before i put detail please know two things first the people who answer the phycology questions wouldnt touch this one thats why i am putting it here second for those who watch the tv show full metal alchemist please know they were not the ones to come up with this theory it is written by a philosipher then rewritten by issac newton. now the theory states this "to obtain something of equal value must be lost, mankind will not gain without giving equally, those who do not give equally the first time will then be punished by losing something of heavy unequal value." how deep do you think this goes and how far can this philosiphy be taken? can it be used in life negotiations anything else. give examples.
2006-12-15 02:04:57 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Good question. The Bible kinda addresses this type of question in context of people believing in God.
Matthew 13:12-For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
So if you trust and believe Jesus; than you need to use what you do have to get more. Or else if you choose not to, even what you seem to have will be taken away.
2006-12-15 02:11:29 · answer #1 · answered by Maurice H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Equivalent exchange is along the lines of wishful thinking. Look at people born with deadly diseases. Where is the exchange in that? They didn't want nor choose to be born with it, and eventually they will die from it. Life is cruel and that's that.
Basically, equivalent exchange is like astronomy. Have fun with your horoscope, but know there is a grander scheme behind everything besides what someone perceives from looking at stars.
2006-12-15 02:11:38 · answer #2 · answered by Low Key 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even scientifically, it's not ENTIRELY true, not at the quantum level, at least. The decay of a certain type of kaon is symmetry breaking, that is, its time-forward decay is not equivallent to its time-reversal decay, unlike all other known processes.
However, with this seemingly singular exception, it does seem to hold true in every other scientific case.
However, I disagree with it as an applied philosophy.
I hold in my hand something I consider garbage. To me, it is of, say, one unit of 'value'. You hold a different something, that you consider garbage, and to you, it is worth two units of 'value'. However, what you hold, if I had, I would consider to have five units of value, and what I hold, if you had, you would consider to likewise have five units of value. Since we both view this as an increase, we transition from three units of value to ten units of value, because of our differing perceptions.
For E.X to be perfectly true, I would have to lose something of equivalent moral value's worth of the full four units of gain (five ending, one starting), and you would have to lose something of equivalent moral value's worth of your three units of gain (five ending, two starting).
Under such a law, we can never truly progress morally, intellectually, or physically.
2006-12-15 02:16:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe this a little bit...... I don't believe that the first time you do not give equally you will be punished....I do not believe that
2006-12-15 02:08:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's absolutley true.
Of sentimental value, I think not, but of scientific value, then yes.
2006-12-15 02:08:06 · answer #5 · answered by Ghost Wolf 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
never heard of it
well in my boyfriend's family, if you don't give a present to someone on their birthday (and possibly on christmas) you definately won't be getting a present from them on your birthday (or christmas gift)
does that count?
2006-12-15 02:06:54 · answer #6 · answered by ** i Am hiS giRL ** 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋