According to Wittgenstein ,  Philosophy is I know not what , discusse?
398639
who is the poorest man on earth.yhow does he or she lookk like where is he why is he poor.why do we consider him as poor
456693
My definition of wit:\n\nThe ability to use my brain in any occasion.
77659
Knowledge is the accumulation of facts or ideas.
1011025
Philosophy is a field of study that includes diverse subfields such as aesthetics, epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics, in which people ask questions such as whether God exists, what is the nature of reality, whether knowledge is possible, and what makes actions right or wrong. The fundamental method of philosophy is the use of reasoning to evaluate arguments concerning these questions. However, the exact scope and methodology of philosophy is not rigid. What counts as philosophy is itself debated, and it varies across philosophical traditions.\n\nThe term philosophy comes from the Greek word "Φιλοσοφία" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom" or less commonly "friend of wisdom". Many ancient Greek philosophers made the distinction between the desire for wisdom, as opposed to the desire for material things, vices, and the satisfaction of bodily desires. The definition of wisdom for many ancient Greeks would have been about virtue and the desire for knowledge and not false opinions. However, the term is notoriously difficult to define today (see definition of philosophy) because of the diverse range of ideas that have been labeled as philosophy. The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy defines it as the study of "the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality". The Penguin Encyclopedia says that philosophy differs from science in that philosophy's questions cannot be answered empirically, and from religion in that philosophy allows no place for faith or revelation. However, these points are called into question by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, which states: "the late 20th-century... prefers to see philosophical reflection as continuous with the best practice of any field of intellectual enquiry." Indeed, many of the speculations of early philosophers in the field of natural philosophy eventually formed the basis for modern scientific explanations on a variety of subjects.\n\nInformally, a "philosophy" may refer to a general world view or to a specific ethic or belief. However, this notion of "a" philosophy implies that there can be more than one answer to any of the major questions that philosophers have historically desired to answer. Many past philosophers would have claimed that there is only the attempt to study one philosophy, not the improper study of many philosophies, just as there is only one proper study on the subject of chemistry or physics.
266797
"Cogito, ergo sum" (Latin: "I am thinking, therefore I exist", or traditionally "I think, therefore I am") is a philosophical statement by René Descartes, which became a foundational element of Western rationalism. "Cogito ergo sum" is a translation of Descartes' original French statement: "Je pense, donc je suis", which occurs in his Discourse on Method (1637). - wikipedia\n\nPersonal Addition: In my philosophy class, our teacher asked what is one thing we are sure to exist. No one got the right answer, which is ourselves, the thinkers. You may doubt the existence of everything except of the doubter, which is me (or you or any person). Since there is someone who doubts, then that someone (the doubter) is sure to exist. Since you need to think so you can doubt, then it implies that when one thinks, one exists.\n\nHope you got it.
771361
It means he doesn't know what he is talking about.
1156267
There was no philosophy at this time, so he couldn't have any thoughts about it. If what he was doing can be of any importance to your question than he was teacher (called himself a transmitter), presenting ideas about training political leaders, creating (rather than transmitting!) set of ethical ideas oriented toward practice. I guess he wouldn't really like our philosophical tradition because of its "over-theorized" approach: praxis and the good life was his main focus.
81788
MEDITATION I.\n\nOF THE THINGS OF WHICH WE MAY DOUBT.\n\n\n1. SEVERAL years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterward based on such principles was highly doubtful; and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired to establish a firm and abiding superstructure in the sciences. But as this enterprise appeared to me to be one of great magnitude, I waited until I had attained an age so mature as to leave me no hope that at any stage of life more advanced I should be better able to execute my design. On this account, I have delayed so long that I should henceforth consider I was doing wrong were I still to consume in deliberation any of the time that now remains for action. To-day, then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares [and am happily disturbed by no passions], and since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions.[L][F]\n\n2. But, to this end, it will not be necessary for me to show that the wholeof these are false--a point, perhaps, which I shall never reach; but as even now my reason convinces me that I ought not the less carefully to withhold belief from what is not entirely certain and indubitable, than from what is manifestly false, it will be sufficient to justify the rejection of the whole if I shall find in each some ground for doubt. Nor for this purpose will it be necessary even to deal with each belief individually, which would be truly an endless labor; but, as the removal from below of the foundation necessarily involves the downfall of the whole edifice, I will at once approach the criticism of the principles on which all my former beliefs rested.[L][F]\n\n3. All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes misled us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived.[L][F]\n\n4. But it may be said, perhaps, that, although the senses occasionally mislead us respecting minute objects, and such as are so far removed from us as to be beyond the reach of close observation, there are yet many other of their informations (presentations), of the truth of which it is manifestly impossible to doubt; as for example, that I am in this place, seated by the fire, clothed in a winter dressing gown, that I hold in my hands this piece of paper, with other intimations of the same nature. But how could I deny that I possess these hands and this body, and withal escape being classed with persons in a state of insanity, whose brains are so disordered and clouded by dark bilious vapors as to cause them pertinaciously to assert that they are monarchs when they are in the greatest poverty; or clothed [in gold] and purple when destitute of any covering; or that their head is made of clay, their body of glass, or that they are gourds? I should certainly be not less insane than they, were I to regulate my procedure according to examples so extravagant.[L][F]\n\n5. Though this be true, I must nevertheless here consider that I am a man, and that, consequently, I am in the habit of sleeping, and representing to myself in dreams those same things, or even sometimes others less probable, which the insane think are presented to them in their waking moments. How often have I dreamt that I was in these familiar circumstances, that I was dressed, and occupied this place by the fire, when I was lying undressed in bed? At the present moment, however, I certainly look upon this paper with eyes wide awake; the head which I now move is not asleep; I e
333009
"I think, therefore I am". Rene Descartes (who was a french philosopher) said this back in the 1500's. What he meant was that the fact that he can think, proves his exisance, because he could not trust his eyes to really show him reality, or his ears to really hear. But thinking is the one thing that proves he really is real. \nSomething like that. Look him up. It's real interesting.
649358
you can never know if you were being didactic or rhetorical, even if no one gets your question. in fact you will never know if someone got your question unless they answer. yet, what is an answer but a response to your question, and a question being an inverted answer with the mark of a query.to provide this answer to your satisfaction  is perhaps to know and to get, and you must be the provider of the question so that the answerer can answer or get it. but how will the answerer know what the asker means? how will i know the meaning of the question? what does it mean to know and to get something? who/how must i BE to GET what you are asking? how will i know what to say? what does the sophiology of the underpinnings of epistemology consist of? sophistry is innately fallible explaining the bad rap, and when philosophy curves over, it too falls under the same beat. Cogito ergo sum is just one of a plethora of examples intertwining the soph with the ontological.
695698
As we know,\nThere are known knowns.\nThere are things we know we know.\nWe also know\nThere are known unknowns.\nThat is to say\nWe know there are some things\nWe do not know.\nBut there are also unknown unknowns,\nThe ones we don't know\nWe don't know.
847989
Philosophy is a way of life.  Religion is a way of death.
873593
I don't know, what do you think it is?
185324
A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός — "conclusion", "inference"), more correctly a categorical syllogism, is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises). In his Prior Analytics, Aristotle defines syllogism as: "a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so." (24b18–20) Despite this very general definition, however, he limits himself almost entirely to categorical syllogisms\n\nA syllogism consists of three parts: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: in the case of the major premise this is the major term, or predicate of the conclusion; in the case of the minor premise it is the minor term, the subject of the conclusion. For example:\n\nMajor premise: All men are mortal. \nMinor premise: Socrates is a man. \nConclusion: Socrates is mortal. \n"Being mortal" is the major term and "Socrates" the minor term; the connection between them is made by the middle term, in this case "being a man". Here the major premises is general and the minor particular, but this needn't be the case. For example:\n\nMajor premise: All mortal things die. \nMinor premise: All men are mortal. \nConclusion: All men die. \nHere, the major term is "die", the minor term is "all men", and the middle term is "being mortal".
3569
Socrates and Plato and a thousand other deep thinkers down through history have tried to define or explain the meaning of life.  Each with his own perception and understanding and most times with a very complicated explanation.\n\n   It was not until I took up hiking in the mountains of Tennessee that I had plenty of time to ponder the complexities of this age old question.  Being a Christian I was raised to believe certain things and to look at life in certain ways.  But as I got older and began studying and searching for myself I began to realize that what I was taught as a child was not as complicated as some would have had me believe.\n\n   I always wondered why God would have put us here simply to suffer through this life.  After all he does love us and of that I have no doubt.  So why then?  I studied and pondered and reflected in deep thought just like many have before me, and like them, to no avail.\n\n  Then one day while hiking the Appalachian Trail in Tennessee I came to a clearing overlooking a valley.  It was a clear day with the sun shining bright.  As I looked out across the valley I saw an eagle soaring on the wind.  And as usual the thought crossed my mind that it would be really nice to be able to soar like that.  Then I thought, do eagles look at us and wish they were like us?\n\n   That is when something inside me clicked.  It was more like an explosion or an awakening of sorts.  The meaning of life was so simple that I had looked right past it thinking that it would be some big discovery of some sort.  Some words of wisdom that would make me look like a genius.  Instead three words kept going through my brain.  Thundering as if God himself was speaking them directly into my thoughts.\n\n   We spend our entire lives from the moment we take our first breath til our last one is used up trying to be something we aren't.  Whether we are trying to get a job by seeming more experienced or trying to win someones heart by becoming the person they are looking for.  We act differently in different situations.  Why? \n\n    It is in our nature I suppose or at least the nature of the flesh.  But God's nature is to be the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  And since we are to strive to be more "God-like", which I used to think meant to try to be perfect, then the meaning of life is nothing more than to "JUST BE YOU!"\n\n   Yep, it is just that simple.  Be you no matter what happens or where you are or who you are with or what you are trying to achieve.  If you can do this you will be something that the majority of people will never be.  Good, bad or indifferent you will Just Be You.
707515
A philosopher asked Buddha: `Without words, without the wordless, will you you tell me truth?'\n\n    The Buddha kept silence.\n\n    The philosopher bowed and thanked the Buddha, saying: `With your loving kindness I have cleared away my delusions and entered the true path.'\n\n    After the philosopher had gone, Ananda asked the Buddha what he had attained.\n\n    The Buddha replied, `A good horse runs even at the shadow of the whip.' \n\nMumon's Comment: Ananda was the disciple of the Buddha. Even so, his opinion did not surpass that of outsiders. I want to ask you monks: How much difference is there between disciples and outsiders?\n\n    To tread the sharp edge of a sword\n    To run on smooth-frozen ice,\n    One needs no footsteps to follow.\n    Walk over the cliffs with hands free.
281171
to understand the quote you might need to see the whole thing:\n"[F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."\n\nI think it means that you have the freedom to be different about things that matter to you the most or something I really don't know haha but there's the whole quote maybe that will help