Arts & Humanities: Philosophy: “Question: If an elephant gives up trying to break away from a tree it's tied to & then doesn't even try when later tied to a twig, is it free to leave?” plus 5 more |
- Question: If an elephant gives up trying to break away from a tree it's tied to & then doesn't even try when later tied to a twig, is it free to leave?
- Question: I love to write but I lost my path! What should I do?
- Question: Hey are there so many ruthless and liers in redding ca???? All out for them selves no matter who they hurt, why???
- Question: What should we do about the war on philosophy?
- Question: Someone told me life has no purpose, and he give me this explanation. What do you think?
- Question: Are you enjoying this finite existence?
| Posted: 28 Jul 2016 04:50 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: I love to write but I lost my path! What should I do? Posted: 28 Jul 2016 04:12 AM PDT It is time to rethink and seek. After you have reshaped your theory, you can write again. You are facing a typical pattern of burnout and then bore-out. |
| Posted: 28 Jul 2016 01:53 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 should we do about the war on philosophy? Posted: 27 Jul 2016 10:57 PM PDT Contemporary just war theory is dominated by two camps: traditionalist and revisionist.[3] The traditionalists might as readily be called legalists. Their views on the morality of war are substantially led by international law, especially the law of armed conflict. They aim to provide those laws with morally defensible foundations. States (and only states) are permitted to go to war only for national defence, defence of other states, or to intervene to avert "crimes that shock the moral conscience of mankind" (Walzer 2006: 107). Civilians may not be targeted in war, but all combatants, whatever they are fighting for, are morally permitted to target one another, even when doing so foreseeably harms some civilians (so long as it does not do so excessively).[4] Revisionists question the moral standing of states and the permissibility of national defence, argue for expanded permissions for humanitarian intervention, problematise civilian immunity, and contend that combatants fighting for wrongful aims cannot do anything right, besides lay down their weapons. Most revisionists are moral revisionists only: they deny that the contemporary law of armed conflict is intrinsically morally justified, but believe, mostly for pragmatic reasons, that it need not be substantially changed. Some, however, are both morally and legally revisionist. And even moral revisionists' disagreement with the traditionalists is hardly ersatz: most believe that, faced with a clash between what is morally and what is legally permitted or prohibited, individuals should follow their conscience rather than the law.[5] The traditionalist view received its most prominent exposition the same year as it was decisively codified in international law, in the first additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars, first published in 1977, has been extraordinarily influential among philosophers, political scientists, international lawyers, and military practitioners. Among its key contributions were its defence of central traditionalist positions on national defence, humanitarian intervention, discrimination, and combatant equality. Early revisionists challenged Walzer's views on national defence (Luban 1980a) and humanitarian intervention (Luban 1980b). Revisionist criticism of combatant equality and discrimination followed (Holmes 1989; McMahan 1994; Norman 1995). Since then there has been an explosion of revisionist rebuttals of Walzer (for example Rodin 2002; McMahan 2004b; McPherson 2004; Arneson 2006; Fabre 2009; McMahan 2009; Fabre 2012). Concurrently, many philosophers welcomed Walzer's conclusions, but rejected his arguments. They have accordingly sought firmer foundations for broadly traditionalist positions on national defence (Benbaji 2014; Moore 2014), humanitarian intervention (Coady 2002), discrimination (Rodin 2008b; Dill and Shue 2012; Lazar 2015c), and especially combatant equality (Zohar 1993; Kutz 2005; Benbaji 2008; Shue 2008; Steinhoff 2008; Emerton and Handfield 2009; Benbaji 2011). We will delve deeper into these debates in what follows. First, though, some methodological groundwork. Traditionalists and revisionists alike often rely on methodological or second-order premises, to the extent that one might think that the first-order questions are really just proxy battles through which they work out their deeper disagreements (Lazar and Valentini forthcoming). |
| Question: Someone told me life has no purpose, and he give me this explanation. What do you think? Posted: 27 Jul 2016 10:13 PM PDT There are a whole mess of problems with what that person said. Honestly, this sounds like something said by a religious person pretending to be some stereotype of an atheist. For me life has no purpose. --- As the Germans say: Machts nichts. Living isn't a purpose. --- Seems to misunderstand the issue. Life has no purpose. --- Life in this sense is purely poetic. This is basically reification. Life is simply something we have. --- Wrong. No one "has" life. Life, like consciousness isn't something possessed, it's something you do. It was given to us for no reason, --- Who's doing this giving? The universe? It's looking around and doling out Life? due to the Universe's random and blind evolution. --- The universe doesn't evolve. |
| Question: Are you enjoying this finite existence? Posted: 27 Jul 2016 07:47 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 |
| 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