A famous philosopher once said, "Life is too deep for words, So don't try to describe it, Just Live It." I agree to his opinion. Life is not such a sort of word which can be described in alphabets. It needs volumes and volumes to explain Life. Many Philosophers, Scholars and Literary Personalities have tried their level best to define life. Some say life is like fire, some say it's like an ice-cream. A very famous Greek Philosopher Hericulates says, "Life is the name of war, This war makes a common man, a King or a Slave." Similarly, Carl Sandburg says, "Life is like an onion: You peel it off one layer at a time, and sometimes you weep." So, this was a brief glimpse to the views of some great people about life. Now I would like to introduce you with my own opinion and idea about life. Life is like a blend of different shades and colors. It has a lot of faces. We can't have a single opinion about it. If we look at it from one point of view or observe its face from one side, it appears to us very pleasant and enjoyable.
Randians (objectivists) are angry people. They hate the world because it doesn't conform to their idealistic notions. Ayn Rand, in the book Atlas Shrugged, states many times, "Who is John Galt?" What does this statement mean? Who Is John Galt? This statement is symbolically referring to the frustrating experiences of dealing with other incompetent people. Rather than merely encouraging people to use their mind to the fullest extent, Randians go a step further to condemn those that are incompetent or lazy. It's as if they think every human should have a desk job sitting in front of a computer or drawing board. It is important to note that objectivist principles do not render these angry conclusions, but it is common amongst Randians. For one reason, Ayn comes to some of the same conclusions in her books. In Atlas Shrugged, all the "smart" people go off to their own secret society where everything is suddenly wonderful. It's like dying and going to heaven. Now that society has rid itself of all the incompetent people the truly "smart" and "moral" people prevail.
Five blind men wanted to find out what an elephant was. They had one brought to them. Surrounding the elephant, each blind man reached up to touch it. The first blind man grabbed the elephant's trunk. He said, "Aha! So an elephant is like a snake." The second blind man, holding one of the elephant's legs said, "Oh, no, it's like a tree trunk." The third grabbed the elephant's ear and said, "How can you say that? An elephant is clearly like a fan." The fourth, clutching the animal's tail, said, "No, no, no! The elephant is a like a rope." The fifth, climbing up the side of the elephant, said, "You're all wrong! The elephant resembles a small hill." This story of an elephant and blind men has been used since many thousands years by the different philosophers of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism and Jainism to explain that man is not capable of understanding the whole Truth of the universe due to the limitation of his mental and physical capability. No man, however, wise and intelligent he may be, is incapable of grasping the true knowledge of the world which is too vast and complex.
(Stone Age) And I asked Micha'el another question, for surety the Angelic Renegades who were Watchers over the world at this time, knew and were overlooking those clouds onto earth long before Adam and Eve, and Satan himself most likely was around on earth before the new couple was given life, and God took a rib of his own for Eve, and Micha'el would have been present also, the question being: 'Who were the Stone Age people? (People living before Adam and Eve, for surely there was, the stone tools are all about, plus there is much more evidence.)" Actually I had done a book in 2004, called "After Eve, " which deals with this question, but not to any depth, on this so called ape-man, or Stone Age man, and I needed a clearer message, one from heaven, or a holy angel, and Moun'el jumped into the picture again, and said, "I can tell him Micha'el! " Micha'el said, "Go ahead." And this is what he told me: "If you believe the first couple lived in a cultural setting, fixed by God, this should not present a problem for your mind (Micha'el kind of gave him a double take on that), if you know the Bible well, it says right in Genesis 1:11-4:20, it tells you all you need to know.
The von Neumann-Dirac theory of quantum mechanics. In the standard von Neumann-Dirac collapse theory of quantum mechanics a quantum system is thought of as a point in Hilbert space. Hilbert space is analogous to the dimensional phase space of classical mechanics, but includes an infinite amount of dimensions representing the infinite amount of linear combinations of vectors corresponding to the possible states. Observables, measurable properties, are represented as linear Hermitian operators on Hilbert spaces. Quantum mechanics is therefore explained by the mathematics of the linear Hermitian operators on Hilbert spaces. The uncertainty principle can be explained by a non-commutativity of the two corresponding operators. A different approach came from Paul Dirac. In 1926 Jordan in Göttingen and Dirac in Cambridge provided an independent unification of matrix and wave mechanics known as transformation theory. Quantised energy states are represented as a complex function, evolving according to a second-order differential wave equation, the Schröedinger equation.
There has long been philosophical debates as to why people enjoy tragedies, why they seek out negative emotions for entertainment. I will look at a more modern approach to this question by discussing how modern philosophers explain our love of horror films, the scarier the better. The problem is that most people do not search for real forms of horror in their lives, so why is it that fictionalized horror, even when accompanied by seemingly real fear and disgust, is pleasurable? There are two main branches of explanation, integrationist and co-existentialist. The integrationist theory states that the pleasure we get from horror films get comes directly from the fear and disgust. The co-existentialist theory claims the pleasure is not directly related to the negative feelings, we enjoy horror because the positive feelings outweigh the negative. Noël Carroll presents a co-existentialist theory where it is curiosity which drives us to horror films and more specifically it is our curiosity of what we believe to be naturally, as apposed to logically, impossible.
The studies of Alchemy gave careful consideration to the secrets of nature and the secrets of life, searching for the answer to transform the dense and gross into fine, elevated and also searching for the source, the eclipse, panacea, eternal life. Here, we will talk about the source, the root, the angular stone, the mystery of life and death. Alchemists searched for the key to order ( the loss word ) and the force, the essence or essences that move, express the multiplicity of form, characteristic and condition of life. This is the reason that analogies or meeting points between the external and the internal universe, were searched for. And this is also the reason of so much symbolism related to Alchemy. Nevertheless, Alchemy studies have as objective -as every real science have- to reach plenitude. This plenitude has to do with total harmony, with full happiness, with control and power. Alchemy, then, found different ways to analyze the universe and man. This is the reason that the alchemist studied in depth, the principles of nature and man.
I listen to the voices of dismayed women who do not define themselves as instinctively maternal. Yet the defensive cries ruminate not from a childless void, but from within a society of the idolized mother figure. They cringe at being criticized, accused and taunted by mothers of young children who cannot comprehend such a betrayal of the female caricature. When under this critical fire the non-maternal begin to wonder why it is that they cannot connect with the want to want to have children. They question their inner voices and feel there must be something "wrong" with them. When they are with their child-free friends, they can comfortably feel the bliss of adult conversation and periods of uninterrupted silence. They enjoy vacations, work and home life unencumbered with child related demands or emergencies. Yet when the scrutiny hits they again enter the loop of questioning their vital femininity. So, why is there this split dichotomy among American women, and why all of the turmoil?
I read the other day, President Bush is the only one with a plan of escape from the Iraqi war, and it is an individual one-for him alone on January 20, 2009, when he leaves office. How can he have gotten all into another Vietnam, and he did. The sad thing is, as in Vietnam, we won the war, but lost the peace. Why? There is a reason; it is called rules of engagement. Wars only have rules for mighty, when they fight the less mighty. Rules are really silly; they get in the way of victory. Who ever says to the victory "You fought dirty, " after they lost the war? No one dares. So now what could we do to win the peace for Iraq-this should be the question? The same thing we didn't do in Vietnam, we are doing now, let me explain. In Vietnam, we were afraid to blow Hanoi off the map, had we, we would have won the war and peace; Hanoi on the other hand, cried to the world, how unfair America was, then when we left, they jumped on the bandwagon, and screamed how they chased America away with their might;
Directionality as a necessary condition for intentional states Directionality, as the term is used in philosophy of mind, typically denotes the regard or way in which an intentional state relates to an intended object. Regardless of the particular kind of intentional state (e.g. "to think" vs. "to perceive") directionality is often thought of as a necessary condition for a state's being intentional in the first place. In order to have an intentional state, you need to have a state with a particular direction or focus upon the object it represents. Consider these propositions: S believes that p S remembers that p While 1 and 2 differ with respect to the kind of intentional state involved, 1 and 2 do not differ with respect to the satisfaction of the directionality constraint. 1 and 2 do (or would) differ with respect to their respective mental content: 1 is a belief with a particular content p, and 2 is a memory with a particular content p and that p occurs both in 1 and in 2 does not mean that 1 and 2 are semantically identical.