Question by Sergio M: Is ancient philosophy interesting?
I’m a biology major who wants to take some philosophy classes as upper-level electives. There are 3 main history of western philosophy courses:

Classics of Ancient Western Philosophy
Course Description: Ancient Greek philosophy focusing particularly on works of Plato and Aristotle.

Classics of Modern Western Philosophy
Course Description: Philosophers from the “modern period” of philosophy focusing on those writing in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, such as Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, and Kant.

Nineteenth-Century Western Philosophy
Course Description: Works of major nineteenth-century philosophers such as Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Mill, Frege, and Nietzsche.

I’d like to take all three before graduating if I can just to have a well rounded knowledge of the topic. I don’t have to take them in any order, but I’m wondering if it would be of any help to take ancient philosophy first to better understand the later guys, or are they more stand-alone? Also, like it says in the title, I’m wonder how interesting ancient philosophy is compared to other eras. One concern I have as a fan of science is that, back then, humans knew fuck all about anything. So I also want to know if/how relevant Plato and Aristotle are to modern philosophy.

Best answer:

Answer by Mono
Well Aristotle might be slightly boring, especially concerning his Nicomachean Ethics, because he is the main base for Western ethics in general and you’ll probably feel like you know everything he’s telling you. Except you know, about women and slaves being inferior. But Plato is pretty awesome. I’d go for Ancient before doing the others.

What do you think? Answer below!

Find More Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by : Some people say: philosophy is dead….is that true?
I think the job of a philosopher is to sum up human efforts by finding connections between different branches of knowledge,but modern scientists usually talk about physics,chemistry and biology by cutting them off from aesthetics,ethics and religion,thus giving a too technical insight on basic human problems.Do you think scientists like Sagan,Hawking or Dawkins are compensating Russell,James or Durant when they talk about origin of life and universe?We really don’t need philosophers now?

Best answer:

Answer by Nila V
Science and Philosophy are in different end . But they should meet one day at one point. That is the main purpose

What do you think? Answer below!

Question by Twist Of Fate: What was I supposed to receive on my first day of Catechism course in the Roman Catholic Church?
Because the only thing that I received was a Sixth Revised Edition of Christ Among Us A Modern Presentation Of The Catholic Faith For Adults by Anthony Wilhelm and nothing else? Am I in trouble to start the course off? Also my Catechist said a couple of things which confused me and shocked me particularly that he believes that the fact that priests can’t get married is heresy. Also he said that Catholicism is a religion of rational thought and that the God of Nature can’t contradict the God Of Reason as they are both one and the same yet he said that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke contradict themselves, and that he doesn’t believe in the concept of a soul and that was invented by Greek Philosophers or something like that and that we as the body or something like that are the soul or at least that’s what I thought I heard him say. Is he a heretic? What do I do?
I mean seriously the man has been a Catechist for that church for 36 years and I’m pretty sure they aren’t gonmna take my word over his word as it will ultimately be my word versus his word.

Best answer:

Answer by Cdk uBeR
thank G0D a Catholic, cuz im tired of those crazy a55 christians who dance, sing and wave their arms around like stupid idiots swearing as if they can feel g0d

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Related Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by je-actx: Why is religion considered mythology?
I had the opportunity to take a Philosophy course and the professor and the book addressed religion as mythology. I was surprised at the beginning, but I got to recognize that it makes sense. The Greeks worshiped Zeus. The Romans worshiped Apollo. We now know that Zeus and Apollo are part of the world’s mythology. Religion today is like religion in the past. So, what do the experts (philosophers, historians, archeologists) know about religion that we the normal people do not know? Scientists use evidence to prove their theses, so if they say religion today is mythology, what evidence do they have to prove that? Do they know Jesus existed? What do they know about how Christianity started? etc.
What I want to know is if scientists have historical facts and evidence that we the normal people don’t know.

Religion is a state that provides comfort to the human mind. So everything is an illusion? I guess so.

Do you think religion today is modern mythology?
Pilgrim,

So who follows the TRUE religion? Christians, muslims, Jews… who?

All of them have killed and been killed for the Only True God
wefmeister,

That’s what religion does, comfort you, does it not?

I was trying to be objective, if you know what that means…
Earl D,

People like mystery and excitement. Religion is the source of that.

I believe in God the universal God- Nature, Earth, wind, rain, Sun, Moon…

I considered myself a Secular Humanist

Secular means non-religious, not without god.

Humanist means a person who seeks the common good for humankind
Eds,

I share your thoughts of a living God, but to me, this God should be a god that unifies, not that divides.

I notice how many Christian denominations exist today – they are hundreds.
Why would God want to be divided into many different groups?
they fight one another, what for? They worship the same god, what is wrong? Because they have different EARTHLY dogmas on how to lead their churches?

The problem with ‘The Only True God’

Many wars have been fought because of the Only True God. Every single monotheistic religion claims that their god is the True God. How do you explain this?

I’m sorry to say this, but the world will never change until humans accept that this ‘Only True God’ doesn’t exist. Our God should be universal, don’t you think? And this god should be accessible to us. This ‘god’ might be the reasoning nature gave us. Our brain that is more advanced than the brain of other creatures on earth.

Have a happy 2007!

Best answer:

Answer by cork
guess life is a myth..are you here?

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Question by Jack Rivall: Are Complaints About Morality Really About Sex?
Both the Christian Right and the Republican Party talk a lot about morality: restoring morality to America, improving people’s morality, etc. If you think about it, though, they aren’t really talking about ‘morality’ in general. They’re talking about sex. For some strange reason, the entire spectrum of moral behavior has been reduced to sexual behavior, sexuality, reproduction, and how one uses their body.
To better understand just how peripheral sexual behavior is in the field ethics, stop to consider how much time is spent on sex as compared to lying, cheating, poverty, racism, etc. in the writings of major philosophers throughout history. Sex, sexuality, and reproduction are obviously topics that are addressed by various philosophers, but not nearly as much as the other topics — especially in modern philosophy.
Imagine that you are browsing through channels on television and come across one of the many televangelists complaining about the state of morality in America. You hear all the standard rhetoric about how morality has been declining, about how secular beliefs are destroying morality, about how the youth are being corrupted, etc.
Morality is about far, far more than what and with whom you do things with particular body parts, but it would be hard to learn that from observing modern conservative Christian commentary. Why is that?

Best answer:

Answer by Don H
So, You are just starting to notice that Christians are fixated on sex?

Where have you been?

love and blessings Don

Add your own answer in the comments!

Question by coolgirlnas: Should I go after my dreams of doing what I love and becoming famous?
Except for my family, I have always felt like I was invisible. I hated high school because no one really noticed me and I didn’t have many friends at all… I was really lonely. But I am easy on the eyes and everything.. I mean I am pretty and stuff, and believe me, I am. I don’t know, I’m just a little unique, I look at things differently and I’m kind of poetic sometimes, and I analyze life the way people analyze poetry… to the point where nothing makes sense..I am a modern-day philosopher, I guess.

ANYWAY, lately I’ve been thinking that maybe the solution to my feeling so invisible is to become famous. I am an avid dancer and singer and I have no doubts I could be successful if I really want to. And to be honest, the money means nothing to me. Really. I don’t ask for gifts, ever, even on my birthday, tangible things are valueless to me. The only thing I want is for people to know who I am, care about what I have to say, do what I love (sing and dance) on a big stage, and, most notably, so I can show all the popular girls in high school that I was never invisible.

But then I look at how lonely Michael Jackson was, and I’m not saying I’m gonna be as big as he was, but like, he was miserable. And loneliness is something I don’t wanna go through anymore. I am usually lonely, I spend a lot of time thinking by myself and I guess the main driving power for me to become famous is so that I won’t have to be lonely, but it it happens then that is a HUGE backfire.

I’m in college right now as a freshman and I have made little to no friends partly because I am focused on becoming famous in the future so much. Sometimes I think about how just making friends in college will fill that void of being invisible, but then again, dancing on a big stage will always sound fun, regardless.

Thoughts?

Best answer:

Answer by Chelsea’s
Follow your dreams, no matter what.
The simplest solution would be that. ^0^

And by the way, saying you’re pretty isn’t very…well, you know.

Give your answer to this question below!

Find More Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by : How/Why does Jared Leto look so young?
Jared Leto.
He is 38 and he looks as if he was in his early twenties:
Here is recent a picture of him:

http://www.novafm.com.au/lib/images/gallery/normal/jared-leto-hurricane-30-seconds-to-mars-154239.jpg

I´m a guy, not gay; but I just admire him SO MUCH; he looks so amazing. He acts, he sings, he is a modern-day philosopher. Just let me know your opinion about him and your hypothesis about his youthful appearance.

Best answer:

Answer by Vlad
his a robot:)

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

More Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by heygirlhey: Can someone please help me with Hinduism questions?
I read an article on Hinduism and I am very confused. You can read the same article if you google “‘a modern Hindu philosopher’s understanding of caste”.

1. In what ways does Radhakrishnan defend the caste system?

2. What are his criticisms of Western societies’s class system (cold? competitive? raises false hopes?)

3.How does Radhakrishnan justify the use of caste to describe ‘vocation as service”? (meaning assigned jobs in life)

4. What do you think about Radhakrishnan’s argument that ‘happily the world is so arranged that each man’s good turns out to be the good of others”? (meaning that each man should happily fulfill his assigned job in life (brick layer, garbage collector, lawyer, etc) and that that job will benefit all of society.) Do you agree or disagree? Defend your argument

5. What do you think about his ideas about democracy, pay scales for certain jobs, and his opinion that “Democracy is so interpreted as to justify not only the very legitimate aspiration to bring about a more equitable distribution of wealth, but also the increasing tendency for a levelling down of all talent. This is not possible.”

6. What are your thoughts about his statement that ” Mechanical (factory) work should be economically more paying than even that of the artist of the statesman.For in the latter case, work is its own reward.”

can you please help me understand these questions?

Best answer:

Answer by lawl
lol maybe miss logan can?

What do you think? Answer below!

Question by Love Doctor: Descartes and rationalism?
Descartes and other philosophers of the early modern period are often referred to as “rationalists.” What is “rationalism?” Why does Descartes believe that rationalism is the best starting point for philosophy? Do you agree with him? Explain, using relevant examples if necessary.

Best answer:

Answer by Bob
A rationalist believes in thinking and ideas as the the path to knowledge.
A empiricist believes in observation and experience as the path to knowledge.

One of Descartes beliefs is that a person can be fooled by his senses. Many variables affect how one sees an event . Different people experience the same event very differently. Therefore the senses are not to be trusted.

Descartes was a absolute rationalist. I don’t agree with that. There is much to be learned from observation. The minds interpretation of the events is another variable but not the only one as Descartes seems to claim.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Related Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by @@: How would you characterize Jesus as a cultural type: teacher? Philosopher? Prophet? Hero? Martyr? Other?
2) Reread the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Which of them make sense only to religious believers? Which have general applications? Could you suggest other commandments for inclusion in a modern version?

Best answer:

Answer by Cream Sickle
Child rapist.

Baby murderer.

Black sidekick.

What do you think? Answer below!

Towards the unification of the behavioural sciences Professor Herbert Gintis (New Mexico, USA / Budapest, Hungary) Summary: Despite their distinct objects of study, the human behavioural sciences all include models of individual human behaviour. Unity in the behavioural sciences requires that there be a common underlying model of individual human behaviour, specialized and enriched to meet the particular needs of each discipline. Such unity does not exist, and cannot be easily attained, because the various disciplines have incompatible models and disparate research methodologies. Yet, recent theoretical and empirical developments have created the conditions for unity in the behavioural sciences, incorporating core principles from all fields, and based upon theoretical tools that transcend disciplinary boundaries. This presentation sketches a set of principles aimed at fostering such a unity. They include: (1) geneculture co-evolution as a unifying dynamical tool; (2) evolutionary and behavioural game theory as transdisciplinary lexicons for communication and model-building; (3) the rational actor model, rooted in evolutionary biology but developed in economic theory, applied to all the human behavioural disciplines; and (4) the treatment of strategic dynamical systems as complex adaptive systems with emergent properties.