Question by Forget War Buy More: To which economic philosopher do many economists trace the origin of the modern progressive tax system?
I’ll even give you a passage from one of his early works as a hint:

“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!

Question by : Before the 18th century, theories on the origin of species are best described as___?
A. Nonexistent
B. Simple, with early Greek philosophers seeing fossils as destroyed life forms, but not placing them into evolutionary concept
C. Foundational, with early Greek philosophers seeing fossils as continuous lineage but merely lacking the genetic understanding to explain it
D. complete, but poorly explained in modern scientific terms until Darwin wrote more clearly
E. Fairly complete, but then repressed with the rise of creationist religions

Best answer:

Answer by Angus Dobbs
go with D as the answer. Although, if Darwin’s father had not been a staunched bible thumber and sneered at his sons scientific insights, things might of been differently understood.

What do you think? Answer below!

                                                        PHILOSOPHY                                                                                                                                                                                                                The field is concerned with the study of ultimate reality and the first principles of thinking, knowledge and truth. The term Philosophy cannot be given a precise definition that will command a general acceptance. Almost every philosopher would give his own definition of philosophy. To avoid this difficulty involved in defining philosophy some scholars may resort to tracing the etymological root meaning of the concept.                                    The term philosophy is derived from two Greek words namely “Philo” meaning love and “Sophia” meaning wisdom. A philosopher can therefore be said to be one that loves wisdom. But this definition is debatable due to the fact that the Greek word “Sophia” which is literally translated into English as “wisdom” had a much wider application than the modern English word; wisdom. Homer for example used “Sophia” to refer to the skill of a carpenter, while Herodotus used the verb “Philosophein” in the context in which is meant as the desire to find out. I used the word “Sophia” as the ability of every thing, and every one. For instance, I would say ‘the Sophia of love towards man is inevitable, be it good or of evil’. In a connection, it has been stated that “Philosophia” connotes the love of exerting ones curiosity or intelligence, but I would say this same word is and should be the love of exerting ones curiosity and a fixed borrowed intelligence. Be it that, the exerting of ones curiosity or intelligence doesn’t make him a philosopher, so does the ones love of wisdom never make him a philosopher. Using the term “fixed borrowed intelligence” rather than “ones intelligence” is because every man is born with an ability of possessing intelligence, even at his or her young age, and grows acquiring his and some borrowed intelligence from genetic traits, but even with these, man is still limited to intelligence. He could get as much as he expects, but never as much as he wishes. The tendency of man trying to know about unthinkable situations is no intelligence of its kind. The origin of God is a perfect example. But in some cases whereby man has answers to such questions is not from his intelligence, but from is ability to borrow intelligence from is creator which becomes fixed or permanent as his. Moses would never have written the book of Genesis if he was not motivated and inspired, which gave him the ability of borrowing intelligence from his creator. I see no philosophy as the love of wisdom, no matter the kind of wisdom. Every man on earth loves wisdom, not all acquires wisdom, doesn’t make them a philosopher. I would rather take the definition of K.A. Ojong who stated that “the exerting of ones curiosity or intelligence isn’t merely an aesthetic disposition, rather it is an exercise that yield knowledge which in some way is useful in the solution of problems” he ended up stating that “the concept of philosophy should be simply defined as the theoretical vision that guides human action in every field of human endeavor”. As a general definition, I do not accept the definition. I hereby define the term philosophy as not the love of wisdom, but the wisdom of love. The term love in my definition no longer refers to an enthusiasm, or a feeling, or the act of a Secadone (sex), but is referred and illustrates a person, this person is God. The solidarity of man towards the explanation of the origin of God hasn’t made much progress and this gives man not so much belief most especially philosophers, and makes man a certain extent ignorant about their creator and their God. Basically, the answering of such a question tends to be possible.                                                                          Love in a plain English could be an affection, enjoyment e.t.c, in other perspective love could be a and whatnot, but I say love is classified into differentiations, and because of the eccentricity and abstracts of some they do not have an opposite.                      My first class of love is called Consanguinity or a hood. This class of love is the strong bond a family share, this class of love involves a lot of care and honesty. The term care, I defined to be a counter shading arithmetic rhythm of enthusiasm.                                                The next class is called the Laepi. The term Laepi was used over a thousand years ago to describe a courtship, celebration towards one and other. Laepi is definitely said to be the relationship and love a thing has towards others. This word originated from the association of symbiosis. Whereby a very close relationship exists between two different species or living organisms, making both species benefit, or one benefit and the other is unaffected or harmed. An example is also how the avatars do most of things together, and the connection between one and other is essential. Major examples are the love we share for pets and animals, the love we share to friends and brethrens. The opposite of Laepi is fear. Not all opposite of love would mean hatred.                                                                                  Another class would be self being; this is the love we have for ourselves. Sometimes we tend to hate the type of life we live either due to the things we do, frustration, inferiority complex and fear. These have made lot of people commit atrocities against their self, e.g. suicide. The opposite of self being is self-hate.                                        The next class is said to be the most practiced, this class is called love-like. A love-like affair is absolutely different from Laepi, though they have things in common, but nevertheless, a love-like affair is also the love we have for one another, things like career, Painting, medicine, art, drawing and is part of your fun time, like watching movies, sports, play pranks, a trip, e.t.c. The love-like affair is also used for the love we have for beast of friends and people you care most about. The opposite of this is hatred.              A good class worth to be touched is a class I call Fancidom. This class is said to be a great admiration that could also lead to true love, at the same time such admiration can be mistaken to be love, this is assumed to fade away easily if not worked on. Major example of a Fancidom is a love at first sight, this type of love isn’t lost, and was very practiced during the time of old. Adam went into Fancidom immediately he arose and saw eve, some tribes prepares a marriage for two people who has never met, this people don’t start a marital life hating their selves, and they always start with a Fancidom. The opposite of this is lost. Lost is an imaginary work, which tends to have a personality added to it. When in lost, you only think about the physiognomy and sex life of a mate. You will tend to be only interested in romance or in taking the mate to bed.                                    Momentarily, man feels a sudden dart, that sting is heart and causes a bond between him and he or she, which he tends to admire and be of interest. This bond is set in him or her psychologically. Then we say he or she nurtures this bond as an emotion. This might have originated as a Fancidom, a love-like affair, Laepi, even from the hood. But whatsoever it originated from has gradually then eventually turned into a true love; I call this stage a kre- circle (Ken’s rapid emotion). According to astrology, this phase of love is started by a cupid (god of love), and compatible, being that a particular Zodiac sign is more or most compatible to another. A kre-circle is then defined as a lured oriented visual enthusiasm. With the word “enthusiasm” meaning a huge interest in your emotion that tends to draw you closer to whosoever this emotion favors, having care, affection and no fear. Getting to such a phase of love man might have experience the Fancidom, were lured by her physiognomy, or man might must have been lured through his or her character and speech. Basically, a visual is necessary, which increases the emotions, get him or her thinking when he or she is gone, dreaming and also increases the admiration, because in the looks beauty is found. Even a blind man, has a sharp instinct to figure out the way he or she might look, through the touches alone. The adaptation of the thoughts, vision, situation e.t.c, keeps the emotion going, this is known as the orientation. The opposite of this love isn’t hate, that’s why it is possible to have a love-hate relationship. The opposite of true love is lost. If a true love can be giving in return, a love affair can be formed, which in the process may lead to another aspect of love, this I call Secadone.                                                                                                                                          Secadone is a type of love, this love comprises of three parts. In the parts we will lost as the first phase of a Secadone. In every

Telliamed: or, discourses between an Indian philosopher, and a French missionary, on the diminution of the sea, the formation of the earth, the origin ... from the French original of Mr. Maillet, ...

The 18th century was a wealth of knowledge, exploration and rapidly growing technology and expanding record-keeping made possible by advances in the printing press. In its determination to preserve the century of revolution, Gale initiated a revolution of its own: digitization of epic proportions to preserve these invaluable works in the largest archive of its kind. Now for the first time these high-quality digital copies of original 18th century manuscripts are available in print, making them h

List Price: $ 32.75 Price: $ 19.02

MPP Seminar #5 with Francois Dosse 2010-04-22 : Philosophie et Societé, in french and will also appear in an english speaker version. The next guest in our Philosophies of Management Seminar Series is one of the leading historians of contemporary French philosophy. Amongst Francois Dosses first contribution is a two volume work on the French structuralist and poststructuralist philosophers. He then published several philosophical biographies of eg Michel de Certeau, Paul Ricoeur and, most recently, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. In the book The Empire of Meaning he poses the much relevant question; what comes after post-structuralism? In this volume Dosse offers a challenging overview of actual tendencies in social philosophy that indicate how studies of organizations, technology and management (of kind practiced eg at CBS) have turned into sources of inspiration for innovative attempts to break out of the theoretical anti-humanism of the end of last century. How could management research influence philosophy?

Product Description
Due to the very old age and scarcity of this book, many of the pages may be hard to read due to the blurring of the original text, possible missing pages, missing text and other issues beyond our control…. More >>

First Truths and the Origin of Our Opinions Explained: With an Enquiry Into the Sentiments of Modern Philosophers, Relative to Our Primary Ideas of Things