• How are mathematics, statistics, and computing related to philosophy?

    Best answer: Mathematics is a development of logic. Logic is a discipline of philosophy. Individual branches of science including to a small extent computer science, and to an even lesser extent statistics, are the occupations of some of the obscure branches of applied philosophy, which is not 'real' philosophy, but the application of... show more
    Best answer: Mathematics is a development of logic. Logic is a discipline of philosophy. Individual branches of science including to a small extent computer science, and to an even lesser extent statistics, are the occupations of some of the obscure branches of applied philosophy, which is not 'real' philosophy, but the application of concepts from philosophy to other disciplines. Applied philosophy might be touched on by a philosopher, or by someone wishing to provide a background for their work in science, often introductory science. Philosophy has been plagued by some of the problems native to mathematics through its relation to logical set theory, which is sometimes construed to have implications for metaphysics through the many-worlds theory of David K. Lewis and others. Essentially there is no one-to-one correlation, becasue once you are doing philosophy, you are doing philosophy. But not every philosopher is a scientist, so there are a wide number of variations, mostly hinging on the application of logic and ethics. And ethics is always an applied field outside of philosophy.
    12 answers · Philosophy · 2 years ago
  • In what ways can precision be a barrier to philosophy?

    Best answer: In writing The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (different from Baggini and Fosl's The Philosopher's Toolkit), I considered precision (subjects, specifications) to be part of the logical vocabulary. And so, too, was generality (coherence, universalism). The risk with precision is in adopting such a narrow view that the... show more
    Best answer: In writing The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (different from Baggini and Fosl's The Philosopher's Toolkit), I considered precision (subjects, specifications) to be part of the logical vocabulary. And so, too, was generality (coherence, universalism). The risk with precision is in adopting such a narrow view that the larger picture is forgotten. Closed off for too long, entire avenues of inquiry might shrivel and die. With generality (coherency, universalism), on the other hand, one is free to be metaphorical and pursue whatever is important. But there is also a risk with generality of having blindness to what one is actually saying, or whether one actually means it. I have observed that often happens in theology. So, I would say that it is a kind of two-edged sword. But you can't really do without either of them. Precision defines the substance or qualities of philosophy, whereas generality defines its nature and importance.
    9 answers · Philosophy · 2 years ago
  • Do you believe expression to be one of the fundamental roles of the human form?

    Best answer: Anthropology or the study of the human is typically where that stuff goes. It gets thrown in with a lot of other stuff, like 'evolution' and 'learned behavior' and thus also the 'nature vs. nurture' debate. If it interests you, art ('artistic expression') is the fifth dimension of knowledge in my... show more
    Best answer: Anthropology or the study of the human is typically where that stuff goes. It gets thrown in with a lot of other stuff, like 'evolution' and 'learned behavior' and thus also the 'nature vs. nurture' debate. If it interests you, art ('artistic expression') is the fifth dimension of knowledge in my encyclopedia. The earlier dimensions are philosophy, psychology, biology, and phenomenology. Other thinkers have occasionally considered art to be primary (particularly 'divine art'), or to exist as a duality with 'conscious' mental powers such as science or logic (e.g. a two personality model). Imitation was a concept considered by Meyer-Briggs in their personality typing system. For example, introverts and extroverts tend to express imitation differently, and the same for sensory versus intuition, thinking versus feeling, and judging versus perceiving. Noticing imitation becomes a way to separate 'primitive' types from more original types who would do their own work. On the other hand, imitation can be an early sign of creative thinking that is important for innovation. Imitation, which is called mimicry, played an important role in the development of language according to psychologists and biologists. Nonetheless, other powers are often considered more advanced now that we have become homo sapiens. For example, music, calculus, inventing, and even art may be considered more 'conscious' activities, which appear to involve considerable self-introspection which is not on the other hand necessary with mimicry. Mimicry is important when it is a good idea to learn any old thing, but less important when there is competition, or when others are trying to do you in. Thus, mimicry became obsolete with conscious conflicts in which an imitator can look crazy or apish. Nonetheless, art continues to hold some authority, and one of the key processes of art is careful imitation. In this way it has been reduced to a physical technique. All the hoopla about shamans and kachinas (animal gods, etc.) is now regarded as superstition. Consequently, imitation does not have the spiritual or personal importance it once had. Nonetheless some particular people (comedians, class clowns) have a lot of experience with imitation, because it is a simple way to understand people, and particularly what constitutes a successful public image. Whether the same behaviors and fashions will be popular ten or a hundred years down the road is another issue altogether, as the average old person knows. Imitation is a desperate game that is better understood in terms of conservative behavior and civil responsibility. People will say, that when it comes down to real values, there is always a better human to imitate than an animal god. That way, you won't look crazy, and it actually means something for what you can achieve. Changing into an animal is less important, or at least less efficient, than acting practically, ethically, or intelligently. Inventing airplanes is more than just being a bird, it is being BETTER than birds (e.g. because our wings are disposable and replaceable). It is this type of point that the first pioneers in aircraft construction realized. And other than birds, moments of imitation are largely determined by exceptional cases which do not apply to the average animal that we observe. Christians will say we should imitate God, but this has limited importance if God is an unknown. Evolution is not always about imitation. In fact, usually it is about doing something new: frighteningly new, and also useful. In this way, genius is more important for imitation of the kind you describe than actually imitating the original object. If that is the case, then what is happening is still unique in its own way. It is not just imitation, but genius + imitation. In this way, imitation becomes generic, because there are many other forms of genius (say, inventing the lightbulb or composing a Mozart symphony) which are less imitative, and much more about originality. Thus, ART is what encompasses imitation as we know it today. Otherwise, we are talking about evolving into a god, rather than an animal. Humans did not become birds, instead they gained a shell that was as useful as a bird. Whereas birds may never have realized that they could be useful at all. Keats' poem about wishing to be a bird notwithstanding, most humans would rather be humans than birds. This shows that humanity has advantages which birds do not have. The point really should have been proven long ago. Human genius has trump on all kinds of features which, in nature, emerged only through extreme luck and trial and error. In the sense that God created the world, we could certainly learn a lot from imitating nature. But this hypothetical process only happens because there is a higher genius directing our inspirations. We might just as well have said that we were 'evolving' into God. Outward appearances might be children's toys, in that scenario. And why wouldn't children's toys make us act like an ape or a crazy person? Indeed, the idea that we learn divine things from nature poses the same problems. Back to anthropology.
    10 answers · Philosophy · 2 years ago
  • Are there any (or many) extinct philosophies?

    Best answer: I can think of four reasons a philosophy might become extinct, and I will give a few examples: (1) It was proven to be unintelligent. For example, some scientists would consider Flat-Earth theorists to be doting on an extinct philosophy. But these people still exist in small amounts, supposedly. Likewise, some early theories like the... show more
    Best answer: I can think of four reasons a philosophy might become extinct, and I will give a few examples: (1) It was proven to be unintelligent. For example, some scientists would consider Flat-Earth theorists to be doting on an extinct philosophy. But these people still exist in small amounts, supposedly. Likewise, some early theories like the theory of the Apeiron are largely considered extinct, because new physical and spiritual theories have largely replaced them. However, they are still open to speculation in philosophy. Even flat earth might be possible if there is a God, and he put us under a spell of illusion, or if there are multiple earths, some of them being more real than others. But we know the fact is, the earth is not flat as it is perceived. And that is an important detail that makes the other theory less valid. (2) If it was simply forgotten by history. For example, there may be many intelligent and nuanced philosophies from Ancient Greece, and the time after that (medieval Europe for example), that did not mesh well with the time in which they appeared, and thus, were not remembered by anyone. These philosophies would be extinct, although they shouldn't necessarily be so. Some of these theories may have ceased to exist simply because the materials did not exist to record them, or because the recording materials decomposed, or because the oral tradition is too ancient, and other philosophies took over when the opportunity arose to transmit them. Many details of the African oral philosophies may have been lost as populations migrated into the cities, for example. (3) Another example is philosophies that make weak arguments. These may be philosophies that are known about, but are not widely accepted. One example might be Protagoras' philosophy that there is an argument on any subject. After Hume's Guillotine (the argument that we cannot get an ought from an is), it became impossible to make moral arguments. So there is not an argument on every moral subject. And so, most philosophers would consider Protagoras' philosophy to be extinct, even though many people remain moralists. (4) Some arguments may be too strong to exist, or too obvious. They may be beyond ordinary human potential, too complex, too subtle, or too unreasonable-sounding. Some consider Kant's concept of the Noumenal World to be inaccessible, and thus, easily rejected. However, because Kant is a recent philosopher, some still take his concept seriously. Some even consider it to be central to their Christian beliefs, e.g. because God is an unknown. And, sorry to say, some theories like Nihilism, Pessimism, and Heaven and Hell are alive and well, showing that it is clearly not evolution making the decisions about which philosophy survives...! No impoliteness intended, if you happen to hold Christian beliefs.
    4 answers · Philosophy · 2 years ago
  • Explain Kant, Schiller and Hegel`s Philosophy of Art. Please help :(?

    Best answer: I think for Kant it was in the form of the thing, for Schiller it is about the object's purpose, and for Hegel my guess is that it must exemplify beauty. Sorry I cannot give more of a picture than this.
    Best answer: I think for Kant it was in the form of the thing, for Schiller it is about the object's purpose, and for Hegel my guess is that it must exemplify beauty. Sorry I cannot give more of a picture than this.
    3 answers · Philosophy · 2 years ago
  • Why is philosophy important?

    Best answer: I'll be bold, and say that the 'reason' or 'purpose' of philosophy amounts to what philosophy has done for history. What has philosophy done for history? It has done Existentialism. It has done Rhetoric. It has done Logic. Philosophy is at the root of most concepts of mathematics and religion. So, philosophy is... show more
    Best answer: I'll be bold, and say that the 'reason' or 'purpose' of philosophy amounts to what philosophy has done for history. What has philosophy done for history? It has done Existentialism. It has done Rhetoric. It has done Logic. Philosophy is at the root of most concepts of mathematics and religion. So, philosophy is almost all-important. But what is philosophy missing? Practicality, and sometimes moral fiber. So, it might be fatally flawed. But if you're a skinny white man like me trying to find the meaning of life, philosophy is a great thing, indeed. It leads to things like alchemy, psychology, pure abstraction, symbolism, structuralism, and theology. It can be highly addictive. It's a love of paper, ink, impossibility, paradox, and futurism.
    8 answers · Philosophy · 2 years ago
  • Is it possible to achieve Perfection?

    Best answer: For the sake of a strong argument, you may be right. But that doesn't mean that no one thinks they have found perfection. If perfection is impractical, then we can understand not wishing to achieve it. Or if it is temporary, and if the emotional pain is too hard to bear. Past a certain point of suffering and boredom, however, there... show more
    Best answer: For the sake of a strong argument, you may be right. But that doesn't mean that no one thinks they have found perfection. If perfection is impractical, then we can understand not wishing to achieve it. Or if it is temporary, and if the emotional pain is too hard to bear. Past a certain point of suffering and boredom, however, there is a desire for something better. That is what is meant by perfection. It doesn't have to be anything obvious. It might occur in very slow steps. And I believe, judging by human imagination, that there is a lot of potential out there, even if it is just a cognitive trick. The difference between one mind and another, or a day in which your miserably sick versus a day in which you make significant progress on a project is rather amazing. Some of the difference, unfortunately, is merely spiritual. Not everyone is a great spirit. Now imagine that you are infinitely evolving. For example, 1. Step one might be to become a better writer (I mean this generally about a lot of people). 2. Step two might be to become a different person. 3. Step three might be to become more generous, or to have a 'big life moment'. 4. Step four might be to get very interested in social politics. etc. Perfection is not only the path of improvement, but the ability to see that it is taking you somewhere, or else the ability to be satisfied with going no-where. Perfection is super-adaptive. It often requires perspective. It only happens when the mind is not muddied by incurable problems. Reading this, you might get the idea: perfection is possible. Maybe it's just poetry, or maybe it's just happiness, or maybe it's just a sense of purpose (money, or what have you), maybe it's a matter of being fascinated for no apparent reason at all. The point is, a meaningful life comes out of the fact that we are not usually absolutely compromised. There is often SOMETHING we can do. For most people, just doing SOMETHING is a big challenge. But if we master what we do, then proverbially, new doorways open up. How could it be otherwise? It's the big God-cheat: the more we know, the more we grow. Some people are better than us, but they've had more experiences before they got there. If someone can justify not suffering, so much the better. Most people excuse them, and the other people get a big sermon. Everyone becomes wiser. You might conclude that perfection is stupid, but you would be wrong. People who live relatively perfect lives have no reason to argue, unless that happens to be the thing they are devoted to doing in the moment. That makes it frustrating. There is a vast difference between people who find perfection and people who do not. It may be a matter of whether one's fate is adequate, whether one's life is adding up. Or it could be incidental. It could be simply about valuing what you already have. Sometimes it is even about adventures, or personal growth. It has to do with whether you have / find value, and whether you accept your opportunities. Perfection is reputed to be a very long path, a path in which physical laws doubtless change to adjust to one's level of significance. Just remember, everyone gets what they deserve. It seems meaningless, but it's oh-so-meaningful. Some people are trying to make the choice. Very often, we learn from the students, and those less fortunate than ourselves. Perfection begins by being greedy enough to learn from imperfection. It involves generosity, and not giving up. It involves doing very exceptional things for a long time. And, if you 'own the coincidence' if you 'master time' then, for a short while, your life seems to have everything in the right place. If we stop and notice these moments, that is what has value. And the more of these moments we have, the more perfect we are. Sometimes we have to be generous. Sometimes we have to be smart. Sometimes we have to relax. Sometimes we have to just 'deal with it'. Basically, though, it's the good moments that count, and value, in my philosophy, is weighed on the good moments. When you enjoy yourself, and you remain blameless, then everyone else also enjoys themselves. If we can't avoid our own suffering, then we are the problem of the world, and a problem that should be solved by seeking happiness. But if we feel happy, and we can't find meaning, then we should accept that there's something good about ourselves that is significant in some way. And if we are not significant at all, then we should do our best to communicate that, because it must matter to someone else. In this way, a type of perfection can be found on the earth. An intellectual perfection. A harmlessness. An ability to take part in rituals. A sense of satiation or truth. A sense of 'patience and transformation'. For now, I believe that is what is perfect: the way of patience and transformation. But, be a good student, and make whatever argument you feel like. Arguing has its own kind of life. Wisdom doesn't always live in the moment.
    10 answers · Philosophy · 2 years ago
  • I am a witch and i want to know what books are good for beginners?

    Best answer: The answer isn't to hold back, it's to jump in. If it's a child you have in mind, then you might consider having an adult teach them from an adult book. Otherwise, children's books might be appropriate. I have heard all witches are supposed to own 'The Witches Bible'. That might be the book to... show more
    Best answer: The answer isn't to hold back, it's to jump in. If it's a child you have in mind, then you might consider having an adult teach them from an adult book. Otherwise, children's books might be appropriate. I have heard all witches are supposed to own 'The Witches Bible'. That might be the book to buy. http://www.amazon.com/Witches-Bible-Comp... I just published two books which are not strictly in the Wicca tradition, but I think they contain real magic. The point being a beginner is not to be disappointed. That's my philosophy. I have not been disappointed with an herbs book by Scott Cunningham, and also with my own spells. One of my books is Worthwhile Magical Things to Do (oriented towards White Magic): http://www.amazon.com/Worthwhile-Magical... The other is The Dimensional Spell-Casting Toolkit (Vol. 19 of the Dimensional Encyclopedia, oriented towards all types of magic, ranging from herbalism and rituals to incantation, enchantment, and defense, to animal attraction, familiars and golems, to destruction and curses): http://www.amazon.com/Dimensional-Spell-... Scott Cunningham's books can also be found on Amazon by doing an appropriate search. I have met at least one real wizard and one real witch. I'm a believer in time-travel, and disappointed with anyone who does not pursue the immortal quest. If you want other books to read, I think Cunningham has a book of spells, and I definitely recommend the herbs book. I'm not an expert on deciding about Wicca books. Some are good with rituals, and some are good with spells. The Book of Runes by Ralph H. Blum may be useful (you probably already own some edition of it). Cunningham's "Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner" is also popular, probably for good reason.
    4 answers · Books & Authors · 2 years ago
  • Best self development books ?

    Best answer: 7 Habits for Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. Almost everyone likes this book. The Five Faces of Genius: Creative Thinking Styles to Succeed at Work. The Artist''s Way by Julia Cameron, also highly rated. This book is full of amazing, inspiring quotations. What Color is Your Parachute: brilliant... show more
    Best answer: 7 Habits for Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. Almost everyone likes this book. The Five Faces of Genius: Creative Thinking Styles to Succeed at Work. The Artist''s Way by Julia Cameron, also highly rated. This book is full of amazing, inspiring quotations. What Color is Your Parachute: brilliant book about how to become employable. I also recommend my Perpetual Motion Genius' Guide series, available on Amazon. The series includes works on early-life development, writing, philosophy, and other subjects (The earlier-mentioned books are not by me). If you want instructions on magic powers and yoga, you could not do much better than the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. (If, on the other hand, you want works about general and technical philosophy practice, I recommend The Philosopher's Toolkit by Baggini and Fosl, and The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit, by me. Baggini and Fosl have also released an Ethics Toolkit, which is bound to be full of puzzles).
    1 answer · Books & Authors · 2 years ago
  • 21st century and the famous painters / artists?

    Best answer: You might not get any better answers, so I will answer as best I can. I was born in 1982, and from what I've heard during my own lifetime, Picasso was famous during the 20th century, even very early, although the news media was somewhat different back then. Some things were reported on radio, especially political stuff, but also... show more
    Best answer: You might not get any better answers, so I will answer as best I can. I was born in 1982, and from what I've heard during my own lifetime, Picasso was famous during the 20th century, even very early, although the news media was somewhat different back then. Some things were reported on radio, especially political stuff, but also occasional big stories. Picasso was major in the arts scene, particularly major journals and newspapers related to the arts. Picasso was also well-known because he was so productive --- perhaps 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 works in his lifetime. Many of these were in hands of collectors before he died, unlike Van Gogh, who sold almost nothing (there is the story of him eating paint for example). Judging by those two examples, artist's success varies widely. But in some ways, Picasso is a vast exception to the rule. Many artists don't even take their careers seriously, or only participate because they are already independently wealthy. Cezanne, for example, had a mansion where he painted, the site of his famous painting depicting a bridge and lily pads. Warhol was certainly famous in the 1970's, but was considered radical. At the same time, the entire culture was radical at the time, so he was a kind of king of the zeitgeist of the times. Wikipedia says that he was the first to use the expression '15 minutes of fame'. It also says he began as a successful illustrator and commercial artist (e.g. designing logos etc.) Later on, he was also popular in magazines. Dali was less popular than Picasso, although he did make art sales and he was tremendously popular as artists go. Nonetheless, he was more like someone who had to 'make a splash' instead of having people come to him. So you can see, it has to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Some other artists are mainly remembered because their works are in famous collections, not because they were very famous at the time. These famous names sometimes appear in the manifestos of the more famous artists. Their greatest importance was the importance of their work, and the fact that they appeared in major expositions. But the most famous of these did occasionally appear in the media, they were simply not such big names. They could still be favorites for someone in academia, for example. There was a big thing about patron heroes (such as these secondary artists) during the 1920s - 1940s, in my assessment. This may have simply meant that the culture was more literate, and more willing to think of a larger number of artists as being famous. But after that, the focus was more about 'what is modern' and perhaps a brief focus on technique over style, which persists in some universities, as exemplified by the trend of going to France for art school. Elitism has been re-defined over the years, and the lines have gotten blurrier. Recently there have even been 'outsider artists' such as schizophrenics, people with Autism, and people that paint with their feet, etc. It has become fashionable to think that every artist has some kind of flaw, even though the best examples clearly were exceptional in some remarkable ways. I'm schizophrenic, and an artist, although I'll be polite and not post my gallery link here.
    4 answers · Painting · 2 years ago
  • Where is time?

    Best answer: What is time? Time is a variable that happens to exist in our dimension. In the absolutely real world, there are infinite dimensions of time. Here there is only one. In the immortal world, there is infinite time, but in the temporal world, time is a limited variable. Time is essentially a type of complexity. Other types of complexity... show more
    Best answer: What is time? Time is a variable that happens to exist in our dimension. In the absolutely real world, there are infinite dimensions of time. Here there is only one. In the immortal world, there is infinite time, but in the temporal world, time is a limited variable. Time is essentially a type of complexity. Other types of complexity could exist with equal importance to time, but in our limited dimension (I call it dimension 3.5), time happens to be very important. So you could ask: Is time important? It is in our dimension. What is time? A type of complexity, specifically a one-dimensional variable that scales to multiple dimensions. Time is a way of relating between one-dimensional and higher-dimensional forms of physics or metaphysics. Time is not the fourth dimension, because it exists in every dimension. In each dimension there is a version of every prior dimension, and the ultimate higher dimensions manifest as a form of meaning, evolution, or transcendence. Time is both a capacity and a limitation upon various forms of transcendence, which are also forms of motion or physico-mental capacities. Because time is a variable, it is not precisely 'located': instead, it qualifies everything in the universe. It relates with things to the extent that they are real. It performs tests. It is a categorizer. However, infinite time is located everywhere, and one-or-more dimensional time can relate to objects as a variable, typically in terms of the object's 'automatic' versus 'resistive' 'travel' through time. Time as we understand it is a form of travel. And, time is all of change. We overcome time by changing more or less than the current dimensions of time. This involves either being a more permanent form of information, or more real or more perceiving thing than all other things in the local universe. Time travel is the beginning of knowledge of time, whereas the immortal abandons the usefulness of the variable of time. Time, some might say, is transient in more than one way. It is both a bringer of basic knowledge, and a denier of ultimate experience. But who need to know that? Unless you're an advanced mathematician or somebody, time just means 'history'. It just means 'evolution'. It just means changing until there's no more change left to do. In this respect, humans are sadly limited in their capacities. A given life does not always evolve. The potential of time very often is more significant than the lives lived within it. There is a necessity of becoming dimensional in order to relate to the more ultimate significance of time, before the variable of time can be manipulated, and before we can become self-purposed.
    23 answers · Philosophy · 2 years ago
  • Why are people not content being imperfect?

    Best answer: Imperfection reminds us of the worst things in life. If it's bad, people think, then it might be worse. People who enjoy imperfection are more perfect than they think!
    Best answer: Imperfection reminds us of the worst things in life. If it's bad, people think, then it might be worse. People who enjoy imperfection are more perfect than they think!
    10 answers · Philosophy · 2 years ago
  • Is man and other beings born with a innate knowledge of sustainability in relation to the world.?

    Best answer: There's an artificial balance: not only is there no doubt that some ducks are drowning in oil-slick, but there is also no doubt that being human is currently the best earthly answer for survival. So, if you put two-and-two together, you get the artificial balance: (1) Humanity is really great, and (2) We're not being very nice to... show more
    Best answer: There's an artificial balance: not only is there no doubt that some ducks are drowning in oil-slick, but there is also no doubt that being human is currently the best earthly answer for survival. So, if you put two-and-two together, you get the artificial balance: (1) Humanity is really great, and (2) We're not being very nice to other species. I think that is the gist of it. For, there is no doubt that it is EASIER to live as a human being than ever before, in terms of the experiences of each individual human being on average. The larger question of nature is going to be trumped by expensive programs and human interest groups, and the upshot is---just what I told you. Humanity survives until there's a better alternative. And that's the central question, isn't it? But if you're a duck in oil-slick, you're out of luck. Sorry to say, but if there's a higher power, he thinks its evolution. So, time to focus on what it means for individuals to evolve. A life in which everyone is a super-soldier? Or a more meaningful life? A life with nature preserves? Or virtual reality? A lot of answers like these are bound to crop up over the course of the next few hundred years, or perhaps sooner. But a lot of people will just be thinking about the food they eat, and whatever entertainment or work is most important for them in the moment. So, there is an opportunity for significance, but also for some short-sightedness and some of the usual misfortunes. Global warming may be a big deal, but that doesn't mean its too late to reverse the climate within livable conditions. It's kind of like life after the last Ice Age: unforeseen adaptations take place, and ultimately, history seems to be more flexible than we ever expected. Whether we're wearing sweaters and snow pants or staying indoors with a lot of air-conditioning, humans will adapt, and it will be up to the less fortunate to realize that some others have adapted, and to bill themselves as also being members of the community.
    7 answers · Philosophy · 2 years ago
  • I was wondering about the rights authors have over their published works. Details below.Thanks everyone?

    Best answer: Laws differ from country to country. My experience is that authors in Europe get to keep the royalties circulating in their own family. American authors have more trouble. I have read about this, and what I have heard is that copyright expires 80 years after publication, regardless of whether the author is alive or dead. However, I have... show more
    Best answer: Laws differ from country to country. My experience is that authors in Europe get to keep the royalties circulating in their own family. American authors have more trouble. I have read about this, and what I have heard is that copyright expires 80 years after publication, regardless of whether the author is alive or dead. However, I have heard a story about the son of a famous poet named W.C. Williams who was taking the publisher to court over continuing copyright control. I don't know if he won, but my sense is that the argument concerned specific publishing deals that had already been made between the author and the publishing house. If that is the case, it may have been an issue of marketing options, such as the availability of W.C. William's books to specific niche audiences that wouldn't be available with a different publisher, or which would not be easy to reach with a new agreement. I think after 80 years the copyright disappears, but the publisher will attempt to corner the market anyway. Technically someone could self-publish a book with long quotes or the entire text without being pursued in court, but it would be sort of pointless if the market was cornered by a major publisher. So, it's the marketing rights that are important for someone that famous, even after 80 years is up. So, that's the news, fortunately or unfortunately. You may notice that there are many different publishers publishing Plato's work for example, and the translations differ widely, although due to academic interest, they have become more and more the same. There is no restriction on publishing your own work that includes a translation of Plato, unless the translator did their work recently, and has retained copyright of their work. Some translators have even signed agreements to make their work publicly available, although it is not always available for commercial re-sale. Fortunately, many older translations existed before these agreements could be made. So, that's the news, fortunately or unfortunately, like I said. Work 80 years or older tends to be public-domain, although there can still be specialized editions that are more marketable. I think that's the final word. You'll notice for example, that works by Freud and Aristotle are available as free e-books on Amazon, e.g. because there is no need to pay for producing the physical book. Technically, the e-book could be published by anyone, but since the work is available for free, its almost pointless to attempt to make money on it, unless you think you have a better translation that people know about, which is likely to be a recent translation, or one that is already available. However, I will mention some exceptions about marketing and profits. For one thing, the physical appeal of a book can have marketing value. So, for example, small presses will often focus on physically-appealing books. Books are also more marketable if they are rare, but not so rare that no one buys them. There is a difference between merely rare, and rare and valuable. The disappearance of the used book store shows that there is decreasing interest in rare books that do not have historical significance. Increasingly now, rarity requires some kind of proof, much like highly-respected art. An original edition in this case would be preferred, or one published by a major publisher, or perhaps a high quality edition that preserves well. Another tactic companies use for marketing is compiling multiple sources together. Academic books often will combine sources that have granted permission, or sometimes (often in the case of philosophy), combine many older editions that are freely available. This has the advantage of providing an ostensibly valuable service that not every reader would bother to do themselves. These books, however, must often be marketed based on the idea that the reader is not extremely knowledgeable, otherwise there is increased emphasis on professionalism, which creates a conflict between competing 'official' editions.
    7 answers · Books & Authors · 2 years ago
  • Are there any names that mean "Human" or "Monster"?

    Best answer: 'Anthro', 'Ent', and various things related to human powers such as 'Civ', 'Techno', 'Thread', etc. could be interpreted as meaning 'human'. Depending on the plot, you could weave in themes from the story, such as if there is a big thing about matter and physics, then the villain could be... show more
    Best answer: 'Anthro', 'Ent', and various things related to human powers such as 'Civ', 'Techno', 'Thread', etc. could be interpreted as meaning 'human'. Depending on the plot, you could weave in themes from the story, such as if there is a big thing about matter and physics, then the villain could be about 'Chaos' or 'Entropy' e.g. human disillusionment, etc. 'Gorgias' could be a reference to Gorgons, which are monsters. And there are many others monsters from myth, such as 'Hydro', 'Cyclopes', 'Mino' or 'Minotaur', 'Drake' for a small dragon. There are also myths from Japan and China and other places in the world. There are 'wights' and 'valkyries' and 'zombies' and many unique names to choose from. Many readers can understand slight-of-hand references like 'Kyr' for Valkyrie etc. otherwise they just don't care very much. But how it sounds may matter a lot, if it's pitch-perfect. Good luck!
    4 answers · Books & Authors · 2 years ago
  • Do you know of any philosophers who taught about the good life and how to be happy?

    Best answer: Aristotle argued for the Middle Path between extremes as a way of avoiding difficult choices and hardship resulting from bad decisions. The Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) also argued for the middle path. Epicurus argued for moderate pleasures and avoidance of pain, which was subsequently taken up by the Utilitarians (Bentham and his son... show more
    Best answer: Aristotle argued for the Middle Path between extremes as a way of avoiding difficult choices and hardship resulting from bad decisions. The Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) also argued for the middle path. Epicurus argued for moderate pleasures and avoidance of pain, which was subsequently taken up by the Utilitarians (Bentham and his son John Stuart Mill), who argued that morality is about achieving pleasure and avoiding pain. In Mill's view it's about not only pleasure, but qualified pleasure, such as pleasures that can only be achieved by being human or a god. Socrates is also known to have perspectives on a good life, even though he is not known to have left any extant writings. From what we know from his student Plato, the priority for happiness was justice, and living according to the true nature of the soul. Those are the major thinkers about happiness and fulfillment that I know about. There have also been a wide variety of mystics advocating union with God, transcendence, abandonment of desire, and entrance into heaven as a way of solving the problem. But these are not always considered philosophers these days, since their viewpoints are usually not original. Jesus seems to have advocated forgiveness as a way of absolving the sins of the world. It is not always clear that he thought happiness was possible. Possibly he saw it as a gift from God the creator. And he thought it could sometimes be wrong, or at least wrong-minded. Medieval people following Jesus' views concluded that pleasure was largely a sin, and the only virtue came from mystical union with God.
    12 answers · Philosophy · 2 years ago
  • In the US is it illegal to sell something i.e. a painting without a permit?

    Best answer: My experience in an artistic city in the U.S. is that selling things in public is illegal, unless you sell to a friend or someone who is already an interested buyer, or unless you have a business permit which costs money. City halls often sell permits for one week to a month, but they're somewhat expensive. However, selling paintings... show more
    Best answer: My experience in an artistic city in the U.S. is that selling things in public is illegal, unless you sell to a friend or someone who is already an interested buyer, or unless you have a business permit which costs money. City halls often sell permits for one week to a month, but they're somewhat expensive. However, selling paintings online doesn't require a permit. Also, if you own your own property or rent, there are sometimes rules that allow it. Sometimes you aren't allowed to advertise or attract strangers from the street, but you could have a casual conversation with people you know, and then sell art at your own place. That's the best information I have on the subject. A lot of these rules probably hold across the U.S., probably even fewer restrictions in some less artsy places.
    5 answers · Painting · 2 years ago
  • Would you describe the act of masturbation as impure, or freeing/liberating and natural?

    Best answer: Masturbation feels pure to men (at least if they are idealistic and non-religious) whether they use pornography or not, and probably to women just feels meaningless because it is too difficult, or has a completely different complex when it involves vibrators---e.g. the meaninglessness of other people, the god-like qualities of the... show more
    Best answer: Masturbation feels pure to men (at least if they are idealistic and non-religious) whether they use pornography or not, and probably to women just feels meaningless because it is too difficult, or has a completely different complex when it involves vibrators---e.g. the meaninglessness of other people, the god-like qualities of the artificial and disembodied, etc. On the other hand, on a spiritual level men ultimately feel guilt, but this usually occurs at the point where some sort of difficulty came up, such as venereal disease or erectile dysfunction. All of this makes the 'universal' nature of such a thing radically difficult to interpret. It appears both to be a part of nature / civilization and to involve some amount of self-sacrifice. If people worship the process of creating children, masturbation seems like a sin or an excess. But if they do not worship every type of child they would have (such as with the wrong woman), then it does not seem sinful. For women there is not the same moral dilemma, because so far as I know it has little to do with the travel of the egg. However, there is no danger of masturbation making anyone infertile, just perhaps too objective to handle a non-objective partner. The result is that there are many dangerous sexual situations, not just physically, but psychologically. And I dare to guess not all of the problem is masturbation. After all, women regularly use spermicides that are mostly having the same effect, although in a more profound, sexual situation. Because of things like spermicide, many men feel justified in masturbating, even if it is a form of self-sacrifice, so long as they don't sacrifice the most important things. And the most important things typically are somewhat selfish, when it comes down to survival and how to have a good day.
    14 answers · Other - Social Science · 2 years ago
  • What are the tools to become a good writer?

    Best answer: As of late, you will need a mixture of writing ability and business sense. You will need sufficient means (money, leisure) to spend a significant part of your time writing. This frees you to become a creative person. Some type of motivation, ranging from greed to pleasing children may be important to give your work a secret... show more
    Best answer: As of late, you will need a mixture of writing ability and business sense. You will need sufficient means (money, leisure) to spend a significant part of your time writing. This frees you to become a creative person. Some type of motivation, ranging from greed to pleasing children may be important to give your work a secret objective. A mixture of hard work, stimulation, honest self-assessment, and high aspirations will take you far. However, there is often a difference between the type of success which counts as success to us, and the success that objectively connotes success for other people. There are many miserable writers who have found some mild satisfaction in attracting temporary notice, or giving away books for free that they buy from their publisher. There are creative opportunities, but you really have to measure up, either socially, intelllectually, in terms of business sense, or (with the greatest difficulty) in terms of the actual value of your work, before you will find real success of any kind. Many writers are ignored even when they think they are doing the right thing. So, don't follow the crowd, and make some shrewd decisions. Focus on your best work. Work hard. Make good of your opportunities. Remain positive, or learn to sell the negativity. In addition, here is some additional stuff I previously wrote in another question: Here is some advice on writing books and being creative: 1. Think about the title first. To an important extent, a title is what makes a book classic. Not only the title, but the accurate reflection of the title by the content. But if you can't think properly about the title, you probably don't have a good idea of the book. This is kind of my thesis of good writing. 2. Think about what it means to have content. Are you a poet? Then you need to get inspired. Are you a facts-person? Then you need to do some research. Are you a novelist? Then you need to know how to connect 'creativity' with a 'story'. 3. Think about concepts of meaning. What would be meaningful to write about? Or, of you're not a meaning-oriented person, what would be meaningless to write about? 4. If you're still stuck, try taking short little adventure-vacations. If you feel like writing a few notes, you can do that (notes eventually add up, although I don't recommend this as the primary method). The important thing is that you are clarifying your thinking. 5. Whenever you have a seed---the merest seed---of inspiration, then you can use this to develop a longer piece, such as a paragraph, or several pages. Try working with short chapters if you can't work for long. Or, if you're like me, you can write in an encyclopedia style, collecting the parts alphabetically. This may be easier than writing a novel. A second method is to write a book of quotations, and a third method is to use structure primarily, such as lists or graphics. 6. An alternative is being very inspired, and writing either a structure of a piece, or an entire piece, or chapter, in one sitting. This is something to work up to gradually. (I don't recommend drugs for getting inspired: just feel the cool air, the wind on your face, and focus on what you know or love). 7. This is one of the secrets of writing: Remember, you don't need to write very much to make a book in a year. In 6" X 9" format, you need to only write the equivalent of about a page every two or three days. If you don't have good content, though, or if there is no organization, then that specific piece of writing is doomed. But just because you have one doomed writing does not mean that none of your writing will succeed. Indeed, many writers have wildly varying work, with some of it being total garbage, and some of it being worth collecting like gems. That's my sagacious advice on writing. I hope it means something significant to you.
    9 answers · Books & Authors · 2 years ago
  • Does philosophy evolve?

    Best answer: Here is a more formal philosophical answer than the other answerers are offering. New philosophical ideas arise in a similar manner to other ideas in history: through dialectical materialism. What this really means is that controversial ideas go through a period of critique, and if they are not acceptable new theories emerge. At some... show more
    Best answer: Here is a more formal philosophical answer than the other answerers are offering. New philosophical ideas arise in a similar manner to other ideas in history: through dialectical materialism. What this really means is that controversial ideas go through a period of critique, and if they are not acceptable new theories emerge. At some point in the process, one or another idea seems more 'concrete' / trustworthy / conventional than the others, and it becomes the new basis of critique. Sorry to say, but there is no definite time in which it is more appropriate to guess what is most important in philosophy. While one or another idea may be more 'smart' or intelligent, some of the smartest ideas are from ancient history, and by the time new theories are thoroughly critiqued, often it is the case that new theories have arisen to replace them. In this sense, the evolution of philosophy involves a kind of radical equality, and even the most important philosophers rarely rise very far above the datum. When it takes place, it is often through being overly-radical, or more importantly, through revising a fundamental concept of logic or metaphysics. For example, Plato introduced the concept of one God, and Kant found a method to explain the lack of evidence for God. Nietzsche, on the other hand, rejected God by adopting a system in which he held no certain beliefs other than the will-to-power. Nietzsche's radicalism ultimately made him less popular for academia. There are other factors that contribute to dialectical materialism of ideas, including the millieu / Zeitgeist or Zeit or sense of one's moment in history, and the skill of specific intellectuals in constructing ideas. When new constructive ideas do not emerge, history goes into a period of latency in which radical ideas become more trustworthy. During periods of renaissance, there is often a whole collection of associated ideas and counter-theories which give history a sense of momentum. Smaller renaissances are also possible, through new critical theories and physical discoveries. For example, science is continually evolving in a way that affects philosophy. Sometimes economic and political theories (whether or not they are originated by philosophers), later affect the range of utilities available in considering ethical and identity concepts, such as the role of pleasure and free-will. Another concept that may have bearing is the set of ideas considered relevant to the philosophy of a given period. Philosophy has undergone linguistic and mathematical crises in which people attempted to accept and reject particular specific approaches which govern how philosophy works. Recently, there has been an increasing reliance on mathematics and logic to explain philosophy, even while mathematics has been proven inconsistent. As a result, there has been a growth of hack-it-or-trash-it theories that use tentative assumptions, or make guesses expanding on previous greats. Philosophy has expanded as a critical discipline, but its major discoveries are still small in number, apart from a variety of aphorisms. However, philosophy is responsible for some important things, including the concept of the Republic, the method of argumentation, the concept of absoluteness, and possibly even the invention of science and mathematics. Current philosophy leans heavily on science, and some have even said that philosophy is being replaced by science. I have hope that new discoveries, including my own, will lead to a new renaissance in which the philosophical body of knowledge has a more profound influence.
    13 answers · Philosophy · 2 years ago