I ended a very loving relationship on the basis that the man I was with was not my intellectual equal. The relationship had everything for me, except for this compatibilty. People say I made a mistake, and half of me is living in regret. However this nagging feeling would not leave me throughout it all that I would be better suited to someone who challenged me intellectually, and would thus command more respect from me (that last part I feel terrible for saying but I know there is a truth in it, indeed I yearned for a challenge). Can a person who values intellectual pursuits really have a long term relationship with somebody who can't fully share in them? Did I make a mistake?
My name is John T., a senior in high school.
My question, I do regret, does include "what is evil", but before this message is ignored I wa hoping to bring the idea of existentialism into the topic. I specifically have been looking into views of Albert Camus in his book "The Myth of Sisyphus" which deals with absurdism. I will admit this does unfortunately have some connections to my Ap Literacy class. Before you decide to ignore this I'd like to narrow it down as a great personal interest. I decided to go all out and do real research. The assignment asks us to define our personal definiton of evil. As I stated before I have included absurdism. The central idea of my definition is one that completely cancels out all study of morals, ethics, psychology, religion, etc... I have decided that there is no evil. Evil is a term that humans have created to describe the world better. But beyond humans, evil has no meaning. We use it to categorize and theorize because that's who we are (which I...
I am confused about how a conditional statement is necessarily true, and not false or unknown, when the antecedent and consequent are both false. According to the truth table, the sentence "If Bill Clinton is Cambodian, then George Bush is Angolan" is true. How can such an absurd sentence be true? It seems initially like the sentence could just as easily, or more easily, be false or unknown.
hello - i am trying to identify the school of philosophy that posits that optimal systems or societies are created only when the designers or creators are blind to the role they will play in that system or society. I haven't the foggiest idea where to start. i apologize if the question is too vague but if you can point me in a direction that would ehlp i would be most appreciative. thanks
I hope this question doesn't conflict with the ''don't ask questions that are too general'' in the guidelines, but I have a question that I think goes under analytical philosophy, if I am not wrong, that I can't seem to find anywhere on the internet.
The question is: what does it mean to understand?
It seems like there are so many other questions that hinges on this question; so many other question that will become more intelligible if this question is answered. For example, if I am wondering whether or not we will be able to understand everything there is to understand in the universe, i.e. that nothing will remain mysterious in the end, it all depends on what is meant by understanding. It can't be the same as predicting, because one may be able to predict something without necessarilty understanding it. It can't be the same as saying some words, because one may recite something someone else have said without understanding. It can't be having the correct ''images'' showing up in your mind, because the...