Philosophy

A placebo is a non-therapeutic substance administered under the camouflage of medication to deceive patients into believing that they are receiving medications; this done solely for psychological and not for physiological effects. Placebo may usually be used to compare its effects with the effects of other drugs in drug research. Let's take the case of an experiment that tries to establish whether a particular drug, say to treat weariness, is genuine or merely has the effects of a placebo. Suppose 20 candidates are chosen for this experiment. 10 are given the drug and the rest are put on a placebo while they are told that the placebo is a genuine medication. They need to make sure that the deception is well carried on for the success of the experiment. If both the groups make similar improvements after taking the treatments, the new drug seems to only function as a placebo in effect. The basic hypothesis of the placebo raises the question of mind over matter. Of course, this pushes

It's proper to understand the difference between "Philosphy of..." and "...philosophies". For instance, philosophy of religion refers to the philosophical study of the epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical aspects of the phenomenon and concept of religion, including questions raised by it; whereas a religious philosophy is a particular philosophical viewpoint of a particular religious tradition--examples include samkhya, yoga, advaita, shunyavada. There are religious philosophies in the same manner that there are secular philosophies. While the start point of the former is revelation, tradition, or faith, the start point of the latter is reason. Following are some examples of the above distinctions: 1. Philosophy of Religion - Existence of God, Essence of Divinity, Death and Afterlife, Knowlege of God, etc. Religious Philosophy - Calvinist Epistemology, Advaita, Yoga, Zen 2. Theology of Religion - Essence of Religion, Goal of Religion, Salvation Religious T

Modern (or post-postmodern) ethic inclines more towards a secular humanism that is aversive to hard justice. The form of secular humanism is sympathetic towards rapists, murderers, and looters and in some cases, would even dare to eulogize criminals as heroes. Thus, they will eulogize a rapist-murderer as hero who has been sentenced to death by hanging, just because they hate capital punishment. They turn sympathetic towards mass murderers not because they do not hate murder, but because they do not wish for justice to be so brutal after all, so exacting. Movies and novels try to highlight the humane part of a villain and arouse sympathy towards his weaknesses. Thus, real heroes who want to put an end to evil become villains in their eyes and villains become heroes. Media plays a villainous role in warping public opinion. Also, historical amnesia is becoming a characteristic of modern world. In the past, histories were preserved in family tales and social narratives. In the modern per

The Enlightenment thinkers felt that reason had come to age and elevated it above faith. But, mathematics is not the book of life. It is impossible to expel faith. As the wise sage Pascal observed, reason has to be find support on something, and that something can't be reason itself, to avoid circular reasoning. Reason is also based upon faith. Again, he showed that reason cannot irrefutably prove God, but it can neither disprove His existence. It proves nothing. Spiritual skepticism is the willingness to concede that our minds cannot have certainty alone by themselves. This is not to deny certain certainties that are axiomatic and undeniable. For instance, one can't contradict the law of non-contradiction. However, it certainly means that one has no confidence in his own reasoning and wisdom. Only this form of skepticism regarding self can truly set us free to find our fullness and certainty only in Him.

flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (Matt.16:17) People usually do have reasons for their beliefs, though not all may be able to instantly enumerate all their reasons when asked for. The believer in Chi power might even demonstrate his grounds of belief. So will the homeopath, the allopath, the evolutionist, the Yogi, the Advaitin, and the astrologer. But, it is also possible that one cannot demonstrate proofs and yet decide to go on with what one is convinced about, in whatever sense whatever. The Jews knew that there were no witnesses to incriminate the Christ; however, when He announced who He was, they decided that His statement was proof enough of blasphemy. But, on what grounds? The work of a preacher is certainly to persuade by means of reasoning. For some it may mean persuasion through exposition of scriptures; to others, through spiritual encounter and signs and wonders; to others, through contextually relevant reasoning (as in the cas

The butterfly-or-man problem isn't far-fetched. For instance, there is the case of a man who sleeps and has a dream and the events and arguments in the dream are as rational and congruous to him as he has the sense of rationality and congruity during his waking hours. However, on waking up, he is shocked to realize that the dream arguments were inconsistent and incongruous, but wonders that they possessed strong credibility and sense during the dream-state or the semi-waking state. Much similar might be the case of a lunatic. Yet, psychologists observe that humans possess some form of lunacy at given moments. For instance, take the case of an angered man who is convinced that his anger is justified until he comes to his senses. Therefore, the Scriptures advise us not to trust in our own understanding, but trust in the Lord with all our heart.