Am i wrong in assuming the admiration of things, ideas, and/or people comes along with not only an unspoken, but definite predilection for them? - or is it possible to have that admiration, but dislike them entirely? i.e. Thinking something is the greatest thing ever, but all of its positive attributes are why you don't like it; maybe because of how the results of using said attributes makes you feel. Or would you say that the person doesnt truly admire it or even that they dont truly dislike the results?
I do not understand how can anyone with at least a BA in philosophy relate to the world and act as people that do not have one do. And I take it that the average western person lives a better more untroubled life. Why? Well, I live with my brother and from my philosophical studies at a top ten university in the world I (without being cynical) assure you that it is perfectly reasonable to doubt many core beliefs that anyone takes for granted and that make life not liveable.
I am deeply concerned about how does my mental representation of the world arise, whether a sufficient relation between the phenomenology of my conscious experience and a mind‐independent physical world can be established not only for metaphysical reasons but also for epistemic ones, hoping that it can allow me to know of the existence of an external world and make judgments of it.
EXAMPLE: Sitting down eating while talking to my brother. (challenging, I know)
I am thinking of the traditional philosophical questions such as the...
I would like to know if this can be proven
I am attempting to prove G with these premises:
1. (-K and -N) > [(-P> K) and (-R> G)]
2. K> N
3. -N and B
4. -P v -R
I am not sure if the premises are enough to allow the solver to prove the solution or if there should be additional premises. A response would be appreciated!
Being a lover of movies, I sometimes watch a movie that I find very inspiring, motivating or just aesthetically pleasing and I sometimes that many people like it too. However, it is not uncommon to find criticisms from film critics who conclude that the movie is trash or below standards and are not worth watching. My question is: who decides if the movie is "really" good and worth watching: the film experts who don't like it or the public who adored it?