcome New Yorkers, whether they be academics, readers, or journalists, to come hear hims on August 3 at the Roosevelt Hotel, in a public lecture hosted by Gnosis Arts Multimedia. Peake’s lecture will begin at 6 p.m.m and there will be a complimentary bar and buffet for attendees, in the Broadway Suite. ( Madison Avenue @ E 45, NYC 10017).
SM Kovalinsky is a blogger, writer, reporter, and publicist from Morris County, NJ, with a strong emphasis on philosophical analysis of American culture and politics. She is blog master of “Musing in Obama’s America”.
Omnes and Sangalli in their text, Quantum Philosophy (Princeton University Press, 1999) speak about “the fracture” which occurred within the realms of philosophy, logic, and science, forever designating Aristotlean thinking as “classical” while quantum philosophy is termed as “formal”. Their fine text engages in a comprehensive study, the details of which go beyon the scope of this article. But I open with a quote from another work by Roland Omnes: ”. . . the deepest forms of questiong arise. . . from quantum physics”. As Omnes rightly assets, the line between quantum sicence and philosophy is a blurred one. When I speak of the need for a cohesive theory, I am speaking of one that will appeal to the general, intelligent public, and not specialized academic theories, which nonetheless are the origins of popular ones.
My interest is in applied philosophy: That which it has to offer the culture, in ethics, counseling, and popular theoretical discourse. A robust theory which could speak to general interests in an elegantly simple way would be the best beginning. Much of current “New Age” theory is so sloppy, soft, sentimental, and plain silly so that the rift between science and philosophy in academia, and popular culture would seem to be widening irrevocably. When I first read Anthony Peake in 2007, it was an accidental encounter. A random search on the internet showed his essay, Cheating the Ferryman: A New Pardigm of Existence? Leaving aside personal bereavement issues and a background in Nietzsche studies which made Peake extremely appealing to me , I was taken by his ability to fuse quantum physics with one of the central docrtines of Nietzsche: the eternal return of the same.
I have often wondered if the popular culture could be made to leave its juxtaposition of old world religious ideas and new fangled new age fantasies. Peter Novak made an excellent start in The Division of Consciousness. But matters did not unfold well: Novak became pre-occupied both with reincarnation and Armageddon. In Anthony Peake, I thought I saw a better Novak. One more subtle and less given to mania. Of course Peake has had to go it alone in many senses: He has been labled by turns as a pseudo-scientist, a solipsist, an author whose key role is to engage in sophistry, an afterlife theorist, and a new age icon. What he has not been taken seriously as is a theorist who has much to offer Nietzschean philosophy , and by association , the thinking of Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Jaspers, and Kierkegaard. Is Peake an existential messenger? I think so. But rather than expounding on his ideas here, I welcome New Yorkers, whether they be academics, readers, or journalists, to come hear hims on August 3 at the Roosevelt Hotel, in a public lecture hosted by Gnosis Arts Multimedia. Peake’s lecture will begin at 6 p.m.m and there will be a complimentary bar and buffet for attendees, in the Broadway Suite. ( Madison Avenue @ E 45, NYC 10017).
SM Kovalinsky is a blogger, writer, reporter, and publicist from Morris County, NJ, with a strong emphasis on philosophical analysis of American culture and politics. She is blog master of “Musing in Obama’s America”.
"Entirely faithful to Boethius' Latin; it makes the philosophy of the Consolation intelligible to students; it gives equal weight to the poetry -- in fact, Relihan's metrical translation of Boethius' metra are themselves contributions of the first moment to Boethian studies. Boethius finally has a translator equal to his prodigious talents and his manifold vision."-- Joseph Pucci, Brown University. Joel Relihan is Associate Professor of Classics, Wheaton College.Unjustly imprisoned and waiting t
List Price: $ 14.00
Price: $ 8.00
Free learning from The Open University www.open.ac.uk — Professor Russell Stannard asks how can we ever understand the relationship between consciousness and the physical brain. (Part 1 of 10) — Articles by Professor Russell Stannard on OpenLearn www.open.ac.uk Study ‘Philosophy and the human situation’ with the OU www3.open.ac.uk Explore qualifications in Arts and Humanities with the OU www3.open.ac.uk —
Question by OKwithme: Can philosophy, religion, and other fields satisfy our need to believe or is there a problem we’re not facing?
Humans are limited by their sensations, intellect, etc. We will never know certain core aspects of reality (Kant’s noumena, Spinoza’s infinite intellect, etc). But we need to believe we can.
Best answer:
Answer by Born-Down! yes,
currently existing reasons and facts of reality can satisfy those who can understand. Those who search and inform themselves must also have capability of seeing the true gems; just like goldsmith knows true and counterfeit, knowledge seekers should train themselves to see the differences in what they read or acquiring information; they must become having conscience in the middle-age or not too late.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
i want to get Phd and continue in every diff. way i can i want to study around the world and learn alot.so i am asking what kind of job can i get that will do that and pay reasonable.
When asked if 9/11 had changed anything for him personally, Smith answered: No. Absolutely not. When you grow up black in America you have a completely different view of the world than white Americans. We blacks live with a constant feeling of unease. And whether you are wounded in an attack by a racist cop or in a terrorist attack, Im sorry, it makes no difference. Hollywood was unhappy with his comment. OBVIOUSLY!!!!! lol
