Question by : why do women think they are better than men?
here are my arguments that men are superior to women
1 men invented agriculture that led to the development of civilization
2 Plato Euclid and Aristotle where all great philosophers and laid the foundations for modern science
and they where men
3 every great empire from Rome to the USA has been lead by men
4 Albert Einstein was a great thinker and a man
5 men invented space travel and democracy
so women what do you need to say
Question by : I want to know what people think consciousness is?
Modern science, which by its methods, does not accept metaphysical reality, has yet to define consciousness. Quantum Physics has learned things some of its own researchers admit were part of ancient philosophy. In short, they are confirming metaphysical realities the ancients based their cultures on. But they both get stuck when it comes to consciousness, which was actually admitted by a Quantum Physiscist in the documentary, :What the Bleep Do We Know? Going Down the Rabbit Hole”. Their problem rests in the fact that they are trying to define the reality of consciousness within the parameters of physics. To me, its like scientists buzzing around during a live play, studying the physical nature of the stage props, to try to figure out what the play is about, and what all the movement is. In Ancient Kamitic (Egyptian) Philosophy, Reality, and every and anything in it, cxan be placed into two DUAL categories:
1. Material, which is MATTER (nothing more than dead lifeless building blocks that cant arrange themselves by their own accord), and ENERGY which is a material aspect of movement. Scientists seem to focus on the cMATTER, while quantum physicists focus a little more on the ENERGY aspects. To the ancients, energy moves matter, which dictates how it behaves.
2. NON-Material: Consciousness is NOT material. In fact, the ancients believe that matter and energy were initially FORMLESS realities, like a dead still body of water to put it symbolically. Consciousness initiated movement in the water, this movement being energy, which consequently orders matter to take its various forms. And what does Consciousness, the PASSIVE OBSERVER, move energy with? The second of the non-material realities: WILL.
The process of creation, literally, and in our practical life, is Consciousness orders matter to form or behave by willing energy to move it.
OK, what are your takes on this guys? Scientists? Philosophers? Laypersons (like myself!)?
I like everyones answers. I only have one problem with one of the answers, not as an insult, please. An inspirational speaker Dr. Dwayne Dyer, once said, “Years ago, people would ask a scientist,if he or she believes in God. They answered to them, ‘of course not, I am a scientist’. Now, if you ask a scientist if they believe in God, they more often respond, ‘of course I do, I am a scientist’ “. That isnt a word for word quote from him, but the point is, early in our scientific quest, many scientists set out to disprove all the religious and metaphysical explanaitions of life and the world we live in. to get the objective facts only, to answer all of lifes questions. Now, some scientists are realizing that for the Universe to ‘explode accidentally into existence (The “Big Bang”, that I partially agree with, but wonder where the previously non existent materials came from that reacted to one another to cause this accidental explosion), is kind of full of holes, because there is too much
Best answer:
Answer by Abigail Consciousness is a chemical reaction in the brain.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Cogito ergo sum, descartes compared to philosophy in the Matrix trilogy, rationalism, perception of the world, systematic This clip is taken from the documentary ‘Return to the Source – Philosophy and the Matrix’ See it in full length here www.youtube.com
Question by sOuL dOcToR: What do u think of my feature article?
(Please please please do not rewrite this, because I’m just wanting to know what you think of it)
The Great Heroes of the Bible Versus the Modern Heroes of Today
Different ages, cultures, and beliefs vary the heroic personality. To the historian, a hero is one who shapes the course of events; to the philosopher, one who alters the thinking of his times; to the folklorist, one who evokes legends and songs. The search for true heroism is inherent in human nature. This article will discuss the definition of true heroism, how biblical heroes compare with modern-day heroes, and how biblical heroes are more successful, valued, and appreciated.
A true hero is a godly role model who exhibits great courage and perseverance. His motives are pure, self-sacrificial, and ordained for the benefit of others. He is not afraid to stand up for what is right, even though it may cost him his life. Above all, his goals are righteous and inspired by God, and therefore he achieves them successfully.
I believe that many modern-day heroes are inferior to biblical heroes, because they are fictitious, unrealistic characters who never change their ideals or plans. They are flat fantasy figures seen on cartoon movies like Spiderman and Superman. They rely on their superficial strength and magical powers to fascinate others. This shows a contrast from the great heroes of the Bible who recognised their imperfections and fallible wills, changed, and then succeeded, rising to the status of true heroes of faith. At first, the apostle Peter relied on his own strength and denied his Lord, but when he realised his mistake, he repented, and his life was changed. We see later that he converts three thousand unbelievers to Christ and performs many miracles through the power of God. In the same way, Paul persecuted the Christians because he trusted in his own knowledge. When he recognized his grave error, he changed. God transformed him and empowered him to witness for Christ.
These are the true heroes that we are to value, because they realised their humanistic weaknesses, repented, and were then raised to greatness, not in their own strength, but in the power of the Holy Spirit working in their lives.
I believe that some modern-day heroes are unsuccessful, because their goals are inspired by their own fleshly and selfish desires. They rely on the materialistic appurtenances of this world: physique, beauty, wealth, and popularity. Elvis Presley was the king of rock music and a very renowned performer. Although he achieved his goal of being a millionaire with great fame, did this really achieve him true success? Did he really attain the fulfilment of happiness, good health, long life, peace of mind, and Eternal Life? Records show that Presley suffered from diseases and mental depression, he abused himself with drugs, and he finally died a miserable death at a young age. If only he had pursued more valuable goals, his life would not have been such a failure.
Hamlet and Macbeth are famous Shakespearean heroes to the public audience. They achieved their goals, but because their goals were evil, they did not succeed in the end. Hamlet was vengeful and unforgiving. His desire to usurp the throne turned him into a heartless murderer, rather than a hero to be admired. In the same way, Macbeth slaughtered his king for the sake of his selfish desire to gain excessive power and wealth. He successfully achieved his goal, but he did not realise the consequences that would follow. His kingdom was in uproar; he had bizarre dreams; his conscience was beleaguered with guilt. In the end, Macbeth was massacred. Hamlet and Macbeth are not true heroes, because their goals were ungodly and did not achieve true success.
In contrast, biblical heroes are more successful, because their goals are virtuous and inspired by an infallible God. Despite his size, David had a goal to save Israel from the Philistine enemy. David trusted in God, and because his goal was righteous, God empowered him to defeat the giant. King Solomon devoted his life to God, and his goal was to acquire wisdom to lead his people uprightly. God not only gave Solomon wisdom, but also showered him with riches, honour, and fame. Solomon found true happiness and satisfaction in life. Without a doubt, we can conclude that David and Solomon were truly successful heroes, because they pursued godly goals. As the Bible affirms in Proverbs 21:21, “He who pursues righteousness finds life, prosperity, and honour.”
For these reasons, I strongly believe that biblical heroes are more successful compared to modern-day heroes. We cannot rely on fictitious characters to stimulate our imagination. Many modern-day heroes rely on their own abilities to achieve their goals, and many of their goals are based on selfish motives and worldly pleasures. Biblical heroes are not sanitized, plastic icons carved into theoretical creatures, but are rather flesh-and-blood people who achieved great feats for God, despite their imperfections. Biblical heroes are wholly inspiring and are worth imitating, because their righteous goals reflect their inner personalities: love, fortitude, devotion, and self-sacrifice. A call for godly role models is becoming more critical in our depraved society, and as we have seen in this article, the Bible is our ultimate source to find them. We should admire the true success revealed in the lives of biblical heroes.
Best answer:
Answer by terrayle I like the first part very much, up until the first bit that you added in details. I feel that you started to write in another style altogether at that point, it became less of a study and more personal feelings I think. But it is still very good.
Please read my essay question and help me out as well! thanks!
Question by Bob Nias: Why do some Christians think atheism is a religion or philosophy?
There is some philosophy surrounding atheism, but its arguing for atheism. Atheists live their live and believe whatever philosophy they want!
And believing in a philosophy is not a religion; religion involves believing in a god(or gods) that watch over us.
Atheism is just not believing in any gods, that doesn’t make it a religion. I don’t believe in the tooth fairy, does that count as a religion? No.
Best answer:
Answer by anonymous1_anonymous5 their isolated upbringings account for this.
Question by redbone001: can someone help me think of a good name for a?
traditional and modern philosopher party, its kind of like democratic and republican but we are dealing with philosphy, i need an idea for mascots to if you dont mind. Thanks for the help,
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!
Question by Crystalize: Do you think philosophy conflicts with or supports your theology?
For anyone who has studied or even read up on Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras up to modern philosophers, do you feel their ideas clash with your religion or do you think the concepts are compatable?
For the non-religious: would you say ideas about ethics and morals can be adequately obtained from philosphy rather than religious doctrine?
.
Best answer:
Answer by mighty.macabros Since my religion is heavy on philosophy, to the point it is accepted as the standard for philosophic guidelines in a lot of Asian countries, I would say that it supports my Theology very much so.
Add your own answer in the comments!
www.egs.edu Manuel DeLanda speaking about materialism and experience, Gilles Deleuze, materialist philosophy, left and marxist movement, a world of experience, philosophy of nature, social constructivism, sociology, materialism, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida. Free public open video lecture for the students and faculty of the European Graduate School EGS, Film Media and Communication Studies department program, Saas-Fee, Switzerland, Europe, 2008. Manuel De Landa. Manuel DeLanda, (born 1952 in Mexico City), is a writer, artist and distinguished philosopher who has lived in New York since 1975. He is an Adjunct Associate Professor at Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation at Columbia University (New York), a Professor for Contemporary Philosophy and Science at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, a professor at the Canisius College in Buffalo, New York, and professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Design in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is the author of War in the Age of Intelligent Machines (1991), A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History (1997), Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy (2002) and A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity (2006). He has published many articles and essays and lectured extensively in Europe and in the United States. His work focuses on the theories of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze on one hand, and modern science, self … Video Rating: 4 / 5
Question by Michael: what do modern day jewish philosopher’s think of spinoza?
Best answer:
Answer by Christine I doubt there’s a consensus. Here’s my view. He left Judaism to become a Catholic, hence his change of name from Baruch Spinoza to Benedict Spinoza. His philosophy was pantheistic, except for his becoming a Catholic.
Question by Red Yeti: Do you think stem cell research is the modern Philosopher’s stone.?
Best answer:
Answer by Briseis of Troy Embryonic stem cell research is becomming obsolete because
of the discovery of adult stem cells, not only are they superior
but they also dont cause many of the horrid side effects of using
unnatural embryonics in and adult body of all th ings
Question by john889743: Do you think that Paris Hilton is a “modern” philosopher?
Is she the Plato or the Socrate of the years 2000. Yes? No? Justify your answers.
Question by milthistagent: Do you think Aristarchus of Samos and other ancient scientists ideas contributed to more modern scientists vie
Do you think ancient scientists, mathematicians, philosophers ideas contributed to more modern scientists like Newton, Einstein, Copernicus?
For example: Aristarchus of Samos proposed the first heliocentric model of the Universe. Did Copernicus use that as part of his research? (It was also proposed by Seleucus and Vedic texts)
Best answer:
Answer by xx_villainess_xx Definitely. Ancient scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, etc. laid the foundations for those of today. Aristarchus of Samos is a perfect example. He was the first known astronomer to propose the heliocentric model of the solar system (the sun being the center of the solar system) at a time when the geocentric model (the earth being the center of the solar system) was more widely accepted. Plato, his student, Aristotle, Ptolemy, and many others supported the geocentric model. Seleucus was the last known astronomer to have supported the heliocentric model proposed by Aristarchus–and like you said, it was also found much earlier in Vedic texts–until Copernicus came along.
I remember reading somewhere that it was said that Copernicus had cited Aristarchus’ theory in one of his manuscripts, but the citation was never released for publication because he was not directly inspired by Aristarchus, contrary to popular belief. And that the Copernican theory stemmed not from an astronomer’s standpoint, rather a “simple” mathematician’s hypothesis.
Whatever the case might be, these are people that laid the foundation for their successors (Galileo, etc.). Their theories were scrutinized and revised for centuries…and what we NOW know is the result.
Here are some others that are worthy of note:
Leucippus and his student Democritus, and their atomic theory
Pythagoras and his Pythagorean theorem (a^2 + b^2= c^2). The theorem itself is believed to predate Pythagoras’ existence, but he was credited with discovering it and proving it to be true.
Alcmaeon of Croton, an ancient Greek philosopher who “dabbled” in medicine (there is no conclusive evidence that he was a physician, though most of his work dealt with medical science). He performed human dissection for medical research; supported the idea that the brain was the “powerhouse” of the body, the source of our intelligence and consciousness; and made a connection between the brain, nerves and sensory organs.
Hippocrates, the father of medicine. He was the first to rationalize diseases and illnesses; considered that diseases and illnesses could potentially be attributed to one’s environment and/or family history; and of course I have to mention his contribution of the Hippocratic Oath.
Archimedes, the greatest mathematician in history, and his Archimedes’ Principle (buoyancy).
Eratosthenes, who was said to be the first to have calculated the circumference of the Earth (and it wasn’t too far off), and also devised the longitude and latitude system.
These are just a few that I can think of at the moment (I could probably list a ton more), without taking the time to pull out notes or do some research. Unfortunately I could only think of those of Greek origin, but there are many others from other regions worthy of note as well.
What do you think? Answer below!
Boomeritis: a video montage of this post-modernism “disease”, narrated by What Is Enlightenment? magazine’s Tom Huston, from a retreat with Andrew Cohen Boomeritis, a term coined by philosopher Ken Wilber, describes a curious condition afflicting the baby boom generation. In short, “high cognitive pluralism mixed with low emotional narcissism.” AKA: a smart, progressive person with a big ego. It’s a disease that began infecting human beings during the sixties revolution, when millions of rebellious American and European teens, took full advantage of the rights and freedoms afforded them by Western society and explored the entire spectrum of their egoic autonomy. Busting through every limitation, subverting every authority, and ingesting every psychedelic drug they could get their hands on, they each tumbled out, squinting and dazed, into the bright sunny dawn of the Age of Aquarius. And although that new age, obscured by the rose-colored glasses of hippiedom, wasn’t all it was cracked up to be, it did mark the birth of an actual new stage of human consciousness and culture. Historians, sociologists, and philosophers call it postmodernity, and its defining characteristic was the capacity to allow a variety of differing viewpoints, cultures, and worldviews to peacefully coexist in an egalitarian embrace. Today this multicultural consciousness is also frequently called “pluralism” for its ability to honor and respect a multidimensional plurality of perspectives, and is … Video Rating: 4 / 5
It’s a disease that began infecting human beings during the sixties revolution, when millions of rebellious American and European teens, took full advantage of the rights and freedoms afforded them by Western society and explored the entire spectrum of their egoic autonomy. Busting through every limitation, subverting every authority, and ingesting every psychedelic drug they could get their hands on, they each tumbled out, squinting and dazed, into the bright sunny dawn of the Age of Aquarius. And although that new age, obscured by the rose-colored glasses of hippiedom, wasn’t all it was cracked up to be, it did mark the birth of an actual new stage of human consciousness and culture. Historians, sociologists, and philosophers call it postmodernity, and its defining characteristic was the capacity to allow a variety of differing viewpoints, cultures, and worldviews to peacefully coexist in an egalitarian embrace. Today this multicultural consciousness is also frequently called “pluralism” for its ability to honor and respect a multidimensional plurality of perspectives, and is …
