http://forums.philosophyforums.com Active discussions in all fields of philosophy. en-us I just wanted to see what people thought of this "proof". The concepts "everything" and "nothing" provide clues towards the existence of God. First the concept "nothing" means "that which does not exist". "Nothing" can not exist or else something would exist and nullify the concept. The existence of "nothing" can only exist on an axiomatic level. This also means that "nothing" is non-existent. And thus everything exists, therefore God exists. The Universe contains all that is in existence. Everything in the Universe exists, therefore everything exists, therefore God exists. Hilariously this would imply that "nothing" proves God's existence and "everything" proves God's existence. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/apodictic-37758.html Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:01:13 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/37758/ What is understanding? What is the cause of understanding? How does understanding develop? What I want to know is what understanding is apart from knowledge. I see that understanding is a result of a coalescence of knowlege that leads to insight and causes understanding. But what I want to know is what understanding is in and of itself. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/understanding-37757.html Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:00:32 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/37757/ I think there is a difference in way men and women perceive genders. The way a man perceives a woman is not the same as the way a woman (me, for example) would perceive another woman. Likewise, a woman’s idea of what a man is might not be exactly what a man’s own idea is of himself as a man. I know that some men adopt a female persona in virtual reality in order to get in touch with their feminine side, maybe to explore the role of the other gender and learn about it more, or maybe for some other reason. The thing that I notice (I am pretty confident in this assumption, though I don’t have a definite proof), is that the male-created female character is often exaggerated to one side and often lacks a dimension that real women have. Sometimes she is either way too stereotypical, or old-fashioned, or superficial, or comes out as too “perfect/ideal” (what I would call a Pygmalion woman). A real online woman to me would appear normal, neither too feminine, nor too masculine (but would express both sides), and relating to her would feel just like relating to another woman, even when she is antagonistic and unpleasant. I was wondering, is this difference in perception true for men, as well? Can you guys sense a difference between a real woman and a guy-created woman in cyberspace? I would also like to know if other girls (especially [b]Caldwell[/b] or [b]Hyena[/b]) here had similar experiences in cyberspace, and maybe feel the same way, or if I’m just imagining things. Also, would you guys be able to identify a woman-created man character? Say, if I were to create a male character would you be able to find it and say “this character sounds like a woman pretending to be a man”? http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/online-perception-of-gender-37756.html Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:44:32 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/37756/ Now, to be sure, my preference is to let them grow. On occasions they do become troublesome, but few things are as bad as trying to pluck one and not succeeding. THree minutes of sneezing, no improvement. So I tend to wait until I can wrap them around a finger to ensure an adequate grip. But, for our leaders, Nietzsche's overmen, what does not kill them makes them strong. Neither plucking nor snipping will kill them. So which ought they do? Is plucking character-building? http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/nasal-hair-37755.html Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:07:01 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/37755/ Does "readiness to hand" reffer solely to equipment? I mean if it is equipment it has to be man-made, correct? I have been listening to the Hubert Dreyfuss lectures on the subjkect and it just seems that it would be easier to just come out and say that equipment must be 'man made'. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/being-and-time--heidegger-37754.html Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:50:30 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/37754/