Philosophy - January 2007

Public educational facilities such as this are the cornerstone of the institutional racism that continues to oppress all races. Not only will I refuse to succumb this, but I will dedicate myself to the eventual elimination of this abomination to the hih pursiut of learning. But I'm only 12. What's your oppinion?

2007-01-17 18:35:07 · 11 answers · asked by Detrimentalist 2

2007-01-17 18:27:12 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

"...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

"And your God is One God: There is no God but He, ..." (The Qur'an 2:163)

Who write this?
"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be save must thus think of the Trinity..."
(excerpts from the Athanasian Creed)

2007-01-17 18:24:41 · 18 answers · asked by Voltage Transformer 33kV 5

Just think about it......people wouldn't be so superficial and full of themselves.....therefore helping everything.

2007-01-17 18:16:03 · 15 answers · asked by Lindsay H 1

I got excited with an oportunity with a person - let's say travel a great distance with someone i "love".Everything was going great as i evaluated the situation and i was actually entusiastic.
Seconds later, i feel a pressure in the manipura solar plexus and the feeling of excitement was gone.Somehow this made me doubt.

Afterwards, another happening, i was talking to a person and i made an afirmation, a positive one rational and sentimentaly speaking....but again, i felt pressure in the solar plexus and again i somehow doubt the validity of the affirmation.

What does this pressure mean and what does this chakra trying to comunicate. Fear? doubt? second thought? what i know is not real? lying to myself?

2007-01-17 18:14:23 · 3 answers · asked by character 1

Whatever could not be as part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment could not be unity.

Is it possible to disprove this statement?

2007-01-17 17:57:19 · 18 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1

Ok, so this is not an original question. It was first posed by Jack Kerouac in the form of a wise Bodhisvatta.

But I want to know what you all think.

For me, it's the most important question I've ever asked myself.
Thanks, Jack.

2007-01-17 17:52:38 · 7 answers · asked by Jessica LeAnn 3

I ask this question in regards to a game (Final Fantasy 7) that was banned (the selling of new copies) by the U.S. because at one point the characters belonged to a terrorist organization that fought against a corrupt governent. If there were terrorists in say, Nazi Germany, who fought against the governent, would we not think of them as heroes of some sort? I'll also add that the "terrorist group" in the game specifically targeted sites where there would be no innocents hurt.

How can a government support freedom so vehemently, and so quickly take it away? I hope this is understood not simply in the game situation, but in other areas such as gay rights, etc...

2007-01-17 17:45:27 · 4 answers · asked by gelatinouscubetamer 1

What is time?
Daylight savings (moving the clock an hour back) proves that Time as a function of the hands of a clock is just what we have imposed on the natural world. However this can be taken to the greater extent of day/night cycle, seasons and revolutions around the sun in so much as our measurement of it has formed discreat units of time. But that dose not explain what time is.

Is time a force which can be discribed and measured or is a function of something greater than ourselves, or even could it just simply be the way that our brains percive an event (each action following the last in a sequence we call a timeline).

If all time is is just a way for our brains to process an event then could it not be possible to travel through time just by thinking?
Or if time is a function of something larger than ourselves, what?
Or if time is a force created by our universe then could it not be harnessed and used the way we use other forces?

Please explain your answers. Thank you

2007-01-17 17:18:16 · 8 answers · asked by Arthur N 4

2007-01-17 17:17:45 · 19 answers · asked by shaulav 1

What is the most important thing in life for you?

2007-01-17 17:17:20 · 14 answers · asked by a 2

Please do not tell me it is because you were protecting yourself or someone you loved. No a human who consciously decides to end the life of a fellow human being, there is never anything right in that. How do we as a human race ignore War, violence escalating, children not even reaching the age of 4. Isn't life important any more or is money (paper from a dead tree) more important to this planets existance.

2007-01-17 17:14:09 · 15 answers · asked by Lesha a Canadian. 3

2007-01-17 16:58:01 · 31 answers · asked by musclenbone 2

2007-01-17 16:55:29 · 9 answers · asked by Ravi 1

If beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, then how do we really define beauty?

2007-01-17 16:51:09 · 18 answers · asked by Christian 1

This is 100% serious, which ONE would you choose to be in:

1) A world in which good is rewarded.

2) A world in which evil punished.

......and why?

2007-01-17 16:44:07 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-01-17 16:43:46 · 15 answers · asked by Mijoecha 3

Is, let's just say for example but not limited to, a sociopath made through natural genetics or formed by influences throughout adolescence?

2007-01-17 16:43:18 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

We are destroying the planet with our technology, we are destorying each other with religion. Perhaps we would be better off like animals.

2007-01-17 16:41:11 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

I just keep thinking about how we are born into circumstances that we do not always find favorable. Like if I was going to create the world there wouldn't be winter, war, or porkchops.

2007-01-17 16:34:58 · 22 answers · asked by june_sunrise777 1

its by plato and i have to answer some questions on it. for example in the second scene it shows a man trying to cope with a new vision of reality. what is his first and second reaction?

2007-01-17 16:31:43 · 2 answers · asked by Veronica R 1

Whatever could not be as part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment could not be unity.

Could you rephrase this statement in a better way?

2007-01-17 15:59:55 · 27 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1

There is a section in 1984 that says that the only way to fully achieve peace is to ensue War, because War leads everyone to be on one accord with each other, and it is also good for the economy. It will use surplus of goods, however it also will not lead to a depression, because so many people are employed, and so many things are being used for War. Here' s direct quote from the book: In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recgnize their common interest, and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against each other at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of the society intact. Therefore...A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war (Orwell II-9).
I am not trying to devalue life

2007-01-17 15:51:54 · 9 answers · asked by xengold 4

2007-01-17 15:51:24 · 8 answers · asked by Rajendran 2

2007-01-17 15:28:39 · 9 answers · asked by katalina 2

2007-01-17 15:28:06 · 11 answers · asked by SALEEM 1

In the fact that it is unfair to everyone.

2007-01-17 15:19:02 · 11 answers · asked by felixtricks 3

2007-01-17 15:01:24 · 9 answers · asked by kitzy 2

What do you think of this authors critque of maths and science. He seems to be saying that even though they work maths and science have at their fundamental core paradox and self-contradictions which make them epistemolgically meaningingless . This indicates that sonething mysterious is rhe reason why they work as logic demonstrates that they are meaningless and it is assumed that logic is the arbitrator of truth

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/gamahucher_press_catalogue.htm

2007-01-17 14:51:45 · 2 answers · asked by ann 1

2007-01-17 14:43:30 · 6 answers · asked by Cleveland M 1