How can you explain this definition of philosophy :"philosophy is i know not what"?
371326
Philosophy is nothing but common sense in a dress suit.  ~Author Unknown\n\nThe point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.  ~Bertrand Russell\n\nMy definition [of a philosopher] is of a man up in a balloon, with his family and friends holding the ropes which confine him to earth and trying to haul him down.  ~Louisa May Alcott, in Life, Letters, and Journals, ed. E.D. Cheney, 1889\n\nTo teach how to live with uncertainty, yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy can do.  ~Bertrand Russell\n\nPhilosophy is a state of fermentation, a process without final outcome.  ~Esa Saarinen\n\nPhilosophy:  A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.  ~Ambrose Bierce, The Enlarged Devil's Dictionary
62851
It's a philosophical consept. To disolve an idea and/or Consept.
246532
Read 'The Unity of Philosophical Experience' by Etienne Gilson.  He ably dismantles this kind of Cartesian nonsense in the relevant section.
855731
Both are manifestations of logic.  Philosophy is freeform.  Math is rigorous.
125780
What do you mean by the quistion i think it is not understood?
420930
this is the first and probably the most favorite thrown around in philosophy class. very amusing, very self entertaining, very useless.\ntake your 'reality' as you know it ... your senses, your memories, your thoughts and feelings. now, cease to exsist. not too cool, is it? no fun at all. oh, btw we are all still here, but you're gone. (i've had the opportunity to reach the edge of death twice now, i know.)\n"laters"
24136
tell ur philosophy teacher to shut the h*** up,\nof course you exsist, none of us could answer this question if you didnt,we`re all here for a reason,you just have to figure that reason out before someone can give you more idiotic info like that
1007652
Here is the definition of agnostic.\nag·nos·tic  (g-nstk)\nn.\n1. \na. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.\nb. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.\n2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.\nadj.\n1. Relating to or being an agnostic.\n2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" William H. Calvin.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n[a-1 + Gnostic.]\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nag·nosti·cal·ly adv.\nWord History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals"ists," as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.\n\nhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic\n\nI consider myself agnostic..the short definition is "I don't know"\nagnostic=I don't know\nI am not comfortable laying claim to atheism nor do I plan to join a church.\n\nSo your definition is incorrect.\nnice try at backdoor proselytizing though.
1013639
Philosophers have wrangled with this question for centuries and I comes down to this:  You simply cannot prove that you exist.  You can't even prove that the outside world exists.  After all, 'you' could just be a brain in a vat somewhere being stimulated by electrodes that make you 'see', 'feel', and 'touch'.  What philosophers have come up with is the concept of a "Properly Basic Belief".  It means that if there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, then you can probably safely assume that it's true.  However, that doesn't mean you can prove it.  And of course you have to be open to the possibility that evidence may turn up at some time.  So until there is evidence that I don't exist, I'll stick with the philosophers and say it's a "Properly Basic Belief" that I exist.  And of course, there's the old standby of "I think, therefore I am."
144091
Not sure I understand your question, but here goes:\n\nPhilosophy is a way, a means if you will, to organize your thoughts, explore new ideas, and evolve your understanding of the world and it inhabitants.\nEducation is the means of transmitting or receiving this information to/from others.\n\nThe Philosophy of education is the evolving process to be the best teacher, teach how others learn best, present the best lesson plans, etc.\nThe Education of philosophy is teaching others the works of Kant, Descartes, Hume, and others.  This allows the student to have a great starting point (standing on the shoulders of giants) to develop their own ideas and thoughts.\n\nDoes this help?
277015
Questioning life is part of living life...its called the study of philosophy :o)
430488
To begin with we need to look at the question and the language used to ask for answers. First is "logic". A simple definition is provided by Wikipedia which states:\n\n"Logic, from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of criteria for the evaluation of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy among philosophers. However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments.\n\nTraditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy. Since the mid-nineteenth century logic has been commonly studied in mathematics, and, even more recently, in computer science. As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialist analyses of reasoning such as probably correct reasoning and arguments involving causality."\n\nSecond, we must look at the word "truth". It is important to note that the word is not capitalized so we can avoid metaphysical theory or definitions based on cultist beliefs, such as christianity or other god-dependent or deity dependent definitions. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is quoted as proposing that truth is:\n\nA preliminary issue, although somewhat subsidiary, is to decide what sorts of things can be true. Is truth a property of sentences (which are linguistic entities in some language or other), or is truth a property of propositions (nonlinguistic, abstract and timeless entities)? The principal issue is: What is truth? It is the problem of being clear about what you are saying when you say some claim or other is true. The most important theories of truth are the Correspondence Theory, the Semantic Theory, the Deflationary Theory, the Coherence Theory, and the Pragmatic Theory. Whichever theory of truth is advanced to settle the principal issue, there are a number of additional issues to be addressed: \n     1. Can claims about the future be true now? \n     2. Can there be some algorithm for finding truth –        some recipe or procedure for deciding, for any claim in the system of, say, arithmetic, whether the claim is true? \n     3. Can the predicate "is true" be completely defined in other terms so that it can be eliminated, without loss of meaning, from any context in which it occurs? \n     4. To what extent do theories of truth avoid paradox? \n     5. Is the goal of scientific research to achieve truth? \n\nLogic is one form of epistemological approach to ascertaining knowledge. It is the "how we know what we know and the limitations of that knowledge". Logic is a tool for explanation of the ideas, observations, and experiences. It could also be said that logic is sometimes used poorly to acertain truth. Most clearly in areas of theology. Logical fallacies and faulty logic come most readily to mind. But that is another question for another time.
847989
Philosophy is a way of life.  Religion is a way of death.
1166088
The concept (that's what this really is) of nothing - or "no thing" is easy to understand and explain its existence. Lets examine a few things to get a grasp of this.\n\nFor example, when there is a lack of water, we say that its state of being is dry, arid, etc. Simply because there is a lack of something doesn't mean it does not exist.\n\nMy second example is that of your self. If you are not in a specific location at a specific time, and I am a witness to that event - or lack thereof - does that mean you do not exist? Surely not.\n\nFinally, the concept of "no thing" goes one step further than the examples above, however it is important to remember that the state of being no thing is exactly that - a state of being. Can something that does not even exist have a state of being (or a state of not being in this case)? It must exist to have these attributes. Simply because some thing does not have tangibility in our physical realm does not mean it does not exist. In fact, I would argue that due to all of the things I've stated here, it is more likely that the things we can not see or grasp are more likely to be real in a truer sense than the things we see, hear, touch, smell, and taste everyday. Simply because it is a concept does not mean it can not exist.
470197
It means "Question everything" it is what the philosopher Socrates was famous for. his willingness to call everything into question.
764171
Knowledge is nothing if you don't put it to use.\nWillingness means nothing if you don't do something.
77482
For the Monty Python film see The Meaning of Life\nThe philosophical question "What is the meaning of life?" means different things to different people. The vagueness of the query is inherent in the word "meaning", which opens the question to many interpretations, such as: "What is the origin of life?", "What is the nature of life (and of the universe in which we live)?", "What is the significance of life?", "What is valuable in life?", and "What is the purpose of, or in, (one's) life?". These questions have resulted in a wide range of competing answers and arguments, from scientific theories, to philosophical, theological, and spiritual explanations.\n\nBottom line for me is that we are here and we should do the best that we can with whatever choices we make, the roads we travel and the experiences we are given.  While I believe in God, NO ONE REALLY KNOWS what any of this means, until they pass on.  There hasn't been any one who has died and come back to tell us all about it, so we won't know until we go there ourselves.