Question by prettykitty: What ancient religion or philosophy is this?
My friend was talking about some religion or philosophy that was supposed to be the oldest or something. All I really remember was that it had kind of a long name and sounded like it was two words….
I was gonna look it up once I got home but I don’t remember!!!!

Best answer:

Answer by neil s
The oldest scriptural tradition in the world is the Vedas, and the oldest philosophical tradition is in India.

Give your answer to this question below!

Question by ALFRED J: please help me! this is mathematical modelling problems..?
The modern philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau formulated a simple model of population growth for 18th-century England based on the following assumptions:
The birthrate in London is less than that in rural England.
The death rate in London is greater than that in rural England.
As England industrializes, more and more people migrate from the countryside to London.
Rousseau then reasoned that because London’s birthrate was lower and its death rate higher, and rural people tended to migrate there, the population of England would eventually decline to zero. Criticize Rousseau’s conclusion.

Best answer:

Answer by patrick m
the critisism is the lack of expected life span, and boundry values (not everyone can move, and the population rate change is probably dependant on the current population -like rabbits and wolves living in proximity – more rabbits->more wolves->less rabbits->less wolves) – these can be modeled e^rt – and simultaneous difference equations……

hope this provided a little insight -

What do you think? Answer below!

Find More Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by sephiroth962: Don’t know what to do with the future of this story? Help? Should it be a screenplay, book, tv show? ?
This story has been like 2 years in the making up till now i’m actually gathering info. to develop the story it is the story of a kid named “AJ” (pronouced age idk if thats how you would pronounce it) he has a twin sister, a brother and a family friend as Aj grows up to his late 14 yrs of age he begins to question certain things eventually becoming a philosopher i’ll give him experiences that i myself have experienced as well as all my philosophical views, high school his wisdom increases slowly Aj begins to put the pharse “anything is possible” to the test what does Aj want to be u ask he’ll be emperor of this world. he knows that his task will not be easy and that the world can’t be a perfect place of harmony but he will try his best to keep the world stable enough to bring a sense of harmony, little does he know that he has powers. I wanna make this story as possible as the real world. setting will be our modern world, because this is a huge project of course they will be extra characters involved other than the 4 i just mentioned. i have gathered songs that helped me develop scenes for the story, i also manged to find a way on Microsoft Word to play audio clips of the characters, with music in the background, sound effects basically my own audiobook …the story will have twists loops… mmm thats i all its midnight so sry if i didn’t make certain things clear just e-mail me to clear things up b4 u comment and i’ll leave you with a quote from Aj
“power can build or destroy, love can make u or break u, shit happens for a reason or not at all, ppl change or not at all, some understand some don’t, (tsk) in my opinion everything is balanced nothing will outweigh the other and if so they try to outweigh one another 4 eternity” -Aj

Best answer:

Answer by LJ K
Story idea and work on it seems interesting.
Can only think of one suggestion: put an ‘e’ after Aj (or Aaj?) unless you plan to write a ‘sounds-like’ after the first mention of the name.
As for what this ends out to be ‘real time’ that depends on how you ultimately see the finished product.
Most work shows itself at least by then to be screenplay, novel or TV show; sometimes all three though it can’t be marketed as all three at once.

Once you complete all revisions, it would be best to get an agent in one or all fields (some know all of them). Getting an agent, if you have yet to publish anything, will take time. Suggest you read the first section of the current issue of The Writer’s Market; study all aspects of it and you’ll see what is involved with any type of publication in any field.

If you don’t want to buy the book, you can copy relevant pages (quite a few) at a public library and/or study it there and make notes of what you need to know. The book is also online with all recent updates, but costs (very inexpensive) $ 3.99 a month to see it all. Take a look:

http://www.writersmarket.com

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Related Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by Andrea S: Is this evaluation of the views of different philosophers correct?
Heres the question….How would the statement,“Sell all you have and give to the poor” be evaluated according to Kant’s ethics? What would Mill say about it? What would Kierkegaard say? What would Nietzsche say? What would Sartre say?

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!

Question by Kerbachard! -El Wapo™ ©: Philosophers, do you wear Levi’s? Is this stuff crazy? What are your opinions about the “Chip”?

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

Question by David: What are some of the problems with this solution to the mind-body problem?
Most people tend to lead towards materialism or dualism as I understand it. Obviously dualism can’t be fully explained (a non physical matter exerting influence on a physical matter) and materialism doesn’t do well for those hoping for an afterlife. What if you were instead to view the brain as a computer tower or the hard drive? The actual brain would be the hardware, the mind would be the software or operating system. An operating system obviously consists of code and data, which cannot be held or seen such as a rock on the ground. Obviously I’m talking about the physical matter that data really is, not a C.D. or memory stick.

Anyways, the mind would be our own Windows 7. It would exist within the brain, telling the brain what it should do physically (as far as sending signals to your arm to get it to move, for example). However, it wouldn’t BE the brain. And, just like data can be transferred, your mind could leave the brain itself. This would lend itself to a possibility of life after death, with the mind still being a physical thing. In a sense, you would almost be joining the afterlife via a wireless file transfer This could also explain the possibility of reincarnation (for those that believe in such a thing).

I know this has had to have been proposed before, as I thought of it almost immediately as we went over the basics of the mind body problem in philosophy class. We’re also only halfway through the course, but we seem to have left this particular topic for now. So forgive me if I sound ignorant of new theories (or this one). However, I can’t seem to find a problem with it myself, though admittedly a beginner in philosophy. Can anyone else tell me how this theory has faired when weighed with modern philosophers?
Barbie: you do realize the point of throwing in how the theory dealt with the after life is because fans of dualism reject materialism due to the fact that it doesn’t have room for one, right? Seriously, no one cares what your religious or non religious beliefs are. It’s about the theory being plausible.
Aaron: yes I remember the Chineese room arguement. However, that was to show that just because something appears to do something, doesn’t mean that that is the case. Such was the example of the people in the room responding in Chineese, though they knew not what it meant. I would believe more along the lines of the identity thesis than functionalism. While I draw a parallel between the mind and the OS, I don’t mean that they are identical. I simply use that example to explain how the mind can be physical, as can the brain, and be two seperate entities, as well as how the mind can survive the death of the body. However, more elaborating and fine tuning would be desired, agreed. I’ll have to do this.
Aaron: yes I remember the Chineese room arguement. However, that was to show that just because something appears to do something, doesn’t mean that that is the case. Such was the example of the people in the room responding in Chineese, though they knew not what it meant. I would believe more along the lines of the identity thesis than functionalism. While I draw a parallel between the mind and the OS, I don’t mean that they are identical. I simply use that example to explain how the mind can be physical, as can the brain, and be two seperate entities, as well as how the mind can survive the death of the body. However, more elaborating and fine tuning would be desired, agreed. I’ll have to do this.

Best answer:

Answer by Vintage Barbie
What makes you think there is an afterlife?

Give your answer to this question below!

Question by freethinker: according to the psychiatric community Christians are delusional, does this surprise you?
Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1917 book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

These criteria still continue in modern psychiatric diagnosis.

Best answer:

Answer by indiegeek22
Hell no, it’s true.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Question by travis w: thoughts on this quote?
Ancient ethics always dealt with 3 questions. Modern ethics deals with only 1, or at the most 2. The 3 questions are like the 3 things a fleet of ships is told by its sailing orders. First, the ships must know how to avoid bumping into each other. This is social ethics, and modern as well as ancient ethicists deal with it. Second, they must know how to stay shipshape and avoid sinking. This is individual ethics, virtues and vices, character building, and we hear very little about this from our modern ethical philosophers. Third, and most important of all, they must know why the fleet is at sea in the first place…I think I know why modern philosophers dare not raise this greatest of questions: because they have no answer to it.

Best answer:

Answer by Hatchetman Jack
+2

Add your own answer in the comments!

Question by Cliff Harris: Can any of you evolutionists dispute this?
Natural Philosophy = Philosophy based on laws determined by philosophy.

Natural Science – Philosophy that passes the scientific method but usually gets disproven eventually anyway.

Whether you are a natural philosopher like charles darwin, or an equally philosophical natural scientist, you have no claim to any truth unless you get it from God. There is no truth except that which comes from Him.

Any scientific fact is only a scientific fact until new philosophies (evidence) are discovered (or crafted) that disproves it.

And any scientific experiment intended to conclusively determine any absolute truths, would have to require every single factor in the universe (an infinite amount) to be present, and the person doing the experiment would have to have infinite knowledge of every single factor from the infinitely smallest to the infinitelety largest. And with that knowledge, you would be able to determine an absolute truth. But modern science is no where near that. So all they do is guess using philosophies to try to understand life which are comstantly replaced with new and equally ignorant philosphies on a daily basis without coming at all closer to attaining absolute truth. Man lacks the capacity to determine absolute knowledge of all things in existance. We can’t even remember 10,000 phone numbers much less complete knowledge of even 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0…
things in the universe which is actually infinately less then infinity.

For example to make any absolute statement in truth about molecules you would have to have complete knowledge and understanding of not just 1 but every molecule in existance. And we lack that capacity. So complete knowledge of every molecule, atom, and quark, are just the beginning. We’d have to know everything else also. And that is not likely to happen through science/natural philosophy.

The Correct Way to go about it is to ask The One who made everything in existance, the one who keeps the trillions of laws that govern the universe not just every second, or every billionth of a second, or even a trillionth of a second, but the one who keeps the universe running constantly even to the innfinately smallest fraction of a second.

Still not convinced? Lets examine the odds that every law in the universe would remain constant even for 2 trillionths of a second. being that there are over 100 trillion laws in place we’ll say just 1,000 laws governing the universe to make this more relative. So here are the odds.

for every .000000000001/second you will have to guess the correct random number between 1 and 1,000 and get the correct number every time.

in other words.

.000000000001
“Quick roll the 1,000 sided dice and hope it lands on 1, wow it landed on 1! Let’s hope it does it again!”

.000000000002
“Quick roll the 1,000 sided dice and hope it lands on 1, wow it landed on 1! Let’s hope it does it again!”

.000000000003
“Quick roll the 1,000 sided dice and hope it lands on 1, wow it landed on 1! Let’s hope it does it again!”

And it would have to be correct at least a trillion times per second, and never guessing incorrectly even once.

This is the logic of the philosophers trying to support a Godless universe.
einstein: 100.00%
redstapl: try again
jack very good statement. Since However perhaps better said, Christians can determine truth by the Bible and know absolute Truths.. however Atheists, play trial and error and have been for thousands of years and have not even 1 absolute truth to go by.
The best science can do is “the sun rose yesterday, therefore the sun will rise tomorrow”
taikutsu: Actually philosophy has not done any such thing. modern philosophy (science) uses metaphysics and probablity to lead people to believe such things about the universe. They have absolutely no way at all of determing if the earth is the center of the univers or not. 25,000,000,000 galaxies to the east as well as to the north south and west. In fact, modern philosophy/science/metaphysics contracdicts itself, in regards to quantum theory by the light from the east, not having yet met with the light from the west, which according to the big bang nonsense should have happened billiion upon billions of years ago.
thank you for your response alex l, but in additon to eliminating the laws of time and motion, you are also eliminating the laws of thermodynamics, and at least 100 other ones. For example, what law specifies how long a single law is in place for? The 3000 year law? the 2999 year law? And these laws are based on math, so what law determined the mathemtical laws of math, and how long have the mathmatical laws of math been present, unless math was a constant law before the laws of mathmatics were created. The entire atheistic imagination is designed for those who choose not to think beyond the limits of their philosopher role models.
taikutsu: no they actually haven’t they use metaphysics and probabilty, to form philosophies. But have no true knowledge of anything about space.
actually you need to do some studying, YES all those sciences you named are metaphysics – “we can’t prove any of this garbage we are telling you but just believe us ok?” that is metaphysics motto. here try this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

alex modern natural philosophers have philosophically stated (which passed the scientific method making them empirical philosophies) that the universe is always changing. So how can the laws remain constant if that is the case?
Saeed well said, so why are you giving up your soul to eternal seperation from God and all the Goodness that only comes from him, like love, mercy, compassion, generosity, trust, and kindness, condemining yourself to eternity without any of those for evolution which you don’t even believe is absolutely true?

Best answer:

Answer by Einstein
To how many decimal points do you know the existense of a god?

Add your own answer in the comments!

Related Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by Mad Mac: For child development specialists, please help me with this matter…?
Cognitive psychology seems to consider love as not being a primary emotion. Post modern philosophers say good and evil are relative not intrinsic. Humans seem to me to have a “built in” sense of right and wrong and a need for love as evidenced by very young children’s recognition of incidents of violence to others or self as being negative. This seems to me to be due to an intrinsic sense or a learned sense of goodness maybe learned from mothers TLC of them. TLC = tender loving care.
Does this latter seem true to you?

Best answer:

Answer by studenttherapist
you seem to look st one side of the coin… look at maslow’s hierarchy of needs..especially with the recent research…

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!