why did immanuel kant regard philosophy as i know not what?
444059
that's what philosophy is all about
1011025
Philosophy is a field of study that includes diverse subfields such as aesthetics, epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics, in which people ask questions such as whether God exists, what is the nature of reality, whether knowledge is possible, and what makes actions right or wrong. The fundamental method of philosophy is the use of reasoning to evaluate arguments concerning these questions. However, the exact scope and methodology of philosophy is not rigid. What counts as philosophy is itself debated, and it varies across philosophical traditions.\n\nThe term philosophy comes from the Greek word "Φιλοσοφία" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom" or less commonly "friend of wisdom". Many ancient Greek philosophers made the distinction between the desire for wisdom, as opposed to the desire for material things, vices, and the satisfaction of bodily desires. The definition of wisdom for many ancient Greeks would have been about virtue and the desire for knowledge and not false opinions. However, the term is notoriously difficult to define today (see definition of philosophy) because of the diverse range of ideas that have been labeled as philosophy. The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy defines it as the study of "the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality". The Penguin Encyclopedia says that philosophy differs from science in that philosophy's questions cannot be answered empirically, and from religion in that philosophy allows no place for faith or revelation. However, these points are called into question by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, which states: "the late 20th-century... prefers to see philosophical reflection as continuous with the best practice of any field of intellectual enquiry." Indeed, many of the speculations of early philosophers in the field of natural philosophy eventually formed the basis for modern scientific explanations on a variety of subjects.\n\nInformally, a "philosophy" may refer to a general world view or to a specific ethic or belief. However, this notion of "a" philosophy implies that there can be more than one answer to any of the major questions that philosophers have historically desired to answer. Many past philosophers would have claimed that there is only the attempt to study one philosophy, not the improper study of many philosophies, just as there is only one proper study on the subject of chemistry or physics.
970369
"I think therefore I am." Descarte was trying to start from what was indesputable, & procede to the less certain aspects of knowledge.\n\nThe ability to think was to Descarte proof that we actually existed. Descarte was deeply confused. Thinking is one of many things we DO, as well as breath, act, sense, emote, remember, imagine, or meditate. If we stop thinking, what happens? Nothing except our mind grows quiet & somewhat more peaceful for a while. We still are, thinking or not at all. If we stop breathing, we die. Wikijo would have said " I breath, therefore I am." It would have made more sense.\n\nI hope this helps.\n\n;-)
133524
Primarily that each of these four approaches are philosophical systems, and as such, are inherently limited by their interdependent nature.  Furthermore, each system requires an adherance to the "rules" of that system and thereby excludes other potentially valid approaches to knowing.
411696
Philosophy helps people answer all the "big questions": Who am I? Why am I here?  What does it mean to be a human being?  How do I live a good life?\n\nThink of it as being similar to religion, but without all the pomp and circumstance ... and threats of damnation.
24136
tell ur philosophy teacher to shut the h*** up,\nof course you exsist, none of us could answer this question if you didnt,we`re all here for a reason,you just have to figure that reason out before someone can give you more idiotic info like that
811920
If you wish to wander into the realm of existentialism, I'd suggest hitting your thumb with a hammer.\n\nPain is the greatest qualifier of life.\n\nBTW: liked the words.
993553
Its pretty old, but its flawed. It is only a paradox if both exist.\n\nSince neither exists there is no paradox,  just a mental game for philosophers or something to get really worked up about when you are ratted in the pub.
618292
Western Philosophy is linear.  You will never make the jump to great realizations with western thought.  Eastern thought connects you to larger realizations.\n\nIn Western thought you go from here to there.  In Eastern thought you go from here to here, and here becomes a new and valuable place upon return.
538499
The irony here is somebody (even baptists) may consider you narrow minded. Because you don't agree with someone does not necessarily mean the other party is narrow minded. It does however mean you're as insistent they are wrong as they are you. Narrow Minded comes down to perception and who's perception.\n\nIf you are against morality - I would consider you narrow minded.  If you couldn't fathom the existence of a vastly superior being (known as God) who's technology is above human kind a gabillion times over - I would consider you narrow minded.\n\nPerspective.
1101467
Plato thought that art is an imitation of an imitation, and thus is hopelessly far from the source of the truth. He also thought that art is powerful, and therefore dangerous.\n\nHe is also quoted as saying that "Art has no end but its own perfection."
640199
Spinoza argues that knowledge of good and evil arises from the awareness of what causes pleasure and pain. The greatest good of the mind, and its greatest virtue, is to know God (IV, Prop. XXVIII). To act with virtue is to act according to reason (IV, Prop. XXXVI). If we act according to reason, then we desire only what is good. If we act according to reason, then we try to promote what is good not only for ourselves but for others. Freedom is the ability to act according to reason. Freedom is not the ability to make free, undetermined choices. Freedom is the ability to act rationally and to control the emotions. Servitude is the inability to act rationally or to control the emotions.  According to Spinoza, pain is the knowledge of evil. Pain arises from inadequate ideas, i.e. ideas which do not adequately express the essence of God. Knowledge of evil is thus inadequate knowledge (IV, Prop. XIV). Pleasure is knowledge of what is good. Pleasure arises from adequate ideas, i.e. ideas which adequately express the essence of God. Knowledge of good is thus adequate knowledge.
481011
That would be faith...or ignorance.  Depends on how much thought goes into it.\n\nPersonally I view faith like this:  If someone believes in god, the bible, etc.  More power to 'em!  However, if you present a different point of view, and they cover their ears, close their eyes and scream, "Lies!"...that's not faith, that's ignorance.\n\nIf they ignore your question and quote the bible...the same book they know nothing about, that's ignorance\n\nIf they KNOW they're right and you're wrong, that's ignorance.\n\nIf they believe in God with knowledge, understanding, acceptence, and reservation that while their faith is absolute, that there are other possibilities, or that we are too ill informed or lack the understanding to comprehend the workings of the universe...that's faith.\n\nTo be agnostic, like I am, means you don't have faith.  Personally, I don't have a clue what's going on.  I know the bible isn't accurate, we've proven Genesis to be wrong 100x over.  However, I do agree with many of its teachings.  How did we get here?  Dunno.  How does life work?  Dunno.  Is there a God?  Dunno.  Is God as the bible describes?  Probably not, but dunno.  Good news about being agnostic is it allows you the freedom to think and examine.  You're not stuck in an organized religion that recites the same thing to you day after day.  Your free to analyze and accept that there are somethings you just don't know.  On the one had its very liberating.  On the other it carries responsibility because you don't have something to blame, or to believe will take care of you...you lose the "knowledge" that everything's under control.\n\nSo, I'm all for agnostic.  I'm comfortable knowing that I don't know. I LOVE studying theology, laughing when a religious person avoids thought, and learning when a religious person makes a good point.\n\nFor examples:  Look to spur4eight.  He'll make intelligent arguements for Christianity.  I disagree with many of them, but hey...that's faith.  For ignorance, look at Mainworry.  He'll ignore questions completely that require any sort of thought towards religion, and reply either with biblical quotes or insults.
246532
Read 'The Unity of Philosophical Experience' by Etienne Gilson.  He ably dismantles this kind of Cartesian nonsense in the relevant section.
284370
Personally speaking for myself, I would say no, it does not.  I like philosophy cuz it helps me be critical of religious teachings, and not to take belief / philosphical systems blindly.  It helps me be realistic, more self-aware of what I am believing, and whether what I believe helps me be a better person overall or if I am just believing cuz I want the "security". \n\nI do think it may close the doors on religion for some people....as philosophy requires a lot of critical thinking, analyzing....that does include analyzing religious texts in depth, and I know that does bother some religious people.
890927
Moral Relativism Refuted \nHave you ever heard these words: ‘What is true for you is not true for me’ -- ‘Don’t impose your values on me’ -- ‘You have no right to tell me what to do’? Sure you have. These words are very popular. Unfortunately, they have been taught in schools. How many teachers have you heard say, “Come on guys, don’t be scared. There is no right or wrong opinions.”\n\nThis is from the idea called relativism. Relativism is the philosophy that denies absolutes or what is really true. There are four kinds of relativism: metaphysical, epistemological, moral, and religious. The metaphysical relativism is the claim that there are no absolutes in reality; epistemological is that there are no absolutes in knowledge; morality is the denial of moral absolutes; and religious is the clam that there is no true religion. We are going to deal mostly with moral relativism in this essay. But first, I must refute the propositions ‘what is true for you is not true for me’ and ‘there is no right or wrong opinion.’\n\nThe first proposition, what is true for you is not true for me, is self-contradictory since it asserts an absolute, which is, what is true for you is not true for me. In other words, is it absolutely true that what is true for you is not true for me? Again, it asserts an absolute, making it self-contradictory.\n\nThe second proposition, that there is no right or wrong opinions, is a wrong proposition too. Let me give an example of an opinion that can either be right or wrong. If someone says, ‘In my opinion, Osama Bin Laden is dead,’ can he be right or wrong? If Osama is dead, then he is right, if not, then he is wrong. He might not know if he is right or wrong, but he is either right or wrong. Both cannot be true at the same time. Therefore the proposition that there is no right or wrong opinion is false.\n\nhttp://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p17.htm\n.
281534
Voltaire's philosophy was based on skepticism and rationality, which leads me to believe that he didn't really lean one way or the other. He probably would be more of the philosophy that men do good things and bad things, thus being skeptical of both the naturally good and the naturally evil philosophies. Check out the link below and see if that helps.