Difference between philosopher's view of reason and kant's view of enlightenment?
define 'philosopher's view of reason'.
What is the difference between Oriental Philosophy / Occidental Philosophy? Names your favorites philosphers?
Ups. Downs. Successes. Failures. Joys. Sorrows. We understand that for life to be meaningful, we must experience extremes. If only you could just have a little more of what you need, and a little less of what you don't need. The quantities don't have to alter dramatically; a small adjustment would make a big difference. You're not looking for a miracle, you just want to increase the amount of help you are getting and decrease the amount of hindrance. How feasible is that? You'll be pleasantly surprised, to discover that it's not so tricky at all. Or, at least, you will, as long as you don't start panicking unnecessarily. E3E3E3
What is the difference between a sophist and a philosopher?
In Socrates time, Sophists were often "hired guns" who trained themselves and others to win arguments by rhetorical means. They focused on winning debates, defending ideas whether true or false. Truth and Wisdom and other such ideal concepts were sacrificed for pay and profit. Many liken many of the lawyers of today as their philosophical descendants. I would add Post Modernists and other kinds of cynical Nihilists to the list. In a nutshell, sophists use reason to win arguments, fame and fortune, but philosophers use reason to uncover ultimate Truths , become wise in the process, and help others to become wise. see encyclopedia entry on who the first Sophists were : http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Sophists;_ylt=AinYauI_bB9Z6ax4pFka3BlTt8wF
Philosophy - What is the difference between moral and ethics?
This is a philosophical question asked in the Religious category. It is hard for those who feel hard. It is easy to maintain good relationship for those who understands the value of ''LIVE AND LET LIVE''. In the latest The Oprah Magazine, there's a great article by Martha Beck about how you can improve relationships with others by not caring what they do. Sounds like it wouldn't work, right? How can you have a good relationship with someone and not care what they do? According to Beck, you can both not care and love someone; in fact, she argues that not caring is a great way to love someone. Morality as it relates to our behavior is important on three levels. Renowned thinker, scholar and author C.S. Lewis defines them as: (1) to ensure fair play and harmony between individuals; (2) to help make us good people in order to have a good society; and (3) to keep us in a good relationship with the power that created us. Moral is the philosophical position that morality is relative and that people should try to be good, but only by following their own consciences. Moral can be contrasted with moral objectivism, the common position of many philosophers and religions that there is an objective morality, sometimes set down by God, an objective right and wrong. These two positions have tangled for thousands of years and are a contributing cause to many wars. According to moral, there is no goodness or badness in the abstract; there is only goodness or badness within a specified context. An act may thus be good for one person but bad for another, or good in one cultural setting but bad in another, but cannot be either good or bad. Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Hence, Morality is objective. Ethics are subjective. Morality deals with good and evil. Ethics deals with agreed upon rules.Morals are the motivations based on the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong''. Which are in vogue in a society or social group.Ethics are a system of principles governing morality and acceptable conduct in a society. ===== Trisha ======
The primary difference starts with the source of valid knowledge.All six systems of Indian Philosophy accept at the minimum three valid sources of knowledge.Sense perception i.e, pratyakshaInference i.e, anumAnaverbal testimony of scripture ie., SabdaWhen we consider only the first two and then categorize the knowledge we end up with apriori and posteriori of analytic or synthetic knowledge. There is a contradiction between these categories. Something generalized to form synthetic knowledge sometimes can’t be applied to a specific case. Something that appears in a specific case can’t nullify a general observation. Perception drives inference and vice versa.Kant’s categories fall in the same trap of philosophy.The systems of Indian Philosophy nicely reconcile the sources of knowledge. They establish the validity of each source without contradicting the other sources of knowledge. For example: In the matters related to the sound, ear is the authority. But when matters related to the shape and size, eye holds the supreme authority. So, all five senses have their authority regarding the domain of their knowledge.When it comes to inference, which generalizes the individual observations by senses, mind has an authority in generating the right inference. Sometimes an inference my not need any sense knowledge for generating an inference. Generalization of generalization is possible to generate valid knowledge.For matters related to the knowledge beyond the scope of senses and inference we need to depend on the third valid source of knowledge called Sabda i.e, a verbal testimony of a person who has an experience of such nature beyond the senses and inference.More on Sabda pramANa - Pramana - Valid Source of KnowledgeHope this helps!
Intellectual historians tend to take a wider perspective than philosophy professors do. For example, in a philosophy course devoted to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) the professor will probably spend some class time discussing the influence of Arthur Schopenhauer on the young Nietzsche’s worldview or perhaps compare and contrast Nietzsche’s ethical views with those of Immanuel Kant. But if an intellectual historian offers a course on Nietzsche, she will not just talk about his issues with previous philosophers, but might discuss topics such as what Nietzsche’s writing style owes to French predecessors like Montaigne, or perhaps she will mention what Nietzsche thought of Dostoevsky’s fiction. She will also likely discuss the political atmosphere in Europe during Nietzsche’s lifetime (Nietzsche served in uniform twice). And she will be quite comfortable taking class time to discuss Nietzsche’s relationship with Richard Wagner (she might even play some of Wagner’s music for the class). Nietzsche wrote one long essay and two short books about Wagner and his music (first he worshiped Wagner and then freed himself from that great man’s influence — this was probably the greatest drama of Nietzsche’s life). As I said, this is just an example. But I hope it shows that while the philosophy professor will focus on a thinker’s major views (and on what that thinker owes to other philosophers), the intellectual historian will focus, instead, on how that thinker’s ideas are to be situated in the larger social and cultural movements of his lifetime.