Can someone get this philosophy straight?
546394
1) I don't know; I wasn't there.\n2) I was too busy enjoying the performance to notice what other people in the audience were doing.\n3) Chao says Mu.
382374
Wow, bit of a vague quoestion there.....\nIf you can be more specific i may be able to help.
943912
What is axiomatic need not be proved by experience. The data collected only confirms the fact.\n\nThe previous answerer 'libido' sounds like a drop out from the degree college. She does not have elementary knowledge of epistemology and by just quoting Socrates and M.N. Roy an unknown Indian Marxist,  one just can not address such serious issues.\n\n 'Empiricism', 'Truth' and 'Blasphemy' are very ambiguous words and unless one is sure about its philosophic connotation, the debate can not proceed. Rather, we will be landing in total confusion using high sounding words with the least regard to the grammatical norms. 'libido' who loves to brag as a 'rationalist' to please take care of the grammar while framing sentences in English. It is certainly not a proletarian platform for the pseudo Marxists! It is a bourgeoisie club to exchange novel ideas and not ignorance. Beware!
979939
Only one man has understood me,and even he has not  =  even if this one man said/showed that he understood me or agreed with me, he did not really fully understand my motives/hidden thoughts etc. In other words, I am too abstract for you pragmatic simpletons to understand me (but I am trying to say that nicely).\n \nthe real is rational and the rational is real  =  a thing can only be real if it is rational, and it is only rational if it is real. If it is real, then it must be rational and if it is rational, then it surely is real. It means the two are synonims, or they define each-other.
31119
i like the first answer. It sounds like they are commenting on how we are trained to hear religious dontorine and how people see it as this magic that will cure our lives in an instant,like a spell. Maybe what they are saying is that we need to break free from this pavlovian response to life and to view reality in the moment. that's my understanding. It's very poectic. Thank for the good question!
637851
The best way to convince somebody of something is by example.  If you have an idea or philosophy that you want other to understand. All you can do is "live" your principles.
233825
I don't know what this is all about, but believe what you want. It's your right! As long as you don't push your beliefs on someone else then by all means think as you wish. It's really not anyone else's business!
1152601
this sounds confusing???
823845
Makes exactly the same amount of sense, doesn't it?\n\nThere is a certain kind of "logic" that is so off-base that you can't argue with it other than to throw up your hands and give up. That kind of  logic, which includes "how can 2 billion people be wrong" (which obviously doesn't include the Chinese) also asks irrefutable questions of the nature of "If 'BURD' doesn't spell bird, what does it spell?", and so forth.\n\nWhen you give up in disgust, they believe they have won an argument.\n\nWhat I also don't understand is that if the Creator wants me to believe certain things, why have perverts, idiots and outright criminals been appointed to the task of teaching me?
914022
The issue you are really trying to get at is this- Are events predetermined or not. And that means ALL events including human thought. You should research the topics "determinism" and "quantum mechanics" and then decide on an answer for yourself. One is definitely the deciding factor, but either way free will is excluded.
804463
This link should help.\nhttp://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/philosophy.html
519383
can you elucidate it a little more please?
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.
813232
Im gonna try something and see if it makes sense:\n\nFirst on a lower scale:\n\nYou're saying that there is no free will because there is coercion.\n\nTherefore without coercion, we would have free will.\n\nNow if lets define coercion as "punishment"\n\nFree will is the ability to choose between "right" and "wrong"\n\nHowever, something is only "wrong" if there is some sort of negative consequence associated with it.  In most cases this would be a punishment in society (i.e. robbery leads to jail time, stealing a cookie leads to a slap on the wrist)\n\nSo without coercion, there is no "wrong" making "Free Will" a matter of "right" or "right."\nThis means we would have no distinction between choices and it would not be called "Free Will" because there is no choice to make.\n\nTherefore: coercion is essential in order to define "Free Will" because it makes a distinction between right and wrong.\nSo to answer your question free will only exists with coercion. yes.\n\n(if any of my high school logic makes sense)
470592
Interesting question with interesting circumstances.\n\nMy philosophy is that if you stop being curious and stop trying to learn and experinece new things, you stop growing. If you stop growing, you grow up. If you grow up, you get old. If you get old, you die.\n\nMy Grandfather had a similar philosophy and he lived well past the average lifespan for a male born in his decade. He was always active and always appeared "youthful". \n\nBut if you are asking if you need to pursue another degree, that all comes down to your goals. If it will help you get what you want, sure, go ahead.\n\nIf not, then why not look into other interests?
1173309
Understanding the question
518502
If you look at Hinduism (Bhagwat Gita) in the right perspective, that's exactly what God has said. He says that only do your duty and gift the results of that duty to me. In every thing that you do, do it as an offering to me and don't hanker for the results-leave that to me.\n\nRituals, etc have no meaning, if ultimately you aim to be one with God.