Arts & Humanities: Philosophy: “Question: How does Kant’s notion of the “universal good” compare and contrast with Plato’s notion of the Good?” plus 5 more |
- Question: How does Kant’s notion of the “universal good” compare and contrast with Plato’s notion of the Good?
- Question: Is there humanism that is not secular?
- Question: Does inner peace free you from dependency on outer harmony?
- Question: I want to know Western Philosophy.because I think my life is a little boring,please,help me .thanks.?
- Question: What would Hegel Marx and mill answer to the following statement:?
- Question: Was my first impression of Nietzsche wrong?
| Posted: 17 Mar 2015 09:31 AM PDT Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel  |
| Question: Is there humanism that is not secular? Posted: 17 Mar 2015 08:31 AM PDT Note that "humanism" is applied to distinctly different ideas. The Renaissance thinkers labeled "humanist" were in fact all believers of one sort or another, they just came to the conclusion that the works of man were of value by themselves. Previously, this had rarely been the case. "The purpose of this life is to prepare you for the next one!" Things of "the world" were felt (at least in the West) to be of no merit. The Humanist philosophers maintained that this wasn't the case. The "Humanism" that rose after WWI, as iterated in The Humanist Manifesto, was described as "secular" because it felt that man was capable of ordering his own society and establishing his own destiny.... No God required. |
| Question: Does inner peace free you from dependency on outer harmony? Posted: 17 Mar 2015 08:08 AM PDT Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel |
| Posted: 17 Mar 2015 07:50 AM PDT Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel |
| Question: What would Hegel Marx and mill answer to the following statement:? Posted: 17 Mar 2015 07:48 AM PDT I think Hegel would likely have agreed with this. He admired Napoleon Bonaparte, and saw him as an example of how the world-spirit works its way amongst the rest of us. And certainly Napoleon didn't seize power with any notion of relinquishing it. I'll give you a link to the Napoleon/Hegel connection below. I believe the other two thinkers you name might have considered the statement rather too cynical. Marx expected that the dictatorship of the proletariat WOULD relinquish power. And Mill had an idealistic notion of a limited government that would only serve public ends and that would refrain from, say, censoring speech. Anywhere, here is the Nappy/Hegel link: |
| Question: Was my first impression of Nietzsche wrong? Posted: 17 Mar 2015 06:25 AM PDT No, your first impression is very good. Some of his supporters "argue that Nietzsche believes the very idea of "truth" to be a lie. Truth is not an elephant that we must look at from multiple perspectives under this view. Rather, truth is simply the name given to the point of view of the people who have the power to enforce their point of view. The only reality is the will to power, and truth, like morality, is just another fig leaf placed on top of this reality." http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/nie... He rebelled against altruism, the real kind as August Comte had envisioned it, but his thinking "consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his "blood," by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—" The 'sacrifice of others to oneself' is what is bothering you. You see it. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Arts & Humanities: Philosophy To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment