Philosophy - October 2006

2006-10-24 19:24:11 · 9 answers · asked by Eric Inri 6

While it is true that Philosophy does discuss Religion, it involves questions about the nature of existence, or the ethics of religion. Questions about what we think god is like or what you should do to get to heaven have no place here, and should be posted on the religion forum. I'm tired of listening to people spout about the kingdom of heaven. No offense, but this is not the place.

2006-10-24 19:10:22 · 9 answers · asked by azurephilosopher 1

2006-10-24 18:59:04 · 3 answers · asked by Opposite D 1

tell me in relation to development of life and carrer...

2006-10-24 18:27:03 · 17 answers · asked by findmedivya 1

One problem I'm encountering in the works of Socrates is that I'm never sure if his dialectical method reflect his true intentions: that is, I'm uncertain as to whether he just wanted to expose the interlocuter's contradictions, or if he really WAS trying to come to sound philosophical conclusions ...

2006-10-24 18:26:15 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-24 18:08:02 · 10 answers · asked by . 5

I'm taking an ethics course this quarter at my college. It's a very different experience from what I normally take (science related, I'm a Microbiology major), but I need to fulfill my humanities requirement. Anyway, one interesting article we had to read was Margaret Battin's Sex & Consequences: World Population Growth vs Reproductive Rights, where she proposes that every single female in the world should be implanted with a contraceptive device (such as the IUD or Norplant) alongside routine things like exams, and only when she wants to get pregnant can she have it removed. The idea is the world's population is growing too large to support us, so this is idea is in line with utilitarianism because the individuals right is being sacrificed for the greater good of the world (survival). My professor was an adament supporter of this idea and shot down every rebuttal I had to it. Frankly, I find the idea that a woman not having control over what goes in her own body to be appalling, BUT

2006-10-24 17:55:30 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

THERE MUST BE NO DIFFERENCE IF THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCE.

2006-10-24 17:39:45 · 5 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1

According to myself I think all of my viewpoints are the correct viewpoints, otherwise they would not be my viewpoints. Keeping this in mind, if my viewpoints cannot be logically disproven, does that make me the smartest person in the world, being that no one else will have completely the same viewpoints? Do you think you're the smartest person in the world, or do you think some of your viewpoints may be incorrect? If so, why do you hold those viewpoints? Does the word "viewpoints" seem strange to you having read it so many times?

2006-10-24 17:35:49 · 25 answers · asked by thiefofsanity 2

In my last question I asked of the plausibility of the "de-evolution" to exist. I was met by some differing thoughts concering this including much modern scientific thoughts.
Theoretically speaking if we use scientific thought to consider de-evolution does it not conflict with scientific evidence? The de-evoluton of man idea would suggest that as we gain more scientific, analytical process and increased dependence on technology we continue to errode a spiritual portion of ourselves. This spiritual portion would not need increases in physical only the smallest amounts of physical resources to maintain a phsical existance. Through time, we have desired more physical goods. This desire for tangiblility has slowly erroded our spiritual capacity. If a body is seperated into two parts (spiritual and physical) would it not make sense that when you give of one you take of another? If our spiritual capacity were to be say 90% what walls could hold that being? limitless possibilities emmerge?

2006-10-24 17:29:26 · 7 answers · asked by James H 3

Rephrased due to responses missing the point.

2006-10-24 17:26:10 · 37 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-24 17:26:03 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Be honest.

2006-10-24 17:24:11 · 15 answers · asked by Jon M 2

I suppose by asking this question I am over analyzing the human race, but I just want to hear a few intelligent responses as to why we put so much thought into things that are really not vital to our emotional or intellectual growth.

2006-10-24 17:19:43 · 9 answers · asked by CoutureCutie 3

If the differences in things are dissolved, equivalence results.
Can we get differences by dissolving the equivalences in things?

THERE MUST BE NO DIFFERENCE IF THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCE.

2006-10-24 17:19:35 · 3 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1

2006-10-24 17:18:24 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-24 17:08:07 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

What if a man buttered a cats back and threw it out of a barn loft. Whould the cat never land? Would time stop?

please have as many shots of vodka as i have had befor answering this question.

Thanks,
Possum

2006-10-24 17:07:02 · 8 answers · asked by hillbilly named Possum 5

2006-10-24 17:06:09 · 5 answers · asked by asdfjkl; 1

Like the Civil Rights Movement.... most Americans agree that Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were really on to something with the whole "freedom for everybody" thing.....

However, you still have a few wickedly clever people that will try to paint the ACLU, Jesse Jackson and the NAACP as "American terrorists"...

It's the same thing with the Nazi Regime.... everyone knows that Hitler was the bad guy.... but you have people that use his name as a comparison to some "anti-american liberal" person who is speaking up for equality....

It's all the same thing - Phelps, Limbaugh, KKK, Nazi, Al Qaeda, Coulter, Hussein, Bin Laden, Haliburton, Enron....

how long will it take us to squash the bug??? when do people finally end up "getting the picture"?

2006-10-24 17:02:17 · 7 answers · asked by rabble rouser 6

in "yahoo respuestas" we are having a big problem with some guy posting pictures with a baby in sexual action. the user are going to stop ask an cuestion for one day, asking help from yahoo, we need to stop this, please join us, this biger than a nation or language, repeat this message in order to reach more people, and if you want, come an see wath are we doing: http://espanol.answers.yahoo.com/

2006-10-24 16:43:34 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-24 16:32:44 · 30 answers · asked by Led*Zep*Babe 5

Even if there are no gods, there are still people who believe in them and who try to get others to believe in them as well. Why shouldn't some of us speak out against this?

2006-10-24 16:01:21 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why? and how is this possible? Also, would this be considered internal epistemic justification?

2006-10-24 16:01:16 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Do we justify our knowledge based on others? For example, we gain knowledge from learning information perceived to be "fact". For example, we have learned that grass is green. (for arguement's sake, just agree the grass is green). This would be taken as "fact". However, it had to have been based on someone else's opinion based on observation and perception of what to call the color "green", and that grass possesses this trait. However, we accept this as "fact", because someone else would have had to also agree that grass is "green" for it to be accepted by still OTHER people. For example, I could say the sky is "purple polka dotted" but I would only be justified of my knowledge if someone else agreed with me, and once I got that justification, then I would "know".
However, if we only know what we know based on perception, and perception is limited to the senses. Can't we all perceive things differently? Also, perception is not 100% reliable. (for example.... (con't)

2006-10-24 15:49:25 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-24 15:48:41 · 14 answers · asked by rabble rouser 6

Took is getting the gallow alone. No doubt he killed that china small girl. But do you guys really think her mum is totally not involved in the case??? Just my own opinion, I strongly think she IS involved in one way or another. Took should not be dying alone. Personally, I think Huang Na is being made use of by the mum for her insurance bought. She oredi "earned" enough from the monies donated by foolish ppl for Huang Na's funeral and now She's just waiting for Took to go so she can claim the insurance or so I heard. I pity the small girl and Took, but definately to me, I still believe that Huang Na' mum is GUILTY. What say you ppl?

2006-10-24 15:47:20 · 5 answers · asked by mummyBlur 2

Hello users of Yahoo! Answers

I am Kg, and as i type this im going to be smoking a ciggarette, but i just finished smoking a 1 3/4 bp(mariuan,bowl pack), but before that i took an ambien,(the highest selling sleeping sid) Im not low right now. I am 18 male, 6'4*5, around 180 lbs, curently i am going to college, my grades are slipping, pretty sure im failing 4 out of 5 classes. Im done with my ciggarette (Newport), so to wrap things up here,

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

is their any one out their that has any opinions about what i wrote and what i did?

2006-10-24 15:25:31 · 37 answers · asked by The infamous bongblaster 4

Is it possible for a politician to have Christ-like ethics in today's world? Or anybody in any world? Aggression means survival, right? Does His example tell us that we should let ourselves be kicked around? If so, was He crazy?

2006-10-24 15:19:45 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

I've already asked similar q's under astronomy and space, but please bear w' me.

The 'brane' theory of multiple universes (if I understand it correctly) was developed to account for certain phenomena (ourselves) which according to probability, would take not only longer time to appear than the universe has existed, but longer than the universe is calculated to remain.

So the hypothesis is that there is a much larger universe than we have been aware of, and ours is only a tiny portion among many more which exist beside our own. In other words, if the universe it too small and ephemeral for us to have appeared by the working of random chance, assume a larger and longer lasting universe such that the probablility is assured.

This seems awfully like a question-begging argument, to me. It might satisfy the mathematics, but not our mannishness, the innate personal character of our beings.

Here is the analogy: An elderly lady once attended a lecture on cosmology.

2006-10-24 15:04:34 · 7 answers · asked by cdf-rom 7