Best answer: When I was in primary school I used to really like adventure stories. Huckleberry Finn was probably my favourite book. I think I read it more than five times!

Before this date Canadians were looked at and even called British subjects, because they were British subjects. and their Queen is still Queen Elizabeth and ALL Canadians are proud of their foreign Queen. Is there a somewhat large/middle power country born after 1982?

Best answer: Foundation or truth or foundation of knowledge?

Truth is that which describes reality. If a proposition describes reality it is true. If it doesn't it is false. If a sentence does not refer to a proposition it is meaningless, and therefore neither true nor false.

Philosophy doesn't end when you accept that anything is possible. What is meant by "possible"? Does possible simply mean you don't personally know it to be false? Then "possibility" is a statement of your knowledge, not a statement about reality. I take "possible" to mean "consistent" "conceivable" or "non-contradictory".

The only things we can say are absolutely impossible are contradictions, such as the existence of married bachelors. But they are only impossible because there is no concept that the words "married bachelor" refer to, and so really the word "meaningless" might make more sense than "impossible". Any meaningful proposition is possible, because we can always imagine a version of reality where it is the case. So in a sense, all things are possible.

But reality is the way it is, and given all knowledge, the only things which are truly "possible" are things that are true. Because if something is true, it is impossible for it to be false, for that would mean the possibility of being simultaneously true and false, which is a contradiction.

You probably spend a lot of time doing philosophy without even realising it. If you think about fundamental questions, or seriously try to understand something from the bottom up, you are doing philosophy. The scientific method is one of the achievements of philosophy. Science itself was once called "natural philosophy".

I would argue every field of study that exists draws upon philosophy, because all fields need to begin with a question and a method of reasoning.

You will also find you only know a half-truth, if you understand the field but not the philosophy. What is the point of absorbing scientific facts, one-by-one, if you haven't developed a consistent framework in which to make sense of these facts? For example, special relativity talks about time dilation at high speeds. If you have studied the B-theory of time, you will be able to visualise how time moves at different speeds for different observers. But if your only concept of time is the flow of events in front of your eyes, you will have a hard time conceiving of how the flow of time is not constant, and will just have to accept it on faith. Or if you have studied the philosophy of free will, you would be able to understand the relationship between the brain and behaviour better than someone with the intuitive view that all action originates in consciousness.

Philosophers don't tend to entertain themselves with ideas they know are probably not true, unless for the purpose of a hypothetical which helps their understanding of an abstract concept. Everything philosophers do is for the purpose of developing a deeper understanding of the world. You should watch some debates of philosophers and see how they reason and what ideas they appeal to. You will find they almost always have practical importance. It's like mathematics. Mathematics is fundamentally just numbers and patterns, but these patterns have the power to take us to the moon. These patterns have the power to develop particle accelerators. These patterns have the power to give us cars, and electricity, and modern society.

I was brought up in the physical sciences, and I looked down upon philosophy because I didn't really know what it was. I thought philosophy was for people who weren't smart enough to study science. And I still think today that there is little point in learning philosophy if you're don't have a foundation in science, because you will be wasting time asking questions we already have the answer to, and you will often delude yourself into believing in things we know to be false. The reason we learn philosophy is specifically to avoid doing this. But if you care about understanding reality for its own sake the most important questions you can ask are philosophical questions. They are not questions we don't have an answer to. Philosophers are not people who just shrug at every question and say "maybe, maybe not". They have strong opinions and can back them up with reason and evidence, and you will also find that even if we don't know the truth with certainty, there is still an objectively "best" or "most valid" position to hold, when you look at all the evidence holistically. We learn, teach, and test the validity of our beliefs by arguing with others. (The word "argue" here means simply to exchange arguments, and does not suggest any hostility). Building and strengthening your worldview is rewarding in itself.

I really want to find a good scifi book that is not within a series.

Like in american movies ww2 is mostly being shown in the west, while in the east it was way worse, the entire german nazi army was posted in the east to destroy russia and make the last push, the western front were just a few german soldiers stationed every 100 meters to guard an sea, it was no complete war it was a weak defense that was crumbling without effort, the eastern front had cold winters making the fingers of the russians and germans fall off, they had to pile up their own dead as defense, weapons kept jamming, they had to eat their own to survive, not to mention it was a full blown and the most casualties were on the eastern front

By the time africans had reached the tribal age, when eurpeans first met the africans they were already in the industrial revolution... I mean if that doesn't say we as races are different intellectually I don't know what else will.

Imagine that Hitler had only focused on Operation Barbarossa and he never invaded western Europe and attack the United Kingdom. So all the men fighting on the western front fought in the eastern front instead. Do you believe he could have captured the Soviet Union? The Soviets stopped the Germans just outside Moscow so a few more soldiers on the German side would have made a difference.

I understand the styles and the trends of the late 60s but i was curious of what the older crowd wore, did they adopt some of the new styles or did they still dress conservatively much like the 40s and 50s.

Best answer: He's famous cause he's the guy on the one dollar bill.