Arts & Humanities: Philosophy: “Question: Does the world exist?” plus 5 more |
- Question: Does the world exist?
- Question: Whats the difference between: sociology, anthropology, humanities and philosophy. Clarify me on those please?
- Question: What is ‘nothing’?? If ‘everything’ came from ‘nothing’ and ‘nothing’ created ‘everything’ what exactly is ‘nothing’?
- Question: If the torture of one person could stop an attack on thousands, would it be justified?
- Question: Valid generalisation?
- Question: What do they have the us dont ?
| Question: Does the world exist? Posted: 15 Sep 2015 02:18 PM 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: 15 Sep 2015 01:41 PM PDT It depends on various other factors which you have to deeply think and analyze from different angles. Quote: Social science is a major category of academic disciplines, concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. It in turn has many branches, each of which is considered a "social science". The main social sciences include economics, political science, human geography, demography and sociology. In a wider sense, social science also includes some fields in the humanities[1] such as anthropology, archaeology, psychology, history, law and linguistics. The term is also sometimes used to refer specifically to the field of sociology, the original 'science of society', established in the 19th century. Positivist social scientists use methods resembling those of the natural sciences as tools for understanding society, and so define science in its stricter modern sense. Interpretivist social scientists, by contrast, may use social critique or symbolic interpretation rather than constructing empirically falsifiable theories, and thus treat science in its broader sense. In modern academic practice, researchers are often eclectic, using multiple methodologies (for instance, by combining the quantitative and qualitative techniques). The term social research has also acquired a degree of autonomy as practitioners from various disciplines share in its aims and methods. Unquote: |
| Posted: 15 Sep 2015 09:36 AM PDT Nothing is like when you ask someone what is in the hand and they say, "nothing." It's nonexistence. The Original real EVERYTHING is Infinite and Eternal. Being everything it accommodates within itself the Original real NOTHING. NOTHING is the shadow of EVERYTHING. The Substance (EVERYTHING) being Infinite and Eternal, its shadow must also be infinite and eternal. At times the shadow appears to be small and at times to stretch into huge shapes. But even when it seems to have disappeared, it is still within the Substance latently. Out of the NOTHING contained within the EVERYTHING is projected infinite and eternal Nothingness—the Creation, or False Everything. The Original Real EVERYTHING is One, Infinite and Eternal. The Original Real NOTHING, being in the Real EVERYTHING is also one, infinite and eternal. But the False Everything that is projected from the Real NOTHING comprising innumerable nothings or all things in Creation is innately and unendingly dual. Within these nothings are innumerable temporary nothings such as, What is the matter with you? Nothing. What did you eat? Nothing. What is in your hand? Nothing. What do you see? Nothing. And so there is no end to the action and reaction of the experience of Nothingness by the innumerable nothings of False Everything which are projected from the One Original Real NOTHING, which is infinite. The Original Real EVERYTHING is Infinite and Eternal; in it is the Original Real NOTHING. Innumerable nothings manifest out of the One Original Real Nothing. And from these nothings is a continuous flow of temporary nothings. And so there are nothings and the no-things of nothing within the One Original Real NOTHING. When you compare these nothings with the One Original Real NOTHING they are indeed nothing. NOTHING is in EVERYTHING; EVERYTHING would not be a complete whole without NOTHING. The NOTHING that is in EVERYTHING gives birth to nothing that seems everything. Because NOTHING is, everything seems to be. All activity everywhere in creation is but a play of everything and nothing. When there is a complete cessation of this activity the NOTHING prevails. When this NOTHING is attained you have EVERYTHING. Relatively, therefore, the NOTHING is EVERYTHING, whereas that which we call everything is nothing. |
| Question: If the torture of one person could stop an attack on thousands, would it be justified? Posted: 15 Sep 2015 09:15 AM PDT I dont consider it justification no, down that route lies fascism Although there is probably a point I would consider it acceptable, if it was the only way of saving the world, for example Nothing is black and white |
| Question: Valid generalisation? Posted: 15 Sep 2015 05:22 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 do they have the us dont ? Posted: 15 Sep 2015 03:02 AM PDT Of course we do care somewhat but we must curtail the importance we give to other's opinions. We must respect ourselves MORE than we value other's opinions. Until you learn to have self respect you will suffer like this. You must realize that you are fine the way you are and accept that. Love yourself as you are, yourself. Our culture is concerned with matters of self-esteem. Self-respect, on the other hand, may hold the key to achieving the peace of mind we seek. The two concepts seem very similar but the differences between them are crucial. To esteem anything is to evaluate it positively and hold it in high regard, but evaluation gets us into trouble because while we sometimes win, we also sometimes lose. To respect something, on the other hand, is to accept it. I enjoy singing and do so quite frequently. As those within earshot will attest, I'm not very good but I love to sing anyway. During summer parties I frequently sing solo and play the part of the "moving ball," trying to stay just ahead of the music to provide the words for those who don't know the song. I am not saddened by my lack of talent. I accept the way I sing. Because of this acceptance, I am able to sing without being evaluative of myself or concerned with what others think. The word acceptance suggests to some readers that our culture does indeed deal with this idea of self-respect; after all, don't we have the concept that it is important to accept our limitations? Aren't many of us encouraged "to change the things we can change, accept the things we cannot change and know the difference between the two?" I believe I could learn to sing better, so my acceptance is not based on my limitations. Nor is it based on resignation, since I am not resigned to the belief that I cannot sing well and am not committed to any particular belief about my voice in the future. The person with self-respect simply likes her- or himself. This self-respect is not contingent on success because there are always failures to contend with. Neither is it a result of comparing ourselves with others because there is always someone better. These are tactics usually employed to increase self-esteem. Self-respect, however, is a given. We simply like ourselves or we don't. With self-respect, we like ourselves because of who we are and not because of what we can or cannot do. Consider an interesting test of self-respect. If someone compliments us, what is our reaction? If we are very pleased, it would suggest a certain amount of uncertainty about our skill. Imagine that somebody whose opinion we respect told us that we were great at spelling three-letter words, or that our pronunciation of vowels was wonderful. Chances are we would not be moved. We know we can do it in the first case, and we don't care in the second. Because we were not evaluating ourselves, the compliment was unimportant. The more instances in which we don't "take the compliment," the less vulnerable we become to evaluation and insult. My recent research, with Judith White and Johnny Walsch at Harvard University, points to the advantages of self-respect. Compared to those with high self-esteem who are still caught in an evaluative framework, those with self-respect are less prone to blame, guilt, regret, lies, secrets and stress. Many people worry whether there is life after death. Just think about it: If we gave up self-evaluation, we could have more life before death. |
| 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