Abbreviations.com Convert.net Definitions.net Quotes.net Synonyms.net USZip.net References.net
Bookmark & Share
 
Synonyms.net
Search for Synonyms:     
Browse Alphabetically:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z #
 random synonym 
Personalize Yedda, (And make Danny Happy)
People ask & answer about almost everything. Tell us what you're interested in... So we can personalize Yedda especially for you
I'm interested in:

Monism and monotheism

One may (though, prehaps a bit roughly) divide the worlds main philosophical views into three monistic ones (Hinduism, Buddism and Science) and three monotheistic ones (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). The two views seem to have their origins in Hinduism and Judaism, respectively. I mean that allthough Hinduism-based views very often have sort of a God, in Vishnu (or whatever else they may use for a name), that is still rather a rule maker, I think, than a God in the Hebreic sense, which would be some one who personally interferes in peoples lifes.

Other, much less popular, religious views would involve divisions that are neither under one rule nor under one god. These are seemingly very unimportant, which is probably because it makes more sence to avoid these kinds of discrepencies. Is it impossible to believe that these religions (and, perhaps, whatever else) still have a point, even for us who prefer more general thoughts? Or is it perhaps in human nature not to believe in subdivisions of whatever regulates nature? ...

Whether or not it is, what determines the choice of fundamental philosophical views? ...


Share Send to a friend Watch Report
 
 

25 Posted Answers
Order by

 
40 helpful answers

Scientific monism, according to the Vienna circle is based on the belief that monotheism is meaningless because the proposition that God is the ruler of the World is meaningless because the wird "God" has no physical equivalent and cannot be verified by a physical experiment. Of course the proposition that only what can physically verified has meaning, cannot be verified physically, which makes the Vienna circle meaningless.

Kant distinguishes between physical phenomena, and noumena. The phenomena is how the things appear to us via our sense impressions and our concepts. Both the sense impressions and the concepts are purely subjective. We have no way to know the things themselves. These things can only be objects of thought, or belief, the noumena. This is the philosophical door or justificatioon of belief.

A

Posted 2009-06-20T18:25:05Z
harry was invited by Yedda to answer this question.

Helpful?(1)
Rated as Best Answer
 
7 helpful answers

Through our senses, though, we can conclude things about the noumena . Do we have an ability to know whether or not these conclusions are correct? I would say sort of to that!

There would always be theortical possibilites of misstakes, of course. But if there is anough thought, including imagination, there still is a lot of notion about the unknown, i.e. the noumena. Don't we all very often feel inclined to rely upon those kinds of noumena that one can conclude there are?

So with enough cunning based upon phenomena, we all conclude the things that make us survive. We might thus also experince meaning based on to which extent we can make phenomena harmonize. Am I not right about this?!

 

 

Posted 2009-06-21T14:15:01Z
Helpful?(1)
Rated as Best Answer
 
40 helpful answers

Kant's answer to your question would be that the concepts we have about the noumena are generated by reason and are pure forms (ideas) of reason. Any images of these ideas are halucinations. These ideas of reason are acquired by intuition, which means that they are directly present to the mind without inference.

It will take some time to work out my own answer to your question.

Posted 2009-06-21T14:47:52Z
harry was invited by Yedda to answer this question.

Helpful?(1)
Rated as Best Answer
 
7 helpful answers

Do you think that, for the sake of one-rule systematics, there would be a need for this to fit into mathematical rules?

Posted 2009-06-21T21:50:23Z
Helpful?(1)
Rated as Best Answer
 
40 helpful answers

I don't have a good answer to your question, so i'll give you Einstein's:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality."

Posted 2009-06-22T06:41:20Z
harry was invited by Yedda to answer this question.

Helpful?(1)
Rated as Best Answer
 
7 helpful answers

So he means, basically, that reality = uncertainty?

Or else, he means something like that mathematics rearranges reality. Right?

I can't believe he actually meant that in the sense that it was the truth. Rather, I think, it would be a way for the genius to establish his views p0erspectives on reality. Importantly, he must have wanted to point out (perhaps for himself as well as for others) that there are other perspectives that can be very important. ...

That, in itself, I guess is a point, then.

 

Posted 2009-06-25T17:57:06Z
Helpful?(1)
Rated as Best Answer
 
289 helpful answers

The lowest servant in Heaven is still in Heaven.

Whoever rules in hell is still in hell, but they won't rule for long.

Free, if you want to talk about Heisenberg Uncertainty, then let's talk about physics.

If you wish to defend the indefensible (Hindu, for example) then there is nothing to discuss.  Because of the fact that Hindu has over 190 primary cults and 2,250 sub-cults, that all preach nonsense, then know that the most important and representative of these Hindu cults is the Thuggee cult.

Thugs worship Kali, the goddess of war and homicide.  It is a militant cult, but suffers such a devious lack of discipline that Thugs were hand-picked and removed from the Bangor Rifles before the 1982 re-taking of Falkland in the South Atlantic.  That is not because Thugs refuse to fire when ordered: they instead refuse to recognize the limits of the Geneva Convention, and routinely exceed their orders when not sufficiently aggressive.

Although British rule of India was harsh at best, they DID manage to control (to an extent) the "Cult of liars and thieves" known as Thuggee.

When Gandhi took over India (that split into India/East Pakistan/West Pakistan) he failed to complete the extermination of Thuggee.  Now, they are as menacing as they were before, are up to their necks in drug running, contract homicide, genocide, and all else that goes so very well with Hindu.

Free, when you want to discuss physics, I am ready to help.

When you want to push Hindu down the throats of other people, I am ready to expose you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee

 

Posted 2009-06-25T21:44:56Z
Helpful?(1)
Rated as Best Answer
 
40 helpful answers

I can't tell you of course what Einstein believed. But he was a good physicist and he  knew Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. So , yes reality = uncertainty. But he always went  his own ways, which means that he could actually consider the world as being unreal and uncertain as a cloud. Then reality is not uncertainty but you can turn it into uncertainty, into a potentiality for a new beginning. The Creator has created another creator, it's boring to be alone.

Posted 2009-06-25T23:34:59Z
harry was invited by Yedda to answer this question.

Helpful?(1)
Rated as Best Answer

Sign in to participate

Got an answer for frevelm? Would you like to comment on the posted answers, or vote for the one which you think is the best?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).

Explore Related Questions

Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:


Q:

The basic layout of science and philosophy

The following the basic layout of all science and philosopy. Do you disagree? Every science and philosophy is basically to ...
Submitted by SoundaryaNayaki   3 months ago.
  • viewed 295 times
Last answer posted 2 days ago by frevelm


Q:

What is the difference between philosophy and ...

What is the difference between philosophy and science and between philosophic and scientific explanations? Is "philosophy of ...
Submitted by drabsv   2 years ago.
  • viewed 2620 times
Last answer posted 3 months ago by SoundaryaNayaki


Q:

What do different religions and philosophies say about lying?

What do different religions and philosophies say about lying?
Submitted by Jeff   1 year ago.
  • viewed 542 times
Last answer posted 4 months ago by giggibb



» More...

Feed - Subscribe to changes to this Q&A Blog
ADVERTISEMENT
Synonyms.net Q&A is powered by Yedda an AOL Company
Copyright © 2006-2009, Yedda Inc. and respective copyright owners
Home |  Add New Abbreviation |  Your List |  Tools |  Become an Editor |  Tell a Friend |  Links |  Awards |  Testimonials |  Press |  News |  APIs new! |  About
Copyright ©2004-2007 STANDS4 LLC. All rights reserved.  Terms of Use  |  Privacy Policy  |  Contact Us