Philosophy Now Forum

What I mean is I haven't read the prince or know his history - I am ignorant of the details.

However I know what we all know - Machiavelli is some dude who wrote something awful but true about politics. And that link is actually implying that he wrote it out of sarcasm.

I am too ignorant to verify this :

http://www.cracked.com/article_18787_6- ... wrong.html

Search that link for Machiavelli.

maybe children would not be traumatized by such things if adults were not so horrified i remember seeing a flasher in a public park when i was 6 i thought it was funny but when i told my mom there is a man there playing with his pee pee she totally freaked You see Kayla - you can think like Peter S...

Khalid - this one is for you.

He made a claim you can make another claim. Debate, discuss. Being disgusted by an idea might be warranted but if you are then why?

I'm with SoB - help others.

what they are or what they appear to be? and what of non-empirical entities? square and overhand are defined by what they are knot... and holes are defined by what they are not... -Imp If I give you credit for not misspelling knot can you explain the joke? Holes and space might be a good counter ex...

It was a musing and your answers seem the practical ones. My suggestion is that as our vocabulary grows so to does our ability to see the universe. I once read that we see snow an Eskimo sees 50+ colours of white. I see a human body, what does a doctor see. Someone else sees a blur of code but Neo s...

OK then. Child brides - is it moral?

Personally I hope you bring Islamic wisdom to threads rather than make us debate the Koran. What does a muslim think on some of the threads on the site.

ps: Of course if you want to test your theological skills we can as well.

What's extraordinary about the Quran is that it's not just a book of what's right or wrong , what's legal or illegal but we can consider it a first class scientific and philosophical book . So many verses end with words like " For those who think , for Men of understanding " . So it alway...

Things are defined by what they are, not what they are not.

True or False?
Any counter examples?

They are legends of Australian comedy.

I think a person that cannot read and does not know what a book is can look at a page of a book and see the words but see nothing.

When you look at an ink blot why is it that the psychiatrist is able to ask what do you see?

Impenitent wrote:writeln('Not being able to describe an event does not necessarily negate its existence...')

-Imp

Of course. But can we see it if we don't have the language for it?