Best answer:

Answer by Naguru
Whatever man contemplates or meditates deeply, he will surely get it.

Give your answer to this question below!

1998 Greece Athens 10 drachma Democritus (460 - 370 BC) Greek philosopher face

US $0.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Wednesday Feb-08-2012 19:35:38 PST Bid now | Add to watch list

The Greek Philosophers: From Thales to Aristotle

US $20.33 End Date: Thursday Feb-09-2012 4:07:32 PST Buy It Now for only: US $20.33 Buy it now | Add to watch list

US $0.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Wednesday Feb-08-2012 19:35:38 PST Bid now | Add to watch list

NEW The Greek Philosophers, Volume I - Benn, Alfred ...

US $38.93 End Date: Thursday Feb-09-2012 5:25:34 PST Buy It Now for only: US $38.93 Buy it now | Add to watch list

NEW The Greek Philosophers, Volume I - Benn, Alfred ...

US $35.13 End Date: Thursday Feb-09-2012 5:25:35 PST Buy It Now for only: US $35.13 Buy it now | Add to watch list

and the following is my answer….please give me advice and constructive critisism to make it better if need be… I realize its just kind of a rough draft, but its late and I just needed to get the majority of the answer done….(also i don’t need help with grammar and stuff even though its not good right now…. I just really want someone to evaluate whether my answer sounds good!)

According to Kant’s ethics when we do something we mustn’t do it because of personal preferences, or from gaining or loosing from moral calculations. Kant believes that we can only receive moral credit when we follow the moral law. Kant believed that the moral value of something is always determined by the principle. This basically means if you mean well then no matter what happens you are worthy of praise. But, the most important part of Kant’s philosophy when it comes to this question is what he calls categorical imperative which means that we should only act if we think the principle/statement should apply to all people. This being said I believe that Kant would not agree with this statement. If all people gave all their money to the poor we would end up no better off, in fact the world would be in the same situation that it was in before. Also, I believe that Kant would argue that not all people should receive large amounts of money because they may not be able to handle it well. Basically because this statement should not apply to everyone he would not agree. But if somebody did do it with good intentions then they are worthy of praise and if they did it with bad intentions, for example to keep the money away from their ex, then he would find it appalling.
If someone asked what Mill thought of this statement he would have a different answer than Kant. Mill believed that the only people who could determine if a something was better or worse were people who experienced both pleasures. Mill most likely would have argued that there is no way of knowing whether having more money is better or worse, so if we give all our money to the poor to help them or make them happier, it may not be worth it because it may not make them happier. Also, Mill would have looked at this question and tried to be as impartial as possible. He believed in the greater good for the majority of the population. He would have looked at this question and realized that this would not help the greater good of the population because the rich would now become poor and the problem would still remain, making the situation no better that it was before.
Kierkegaard would also have a different way of analyzing this question. Kierkegaard believed in something which he called the ‘crowd’. He believed that modern people had become dull and mediocre because of their constant striving to be like everyone else. This is what he referred to as the crowd and most likely Kierkegaard would have seen this statement as a way for the poor to be like the rich and follow what the experts think should be done. He would also realize that once the poor received the money that the new poor class would then strive to be like the rich, or the ‘crowd’ Kierkegaard would not have favored this statement because he would feel was brought on by the evermore increasingly dull modern society.
Nietzsche’s reaction to this statement would be different yet again. Nietzsche believed that moral codes reduce our passions and they only replicate the desires and perspectives of those who make them. Thus, Nietzsche would not have felt have any moral duty to give to the poor. He also would say that this statement is the weak trying to convince the powerful that they need to take care of them something which he referred to as slave morality. So in the end Nietzche would not agree with this statement.

Finally, Sartre would evaluate this statement by referring to his believe that we are all condemned to be free. Sartre believed that everyone was free to choice what they want. He would state that the poor chose to be poor and the rich chose to be rich. Ultimately, Sartre would blame the poor for their social situation and would not feel sorry for them. Sartre would not agree with this statement.

Best answer:

Answer by jackmcdoodle
no philosophers are just f uck ing retards

Give your answer to this question below!

1998 Greece Athens 10 drachma Democritus (460 - 370 BC) Greek philosopher face

US $0.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Wednesday Feb-08-2012 19:35:38 PST Bid now | Add to watch list

The Greek Philosophers: From Thales to Aristotle

US $20.33 End Date: Thursday Feb-09-2012 4:07:32 PST Buy It Now for only: US $20.33 Buy it now | Add to watch list

Best answer:

Answer by worldwar2dos@yahoo.com
by merely placeing to principles in one place at the same time by telling this to a person i bet it aint all that good probubly not as good as the philosophy of the bible! in reality but if you wanna believe atoms you can lie becuase you dont really know but today and forever opinions dont count anymore its too boring and the world is too boring this way!**

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

A list of great theistic philosophers from St. Augustine to modern times.

http://www.spychips.com/

RFID and the Telescreen | May 14, 2006
Ubisense combines the remote tracking power of Radio Frequency Identification with a modern-day version of the telescreen from George Orwell’s novel 1984, says Liz McIntyre, commenting at FreeMarketNews.

Worldwide reaction to Levi’s RFID spychipping initiative…
Privacy advocates across the globe are sounding-off on spychipping of clothing. Our recent Levi’s story is generating responses in places such as Australia, India, and Europe…

http://www.rense.com/general69/vfid.htm

The VeriChip can be hacked! This revelation along with other worrisome details could put a crimp in VeriChip Corporation’s planned initial public offering (IPO) of its common stock, say Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre.
intersting “ads” that showed up on the side bar!

Best answer:

Answer by Yup_ItsMe
wow well this has been comming to us and no one has even done a thing. remember the people who we became independent from?? well aparently most of us don’t, and they gave them the power back, sounds intereting how now after 300 years we start realizing that the Queen still controls us and this spychip is the way they can have total control they will get rid of actual money (like they ahven’t already) and make all the money digital and they will make the chip our identity without it we do not exist and the trouble makers are easier to get rid of and disapear. so who is willing to be free? all i got to say is

Remember Remember the 5th of november

please remember the christian bible was a book for rebullution not a book of religion where they did warn us about this control of powers…
i am not religious but a free thinker and my kind will be extinct or at least persecuted again for free thinking in the near future. i sure know that with this chip people say that counterfeiting is close to impossible i say yes it is but corruption is the result and hey did someone say Hitler is in the house?

What do you think? Answer below!

Find More Modern Philosophers Articles

Best answer:

Answer by Christopher F
Elizabeth asked Descartes to explain the mechanics of mind-body interaction.

You will remember that for Descartes there are three distinct substances — God, thought, and extension. Thought is the essence of mind, and extension (meaning location and spread-outness in space) is the essence of matter. Of course our bodies are material and our minds aren’t, in his view.

So: Elizabeth sensibly asked, how does something that doesn’t occupy space interact with something that does? My mind says “I think I will move my arm now” and that part of my body moves. How did that happen? Or, in her words:

“…it would be easier for me to concede matter and extension to the soul, than the capacity of moving a body and of being moved, to an immaterial being. For, if the first occurred through `information’, the spirits that perform the movement would have to be intelligent, which you accord to nothing corporeal. And although in your metaphysical meditations you show the possibility of the second, it is, however, very difficult to comprehend that a soul, as you have described it, after having had the faculty and habit of reasoning well, can lose all of it on account of some vapors….”

Did he answer it well? I think not. I think that two later philosophers who were very much influenced by Descartes: Spinoza and Malebranche, both gave much better answers to that question than he did. But then, who am I? Only yours Truly,

Christopher

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

More Modern Philosophers Articles

Best answer:

Answer by Gio Peincke
no. unluckily it is all based on keynes today.

What do you think? Answer below!