Question by Kobe: What’s the point in majoring in philosophy?
Anyone can develop their own philosophy of life based on their own experiences. What makes learning of classics better than one’s own? It’s not like you can apply classical philosophy. Furthermore, the premises that classical philosophy is based on is not what most intellectuals would come up with today from scratch, observing how the modern world works. In order to discuss philosophical perspectives, the philosopher must find similar peers to discuss philosophical point of views, thereby demonstrating how non-universal it is.
And I don’t like how philosophers think they’re smarter than the rest of us. There are other majors that teach us to use logic and our heads, AND can be applied for practical purposes. Every philosopher in the past has been replaced with a newer one with a modified point of view. I don’t need them to tell me what’s prudent or not.
Best answer:
Answer by Linc If you have to ask, obviously you don’t get it!
Years from now, once you finish your major, you’ll realize how funny that was.
Question by : What’s your favorite line and why?
Give these bitches numbers to the pager
Invite ‘em to the next Dre function as party favors
Who said pimpin’s hard labor?
So sick, he’s the modern day philosopher, next to Forrest Gump
Best answer:
Answer by A. D i tried to break it up
i said stop it, just leave her.
she said if i cant smoke some, she cant either.
Snoop Dogg
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Question by Roby: please help, i have a brother: what’s wrong with him?
These are the circumstances: very very smart (as said by everybody who knows or met him); able to get to the point in half the time other people do; grades of 90/100% at school since he was 5 (he is 28); now at the 2nd year of his doctorate in management.
The problem: everything he starts, once arrived at 60% quits; he is studying for a test now, but is thinking to go to the close by college and take also some more classes that he says may help him to have a better understandin; his actual GPA at the doctorate is 3.8 (out of 4.0).
If he feels interested in something, he starts to practice it really hard, but then after few weeks leaves all. For example, he started fishing, he bought very expensive equipment, but after a month he gave up. The same with football, baseball and volleyball. Once, he decided to study philosophy: he bought several books of Greek and modern philosophers, and after reading all of them classified philosophy as a “circular wasting of time.”
what should i do
something that you want to know: when he was 16 run as representative in his high school and while nobody knew him he arrived first; at the age of 19 he was leading a junior school from bankruptcy to being the first in the school district; when he was 25 he won a national competition for young entrepreneurs, arriving first (most of the national universities were involved).
Best answer:
Answer by Evil Twin There is nothing wrong with him. He is clearly successful even though he takes on stuff without ever finishing it. I do the same thing, no big deal.
Question by chevyloo487: Whats the difference between Religion and Philosophy?
I mea think about it we think these things are good, these things are bad, we should do this so often. Even thinking about a higher power is a philosophical debate, so whats the difference between religion nd philosophy.
Best answer:
Answer by pab philosophy says that there is nothing taken for granted…there is no default answer, nothing that shouldn’t be questioned
religion very much does not say that
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Question by aedgagt: Whats the difference between philosophy and religion?
Best answer:
Answer by Phil S A philosophy is an outlook on life and how to live it. A religion is a set of beliefs regarding one or more deities. Most religions come with a philosophy (a view on how you should live) but philosophies dont come with a religion.
Question by Ramachandran Rajagopalan: Whats your take on Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism?
My view is that no other philosophy can be as down to earth as Ayn Rand’s objectivism. Can any modern day philosopher match her feat?
Best answer:
Answer by John Ayn Rand really isn’t a philosopher. Even conservative thinkers who are intellectually honest will tell you this.
She’s a third-rate novelist who wrote some fiction with vaguely philosophical themes, and all of a sudden everyone thinks she’s a philosopher.
EDIT: Rod, I don’t think I ever wrote anywhere that she wrote more fiction than non-fiction. Do you see that anywhere?
Yaoi Shonen-ai (By the way, everyone needs to look up what that means. I’d put it here, but he’d only report my answer): I never said that she didn’t write a novel based on “epistemic principles.” I said that she never wrote a GOOD novel. And if you think something you can find in Ayn Rand is what continues to hold Federalism together, I have a bridge in Alaska you might be interested in. And I’m sure “objectivism” (a “philosophy” that doesn’t even deserve the suffix “ism”) is espoused by at least two Supreme Court Justices. Let me guess? Scalia and Thomas, right? That makes sense … the crazy one, and the one that had absolutely no qualifications for the position in the first place, respectively.
Whenever individuals explore and analyze religion, one common, but unfortunate word people use is,‘cult’. Whenever people don’t like religious or spiritual groups, it’s not uncommon to bring up the word ‘cult’, with no real comprehension of the difference those and legitimate organized religions. The reason for this is actually very simple to see.
For example, in the event you fail to follow Christian Biblical concepts strictly, the Christian Protestant Fundamentalists think you a cult. Although they perhaps originally intended that to demean only those Christian denominations that somehow “were misguided”, that definition now extends clearly also includes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, … In fact, because at least 2/3 of the world’s population doesn’t identify with any sort of Christian, almost 70% of all of us are therefore ‘members of a cult’.
But, the problem goes even deeper than that. The Protestant fundamentalists have continued to expand their cult list by including Roman Catholics along with all Easter Orthodox faiths, over a disagreement over the number of sacraments there are. By those standards, 93% of the people on the planet are involved in cults. To take it 1 step further, they also think most other Christian Protestant groups to have fallen out of compliance with biblical fidelity. So, for these men and women, virtually the only singular group of people on the planet who aren’t in a cult is them!
Whenever different groups examine these extraordinarily strict doctrinal interpretations, they frequently believe that anyone following them has lost all individualized thought, and must therefore be a member of a cult. To much of the rest of the planet, it’s actually these biblically strict, narrow groups who are the true cults. Taken together, that includes everybody. Everyone on the planet is a member of a cult — according to somebody! The Baptists are pointing fingers at the Catholics who are pointing fingers at the Protestants – and everyone is pointing fingers at the Mormons.
Whenever you paint anything with such a broad brush, it’s pointless; as Joey on ‘Friends’ once said, “The point is Moo — because who cares what a cow thinks?
So, is there any way to redeem the word, so it can have some meaning of value? The main issue is that those who are creating the definitions are lacking neutrality. They’ve got an agenda. The thing we need is someone else to give us a neutral means to identify a cult — someone without a personal interest in the decision. That individual can be the ‘anthropologist of religion’.
An anthropologist of religion is someone who studies the field of religion from a scientific standpoint. Sometimes they’ve got a particular religion to which they adhere, and other times they don’t. This will make some members from the organized religions rather uncomfortable. If the anthropologist belongs to a religion — any religion — the other people scream “bias! bias!”, and everything the anthropologist has to say must be wrong because they’ve got this personal bias.|If it happens that the individual belongs to a particular religion, all the others shout, ‘Bias! Bias! — and ignores anything stated.
If, on the other hand, the anthropologist doesn’t take part in any specific religion, the others scream “atheist! atheist!”, and everything this anthropologist says has got to be biased on the fact that they’re simply opposed to all religious beliefs. Drama and accusation aside, how do these neutral parties define cults?
Usually, the majority of them define a cult by using a specific ‘five point system’. The answers to the the following questions will make it clear whether or not the group is a cult.
These are:
1. Does the group have a charismatic, strong leader (or leaders)
Two. Does the group squash individuality as well as independent thought?
3. Is there a denial of intimacy by excluding or alienating friends or relatives?
Four. Do they apply financial pressure and abuse for the welfare of the group, even at the personal expense of the adherent?
Five. Does the group keep its members separated from their surrounding community?
Even using this approach, the problem is that it still isn’t black and white. If all 5 questions are answered “yes”, then it easily qualifies as being a cult. Obviously, if every one of the answers is no, then it’s absolutely NOT a cult. If it were only The hard part is when, as is the case with most groups, the answer is “yes” to a number of questions between those two extremes. you are unlikely to find any solid answers, so the best we can do is really a sort of sliding scale.
It’s always easy to handle to fully grasp with a real-life situation.
One Case Study of a Cult — The People’s Temple. This is the title of the church founded by the Reverend James Warren “Jim” Jones — over nine hundred folks that committed suicide in Jonestown, Guyana back in 1978.
Ask yourself those aforementioned five questions:
(a). They had Jones as a leader – strong and charismatic.
(b) they thought as a group and weren’t allowed to have any ideas to call their own.
(c) they ended encouraged strongly to exclude their friends as well as relatives from every aspect of their lives and their church activities.
(d) The members more than tithed, they basically gifted all everything they owned to the church, and were in turn cared for by the church (the group was entirely communist);
(e) When their isolation from the surrounding community began to break down, they relocated to a remote spot inside the jungles of South America.
All five factors had been met, so they clearly were a cult.
A 2nd Case Study – Jehovah’s Witnesses. Founded in the late 1800s by Charles Taze Russell, these are the folks that you are likely to come across when they knock on your door.
Let’s compare them to the same five questions:
(a) They do not have a particular leader, strong or otherwise.
(b) They believe that as a result of independent bible study, everybody will eventually come to the same conclusions that they have.
(c) Witnesses ask people they don’t know as well as relatives to teach what they think they have learned;
(d) While it’s frequently true that Witnesses devote a lot of their time and effort trying to convert others, there does not appear to be any monetary pressure – not any more so than any other church encourages tithing.
(e) It’s their lack of separation from the nearby community that often has them at odds with their neighbors.
They meet none of the criteria. Jehovah’s Witnesses are definitely not a cult.
Bottom Line: determining properly whether a group is a cult is unrelated to their biblical interpretations, and needs to instead be determined by sociological criteria unrelated to the religious position of the group. Whether cults are dangerous or not depends on which cult. Just because it’s a cult, does not make it automatically dangerous, but any one or any thing that discourages independent thought, is ultimately bad for you.
This is an excerpt of 1 lesson (of 30) from the Master of Religious Philosophy course offered through the Universal Life Church Seminary. We have many courses available and each one carries with it a degree at the end of the course.
Kevin is a student of psychology and spiritual studies and a minister at the Universal Life Church .
Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web, answers questions submitted through YouTube — www.freedomainradio.com
Tell me, does this describe you; you buy whatever skin cream you see advertised on television or whatever product your friends are using. For many people this is their .
That was also the skincare philosophy of my fiancé until she asked me to research skin creams and lotions. She was just not happy with the products she was using.
She usually just purchased a recognizable brand from the drugstore. Of course, at the time I had no idea whether this was a good idea or not.
So, I set to work at doing research on skin care products. I quickly realized that most brands of skin creams and lotions found at the drugstore did not contain the necessary ingredients to be an effective product.
In addition, I found that many of those products contain ingredients that can be harmful to your skin.
It seems that the most effective ingredients used in skin creams and lotions are natural ingredients. They are also much safer than using the standard chemical based products.
Thus, my fiancé’s skincare philosophy now consists of using only the best natural products. Because of this, she has not been this happy with her skin since she was much younger. As a side note, she is currently in her mid-forties.
Once I had convinced her she should be using natural products, I set about to look the most effective natural ingredients because even not all natural substances are as effective.
In all honesty, I do not know why more people are not using safe natural products. Frankly, it should be everyone’s skincare philosophy.
You wouldn’t think that the advancements in science and technology would have a bearing on natural skin creams and lotions but they do.
Using the latest cell rejuvenation technology has allowed scientists to formulate very effective creams containing the very best natural substances.
Most of the big name cosmetic companies are still using chemical and synthetic ingredients because they are cheaper to manufacture. This keeps their costs low, so they can continue to make large profits.
Some of the most effective natural ingredients include Manuka honey, Avocado oil, Macadamia oil, Grapeseed oil, Jojoba oil, Phytessence Wakame and Cynergy TK.
All of these ingredients are very effective on their own, however when combined they work in synergy together to increase their overall effectiveness.
If you truly want to reduce lines and wrinkles on your skin, then seriously think about using creams and lotions containing these natural substances.
What is your skincare philosophy? Now, that you are armed with this information, what action are you going to take?
Tom became an advocate for using organic skin care products when researching for a safe and effective skin cream for his fiancé. He now hopes to educate people on how to find the best natural body firming cream. Visit his site today! http://www.thefacewrinkle.com/ By Tom Woods
How Do You Define The Soul? Where does the soul reside? Where does it go after we die? What is consciousness? What makes each of us unique yet connected in unity? For thousands of years humankind has asked these existential questions and religions have attempted to explain the divine nature of human existence. With the advent of theoretical physics, quantum mechanics and the emerging fields of string and membrane theory to explain reality, science has reached extraordinary new heights of understanding. In The Fusion of Science and Spirit – The Bigger Questions series goes beyond “The Secret” to provide a deeper explanation of the true nature of this wonderful multiverse we live in and provides a cutting-edge understanding of our mystical connection to the cosmos, spirit and ourselves. Join top experts as they ponder The Fusion of Science and Spirit and show that ancient mystics and native peoples had knowledge of the interconnectedness of all things. Featuring: Amit Goswami PhD, Charles Tart PhD, William Tiller PhD, Dean Radin PhD, John Hagelin PhD, Russell Targ PhD, Brian O’Leary PhD. NOW on DVD – Go to www.UFOTV.com. Bigger Questions? – The Psychic Matrix, Cat# U772 Bigger Questions? – The Nature of Reality, Cat# U773 Bigger Questions? – The Fusion of Science and Spirit, Cat# U774 Video Rating: 4 / 5
I want something that’s unbiased and presents both sides of the argument. One that presents the most arguments and criticisms and covers all areas, like arguments for and against the existence of god and the religious belief system and stuff like that. I read Peter Vardy’s ‘The Thinkers Guide to God’ and couldn’t help thinking it was a little bias towards religion.
Yes, I’m aware I already asked this on the Religion and Spirituality section but I didn’t get any helpful answers and I hope I will get it here. After all, it is to do with philosophy.
