English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-06-10 15:22:34 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

3 answers

Getting the"essence" of something is rather like learning-
to-define something;millions if not billions of words and lesser books were devoted to this maligned and rather useless mind numbing nonsense.
So just look at tonights
offering of questions,in yahoo so-called philosophy.Why are
most of you still looking for the laughable philosophers stone-
the so-called secret (which is not there). Have any of y'all
learned to suspect your elders or teachers yet;did it not or
does it not occur to you to criticize them?
You must learn to criticize(what you yourself have learned
and accepted already)- this is the true way to learn,the way
to enlightenment as the old europeans knew(not enough of
them,for the romantics opposed their rationality)
I studied in europe,not in philosophy but in the "competing" discipline called the History-of-Ideas;as i
understood it,it was critical of modern philosophy because
philosophy has become corrupted by positivists,romantics,
wordists and even mathematicians.
And just let me go somewhat further; Thousands-of-years-ago it was said that
the greek called Socrates was the pinnicle of virtuosity(not least because he went around town-The town!-seeking the
best virtuous advice and knowledge).
But do any of you know
what (the virtuous) Socrates means for us,all these years later? He choze to kill himself,rather than go against the city
he loved. And his suicide even preceded that of(the martyrdom) of christ by centuries. But my point is, these are
people and their times much discussed in philosophy: So,
i believe, philosophy itself has a suicidal nature-in that nothing of value can be known or properly understood from a systematized subject;but to use ones own intuition and
imagination and to actually read,even try to read the so-called philosophical "greats". And as time advances this
becomes open to more and more,if not quite to all.And things
CAN be learned inthis way;And closer examples must exist-
is it only me who learned from the great helen keller that she
wrote and criticized the very reason why she became famous?(in her OWN words it is in print that she came to hate
the words and vain facts offered to her at university-in direct
contrast to the reason that she was famous for,that of leaning
a useful language against the odds!).Perhaps,therefore, its
no real mistake that helen keller became a heroine-for,in her
very own words,her education was faulty:And this fact seems
quite lost even now,in the land which made her famous(and
rightly so).
So nothing is as it seems. Its All there to be criticized,as a lot of our teachers,lectures and elders should
have known,and passed on to us all.

2007-06-10 17:30:39 · answer #1 · answered by peter m 6 · 0 0

virtue is a essence. It can't be known. Sense objects can partake of it but they are not it. Like the other essences: beauty, justice, ect. Things in this physical world can be examples or partake of these essences but not the essences themselves. What is the essence of the essences? I think experience has to teach us that answer. ...good luck

2007-06-10 23:51:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

All virtues are derived from reason; rationality. All vices are derived from subjectivity; irrationality...

When is it reasonable to be irrational?

2007-06-11 01:34:18 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Wizard 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers