I wanna know who the ******* **** invented that ******* stupid philosophy, anyway! It ******* sucks, damn it!
2007-03-07 10:06:20 · 17 answers · asked by Chichiri 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
don't agree with you, but if you feel that way i agree with you!
do you agree with me if i feel another way?
2007-03-11 23:44:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like we have issues? Anyway, I believe it only can apply to ducks. I dont walk like a duck and I dont quack like a duck so it must not be me.
Personally, I think the saying "You cant judge a book by its cover" is more accurate to real life. Dont you? Although, people will spend alot of time and money on the cover. Too bad but true.
2007-03-13 13:34:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without knowing that "philosophy", I can see how it originates in logic. A duck *is* what walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. - that is what we call a duck! As far as we know, there is no "duck-in-itself", there is only the bundle of impressions that we call a "duck".
2007-03-07 10:13:39 · answer #3 · answered by sauwelios@yahoo.com 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a figure of speech. I will draw you a picture. If you see a man standing at a counter pointing a gun at the clerk, then we can safely say , he is a robber.
And if you see a duck, and it quacks like one, and etc, then we can safely say, it is not a cow. Then it must be a duck!
Unserstand?
2007-03-13 12:32:03 · answer #4 · answered by cprucka 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is based upon *empiricism* which reduces all things to their manifestations to the senses - for example, a material object according to the empiricist, is nothing but groupings of hardness, color, shape etc.
This rejects the classical understanding of things that holds that there is *being* (that which is) which underlies *phenomena* (that which appears to the senses or that which can be studied with scientific equipment)|
This merely means that before something can act in such and such a way and appear in a given way to the senses, it must first exist as a real being outside of nothingness|
David Hume (1711-76) was the founder of empiricism in the modern era|
---
2007-03-07 11:31:59 · answer #5 · answered by Catholic Philosopher 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
the real conflict isn't between East and West, or capitalism and communism, yet between coaching and propaganda in all places, from the properly-known way of existence to the propaganda device, there is consistent rigidity to make human beings sense that they are helpless, that the only place they are able to have is to ratify judgements and to consume He who dictates and formulates the words and words we use, he who's grasp of the clicking and radio, is grasp of the concepts. Repeat robotically your assumptions and techniques, decrease the possibility for conversing dissent and opposition. it somewhat is the formulation for political conditioning of the plenty. Our government has stored us in a perpetual state of outrage -- stored us in a non-supply up stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave nationwide emergency. continuously there has been some unfavorable evil at living house or some large foreign places potential that replaced into going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally at the back of it by using furnishing the exorbitant money demanded. yet, on reflection, those failures seem by no potential to have got here approximately, seem by no potential to have been fairly real. -usual Douglas MacArthur
2016-10-17 12:33:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow Jethro, you are one angry DUCK. What is up with you? So....if I said "you are one angry duck" that would be a true statement? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it is certain to be a duck.
If the shoe fits "wear it"......
2007-03-15 05:38:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is not a philosophy. It is a popular expression of something that resembles a philosophical statement, but by itself, is simply a statement of common sense.
2007-03-07 12:43:04 · answer #8 · answered by G-zilla 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
geeezzz you got upset and angry on this duck philosophy
and you dont know what is philosophy!!! and now you want to **** a duck? relax
2007-03-13 01:18:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not a philisophical thought, it is an expression. If you would like to know the meaning of the expression. I will answer it, if you ask it as your next quetion on this site.
2007-03-12 20:43:41 · answer #10 · answered by michelebaruch 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the irony in the explination of your question speaks volumes.
the stars you typed would probably indicate that you're swearing. the tone of your writing would show that you're angry or frustrated. using the logical reasoning in my human brain would lead me to believe that you're one frustrated duck.
Quack! Quack!
2007-03-13 21:48:10 · answer #11 · answered by Bodhi721 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋