tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post3093940652221558571..comments2023-11-03T07:07:55.456-05:00Comments on CoPhilosophy: Quiz Aug24/25Philhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02115141650963300011noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-40379795887896480632016-08-26T16:53:48.782-05:002016-08-26T16:53:48.782-05:00Melissa, I see your point but in I would like to c...Melissa, I see your point but in I would like to clarify something. Perhaps you were using those extreme examples of stoning and such just to make your point, which is fine, but I would like to clear a thing or two up. Stoning was considered wrong by Jesus, the Bible does not advocate we stone people for sinning. That practice was already a part of the culture before Jesus came into the world to discourage such practices. The tearing out your eye because you commit a sin is of course also not literal. It was a form of rhetoric used to get a point across about how bad it is to sin. Also, you won't go to hell because you had sex before marriage, if you repent of your sin and accept Jesus as your savior. Also, you don't have to go to church everyday to be a Christian. And yes, the Bible was not written directly by God, however, He did in some way speak to the apostles to tell them what to transcribe. Of course they had their own writing style, made some errors, and translators have surely made errors in their attempts to spread its news.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09734541432833647239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-45821671329875704802016-08-25T14:04:04.913-05:002016-08-25T14:04:04.913-05:00DQ question posted by Bryce B.: "Here's a...DQ question posted by Bryce B.: "Here's a question. Assume for a moment, if you are not, that you are a christian, is the bible still the ultimate authority on knowledge and wisdom, or is it only some of the time? Is it a co authority with other sources? or only something to take in advisement?"<br /><br />When people ask me if I'm Christian, I never know what to say. I believe in a singular, all-powerful God. I believe in Satan. I believe in Heaven and Hell. <br /><br />I DON'T believe that women should be stoned. I don't believe in being cursed to Hell just because a man slept with another man, or if you express love to an earthly possession. I don't believe you should tear out your own eye because it committed a sin. I don't believe in going to Hell just because you had sex before marriage. I don't go to church every Sunday.<br /><br />What most people don't understand is that the Bible was not written by God, or Jesus, or even Mary. It was written by his disciples, aka humans. Is there not a very famous (and provenly true) saying that goes "to human is to err"? Then would this not also apply to these disciples?<br /><br />So I suppose it depends on your personal definition of a Christian. I believe I am, but others would say I'm not. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00636669805483431072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-77946194247638895592016-08-25T13:49:38.235-05:002016-08-25T13:49:38.235-05:00DQ asked by Michael "Pemo" Maldonado: Ei...DQ asked by Michael "Pemo" Maldonado: Einstein often asked himself “Am I or the others crazy?” What do you think of that?<br /><br />Answer: Everyone is crazy. Every single person has their own individual thoughts and opinions. The Merrian-Webster definition of crazy is: "full of cracks or flaws, unsound." I'm not sure how others feel, but as far as I know, everyone has cracks or flaws, or at least in their minds. There isn't a single person out there that doesn't have a single negative thought about themselves at some point. Does that not make them flawed in their minds? And then therefore crazy?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00636669805483431072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-4715478695751106042016-08-25T13:43:41.015-05:002016-08-25T13:43:41.015-05:00H02 DQ Answer
Do you acknowledge the authority of...H02 DQ Answer<br /><br />Do you acknowledge the authority of any individuals or institutions to interpret the truth for you? WHy or why not?<br /><br />No, I do not allow anyone to tell me what the truth is, because I will only accept MY truth. HOWEVER, I will accept council and opinions to help construct my opinions, but they are my opinions. A simple example is reading- not everything that is written down is true, but many often choose to accept it as truth with little-to-no proof. <br /><br />Also, I accept the fact that there is more than one truth. EX- Someone is killed in a grocery store. Now, even though all the witnesses were present at the same event, every person will have a different rendition. This is because everyone has their own frame of reference, shaped by their knowledge, education, experience, and personal values. This often makes it hard to determine the truth. Someone could be insistent that one thing happened, while someone else insists something else happened. This doesn't necessarily mean that one is lying, or even that one is wrong. It only means that they viewed an action through different frames of reference.<br /><br />So no, I do not allow others to tell me what is true or not true, because there are many truths, and I choose to create my own.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00636669805483431072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-71024980456255163542016-08-25T13:33:47.080-05:002016-08-25T13:33:47.080-05:00H02
DQ: What is more important- family, or the sta...H02<br />DQ: What is more important- family, or the state (the government)?<br />What is your justification?<br /><br />I came up with this question after reviewing some Roman politics and speeches, and came across this quote. "Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand.... For when destroyed the hand will be no better than that." -Aristotle<br /><br />The idea behind this is to put the government, or society as a whole, before family or self. The logic of it is because without a structured government or system, man can not progress beyond himself. This idea is also in the famous series Divergent- "faction before blood". In the movie, the idea is represented by Jeanine Matthews, who is the accepted enemy. However, is that really the case?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00636669805483431072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-79799128811772681202016-08-25T12:43:28.715-05:002016-08-25T12:43:28.715-05:00I would keep the tiger behind bars as mankind we a...I would keep the tiger behind bars as mankind we are to value life. It is the most precious gift. If it destroys me or destroys others either way is awful but the need of the many out way need of the few. In the end if it completely destroys me then I feel obligated in order to protect the many.peytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18270872663687188841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-11818580141433169372016-08-25T12:02:11.958-05:002016-08-25T12:02:11.958-05:00https://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Philosophy-Rorscha...https://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Philosophy-Rorschach-Blackwell-Culture/dp/0470396857<br /><br />If anyone is interested in the philosophy and psychology of Alan Moore's Watchmen novel and film. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05540765200935342434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-86079899265156914702016-08-25T10:17:35.219-05:002016-08-25T10:17:35.219-05:00H1
@Ben, I like your hypothesis. I originally wrot...H1<br />@Ben, I like your hypothesis. I originally wrote this in answer to that same discussion question: "I believe that scientists and theologians are philosophical, applying philosophical thought to their respective fields. Their philosophy is different from his in that they apply it to what they consider to be facts (revelations and empirical observations)." <br /><br />I think you're right in saying that scientists have the option of involving philosophical thought; their actions can be kept at a mechanical level. I think theology always involves philosophical thought, it's just usually within or examining the perimeters of the particular religion.Grace Tiptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09630734522820187785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-78215500074679668382016-08-25T10:04:27.559-05:002016-08-25T10:04:27.559-05:00H1
DQ:Russell says philosophy occupies the No Man&...H1<br />DQ:Russell says philosophy occupies the No Man's Land between science and theology. Are scientists and theologians not philosophical? Or are they philosophical in a way different from Russell's? Do you like his definition of philosophy? Are you philosophical, by his definition?<br /><br />I believe that scientists and theologians are philosophical, applying philosophical thought to their respective fields. Their philosophy is different from his in that they apply it to what they consider to be facts (revelations and empirical observations). <br />I think Russell's is a rather restrictive and purist view of philosophy; logic-based thought asking and answering questions on reason do not lose their value when they are applied to specific fields. I am a christian, so he would probably dismiss my philosophical thoughts. <br />Grace Tiptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09630734522820187785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-22555816453850118932016-08-25T10:03:10.913-05:002016-08-25T10:03:10.913-05:00H1
Is your duty to God more imperative than your d...H1<br />Is your duty to God more imperative than your duty to the state, to your fellow citizens, or to humanity? <br /><br />Yes. His wishes matter more than that of other people or the state. Following God's wishes over the wishes of fallible and passion-led humans is what I consider to be the wisest course of action.<br />Grace Tiptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09630734522820187785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-88284500290218188802016-08-25T10:02:11.643-05:002016-08-25T10:02:11.643-05:00H1
DQ: Do you acknowledge the authority of any ind...H1<br />DQ: Do you acknowledge the authority of any individuals or institutions to interpret the truth for you? WHy or why not? <br /><br />As a Christian I have accepted the bible as a work of revelation, holding truth and wisdom. Questions about it and use logic in my considerations. I do not think that any individuals or institutions have the power to tell me what I must believe the truth to be. I am eager to learn from others, but do not consider other humans to be infallible. <br />Grace Tiptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09630734522820187785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-28837639821956820172016-08-25T09:58:18.542-05:002016-08-25T09:58:18.542-05:00H1
DQ: does Copernican astronomy influence my pers...H1<br />DQ: does Copernican astronomy influence my personal philosophy?<br /><br />The placement of the earth and the size of the universe do not influence my personal philosophy; I don’t think that that size is what make a thing important. The idea that the importance of my existence is influenced by the size of my surroundings doesn't make sense to me. If the fact that the universe is large and the earth is relatively small influences my worth, then by that logic a person standing next to a redwood oak is less important than the person standing next to a bonsai tree. Grace Tiptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09630734522820187785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-13651204655357318942016-08-25T09:50:35.122-05:002016-08-25T09:50:35.122-05:00@Lydia, I think a person's faith and will powe...@Lydia, I think a person's faith and will power would be shown to be void if they abandoned their beliefs to satisfy the state. Many of the horrible acts of the Nazis would have been prevented if most Germans had held to their beliefs in goodness over their belief in the needs of the state. <br /><br />@Isabella, I think that most often fulfilling your duties to humanity is following God's will, but I think it can be a dangerous road to follow. Much of the violence during our Civil Rights Era was caused by a genuine belief that racism was legitimate, and would benefit society. Many perpetrators of "hate crimes" were putting what they considered to be the good of humanity above what they knew to be morally good. Grace Tiptonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-65162268710376704992016-08-24T23:30:55.510-05:002016-08-24T23:30:55.510-05:00I believe so because we ARE (even though some beli...I believe so because we ARE (even though some believe otherwise) all equals and deserve liberty, being children of Mana (Earth). Michael "Pemo" Maldonado (H2)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-72044769318213579512016-08-24T23:25:42.032-05:002016-08-24T23:25:42.032-05:00(DQ) Einstein often asked himself “Am I or the oth...(DQ) Einstein often asked himself “Am I or the others crazy?”<br />What do you think of that? I find myself asking myself that very often; sometimes I think I'm the crazy one, and other times the opposite. I wonder when am I right. One might debate that right and wrong are relative terms and there is no absolute meaning, and in regards to that debate I think that's how the world was envisioned when it was first created.Michael "Pemo" Maldonado (H2)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-68233650723523900792016-08-24T22:20:33.778-05:002016-08-24T22:20:33.778-05:00Also a question for everyone else as well, do you ...Also a question for everyone else as well, do you believe as Russell said that liberalism is the escape? If you don't, what do you believe is the escape?Kaite Berry H01noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-77624994338108981292016-08-24T22:16:29.970-05:002016-08-24T22:16:29.970-05:00In response to the last question, no I would not a...In response to the last question, no I would not allow someone to interpret the truth for me. Oddly enough, this was something of discussion during my biology class. Allowing someone to decide the truth for you would be to allow them to decide your life for you. Everyone's life and world is made up of truths and lies in some form or another. For example, would I allow someone to tell me that Newton's Laws were not truth, but a made up fable? Something like that even in things that aren't science can change the world and your life. Truth, though a seemingly objective thing, is truly subjective. While I would not deny another person's truth, I would not wholeheartedly accept it. Rather, I would take their idea and use it to help support and develop my own. Most great scientists, philosophers, and great thinkers have done this as well. For example, B.F. Skinner did not accept Wundt's previous thoughts as truth, but rather used them to develop his own ideas.Kaite Berry H01noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-3871451294483238532016-08-24T22:05:25.577-05:002016-08-24T22:05:25.577-05:00It's not the Bible in which Christian's re...It's not the Bible in which Christian's rely on for it's ultimate authority, it is the authority of God. It is not that the Bible limits you in knowledge, so much as it only has a limited amount of information in it like all books, but rather that it limits you morally. Such as, don't do that or do that. And true, the Bible does not contain the full knowledge of the world especially concerning things of this day and age, however, for Christians it touches on the most important aspects and stories of God, their relationship with Him, and how to serve Him, and many other things. Also, while the Bible is much like a "tool of learning" it is more than that. It provides a way of life. That way of life includes worship, not necessarily through the reading of the text but rather through experiences, such as prayer, musical worship, preaching to others, and so on. The issue with perfecting any text, including a text hundreds of years old, is that first of all, the text loses its significance and genuine character. Also, it can lose key information that is vital for understanding the text as a whole or understanding the religion/religious responsibilities that a Christian should hold to. And if the text were altered or "improved" what would that imply about the religion as a whole but that it is willing to cave on its own beliefs in order to satiate the constantly changing and demoralizing views of this modern day and age? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09734541432833647239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-20237708816082210932016-08-24T12:23:33.077-05:002016-08-24T12:23:33.077-05:00Going off of what Christian said, I believe that s...Going off of what Christian said, I believe that some people are very skeptical about information coming from various authority figures. Especially those who believe that much of our media now is very biased on what they want to tell us, and how they portray stories to manipulate our understanding. However, there are other people who believe literally anything you tell them or that they see on the internet. That being said, many people do tend to see through very obviously incorrect information from unreliable sources. But there are some simple truths that we generally trust to supply us with accurate information or at least accurate recollection of facts. If we hear from various news and radio stations that there was a shooting somewhere across the country, we will easily believe that that is a fact. But if the stories about the shooter's history, background, or reasoning are even slightly varied between sources, we may be more wary of what actually happened during said shooting. All in all, I believe that some facts are just a given that we are trusted to believe. But if we are personally interested in details, we may be more skeptical to research our own truth about that fact to the best of our ability. While others will believe absolutely anything from anyone, regardless of credibility.Sam Eisenberg H3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-31400480063685018192016-08-24T12:11:12.414-05:002016-08-24T12:11:12.414-05:00I would argue that the philosophy leans more towar...I would argue that the philosophy leans more toward the theology spectrum, as theology doesn't just ask the question about if there is a god, but more about the existence of things unworldly that we as a people cannot explain. Philosophy associates with more of the same ideas as theology, as they are both theoretical and not definite with concrete answers like science <br />H3Ben Waldeckernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-69472022174775102912016-08-24T12:01:24.076-05:002016-08-24T12:01:24.076-05:00@Sean Winsett
I both agree and disagree with that...@Sean Winsett<br /><br />I both agree and disagree with that analysis. Yes, setting the tiger free does release its beauty and majesty, as Russell pointed out that the romantics were doing. It does allow us to explore the unorthodox approach to leadership and enlightenment that Renaissance was aiming to do. But by destroying the sheep, it can also foreshadow the destruction of "for the people" social structure. If you are targeting people whose views are too different from your own, then that is just as dangerous as keeping the tiger behind bars. The tiger has more power to kill the sheep at any disagreement the tiger felt necessary. If the tiger escapes freely, he may begin to suppress others, just as he once was.Sam Eisenberg H3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-56478095750220277262016-08-24T11:48:42.646-05:002016-08-24T11:48:42.646-05:00I think many members of society are wary when it c...I think many members of society are wary when it comes to academically important or point-of-view-changing information, regardless of the authority or source it comes from.<br />A much more important question, I believe, is under what circumstances do you, or an average member of society, accept new information as fact without questioning validity?<br />Last year I remember someone seeing an image similar to this ( http://bit.ly/2bfIBDh ) and accepted it without a second thought, then proceeded to tell others as a sort of fun fact.Christian Brooks (H3)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-4436163497639980602016-08-24T11:37:17.060-05:002016-08-24T11:37:17.060-05:00I believe it would be better to be the free tiger ...I believe it would be better to be the free tiger for the reason that a herd of sheep all have a single following and rarely would they think of the big questions on their own, much less the answers. On the other hand, the free tiger would be the one to lead, creating the following and in some cases destroying. If there were no free tigers and they were all kept behind bars, how would philosophy ans civilization advance? I believe it would go to a standstill and very little would change.Sean Winsett (H3)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-65203840334935728862016-08-24T11:27:28.588-05:002016-08-24T11:27:28.588-05:00I agree with you, Jake, in how the bible is a tool...I agree with you, Jake, in how the bible is a tool rather than an ultimate authority on knowledge or wisdom because the bible while the bible does offer some knowledge and sage advice, it can be improved upon and bettered. Using the bible as a single tool can help you understand many things about life, but most of which you have to rely on your own experience and multiple other sources in order for growth to occur. If you acknowledge the bible as an ultimate authority on knowledge or wisdom, you are stanching that growth because you would believe solely and firmly in the bible, throwing out some facts or advice as untrue or unwise.Sean Winsett (H3)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2619743764213415433.post-57153210358907280992016-08-24T10:54:07.427-05:002016-08-24T10:54:07.427-05:00I believe there cant be a single form of instructi...I believe there cant be a single form of instruction that is the ultimate source of philosophy or universal truth. When you stick to only one source, you cannot grow in wisdom. I agree with you, Sean. When you take sources as more of guidelines you can allow growth. Without the ancient philosophers challenging ideas, we would not be philisophically where are today.Martin Davies H3noreply@blogger.com