Here are a variety of answers from WikiAnswers contributors (in no particular order of priority):
To live in many different ways
Here is a variety of religious views from WikiAnswers contributors (in no particular order of priority):
Life is a test. We are being tested by our actions and how we deal with challenges and. We have what is called free agency which is the ability to choose from right and wrong and we are being tested on how we use that free agency. Life is also a chance for us to gain a body and live on this Earth.
the mining of life is to live life and do what you want
The collection of all your memories in locked inside your subconscious mind will describe the meaning of life, which is why they say the meaning of life is different for everyone.
Do everything you wanna do cos life's too short to live with regrets and 'what ifs'
Swami Dayanand Saraswati did not spell out any new religion, faith or philosophy.
He preached only to go back to true original Vedas - to follow their teachings and lessons to become Aryas- the Shreshtha men or the perfect men.
For that he founded Arya Samaj and gave the Ten Principles of Universality.
Dayanand preached for Total and Absolute faith in God and Truth.
By adopting these Principles of Sarvey Bhavantu Sukhina, Sarvey Bhavantu Niramaya ( May all the people be happy, comfortable and stay healthy )
The whole Universe shall be one family of equals sharing brotherhood.
He believed in the welfare of all living beings of the Universe as enunciated in the Ten Principles of Arya Samaj
Some famous people with three-word names :
Immoral deeds can be defined differently by different people. We all create our own morals, we decide what is right and what is wrong, and if we go against our own morals then we feel that we are doing something immoral. Of course, the world has its own standards and its own definition of being moral. It is about being kind and compassionate, being loving and forgiving. Therefore, this is to live a moral life. When is that we are committing immoral deeds? When we hurt somebody, be it a man, beast, bird, insect. If we hurt somebody, if we take away somebody else’s possessions, if we are unfair in our actions to others, all this comes under the category of immoral deeds and whatever deeds we perform, they are like the seeds that we plant. They return as the circumstances, as our future, as our destiny.
God, the creator, has designed it such that we live and we die. There is a purpose, because every time we are born as a human being, we are supposed to be liberated from death and realize the Truth about ourselves and God. Therefore, this world has been designed for us to act and then to live as per our Karma or the Law of Action and Reaction. So, for this, the body must die, such is the design. And then we come back in a new birth, in a new life. Further, if one had to just live forever, then this whole universe would have no meaning. This universe has a meaning; it is for us to realize God.
Science without philosophy has no guide (is blind). It researches pointless things rather than what we want to know, like the origin of the universe and how to stop global warming. Philosophy without science has no substance (is empty): As an example, more than 2000 years ago, the Grecian philosopher Democritus came up with the idea of atoms, but it was just an idea without meaning until science developed to support his theory.
We are just in a position to understand what is philosophy and science.Just may be a drop in the ocean. So let us allow the younger with their beliefs.Tomorrow these beliefs may correct.
Platonism was born exactly in 399 B.C. in a prison cell in Athens in an evening, when the 28 year old Plato wept over the drinking of poison by his master in that prison. Then after travelling for twelve years through Egypt, Sicily, Italy, Judea and India he returned to Athens in 387 B.C. Forty years old and tamed. It was then that Platonism was formally founded.
Human acts are imputable to man so as to involve his responsibility, for the very reason that he puts them forth deliberatively and with self-determination. They are, moreover, not subject to physical laws which necessitate the agent, but to a law which lays the will under obligation without interfering with his freedom of choice. Besides, they are moral. For a moral act is one that is freely elicited with the knowledge of its conformity with or difformity from, the law of practical reason proximately and the law of God ultimately. But whenever an act is elicited with full deliberation, its relationship to the law of reason is adverted to. Hence human acts are either morally good or morally bad, and their goodness or badness is imputed to man. And as, in consequence, they are worthy of praise or blame, so man, who elicits them, is regarded as virtuous or wicked, innocent or guilty, deserving of reward or punishment. Upon the freedom of the human act, therefore, rest imputability and morality, man's moral character, his ability to pursue his ultimate end not of necessity and compulsion, but of his own will and choice; in a word, his entire dignity and preeminence in this visible universe.
Human acts- action that is guided by reasons or actions that can be limited.
example: exercise to be physically fit, etc...
Acts of man- instinctive; physiological.
example: crying, falling in love, eating, etc...
If this is Wednesday, then on Tuesday, Wednesday was 'tomorrow', and on Thursday it will be 'yesterday'.
Opinions from contributors:
Happiness and sadness are both emotional responses to a person's current state, or situation. Each person has, at times, more of one than the other. Seldom does anyone have only complete happiness, or complete sadness.
Thoughtfulness is a sea of which happiness and sadness are the waves. All waves of happiness and sadness recede finally into thoughtfulness. It is so because happiness and sadness are reliefs and relapses provided to man by nature so that the concentration, gravity and longevity of thoughtfulness shall not become a black hole unto himself and consume him. John Milton while studying for his M.A., as part of his vivo vaci, had to write poems describing two things that are in perfect contrast to each other. This was how the famous poems Allegro and Il Penseroso were born. Allegro means The Cheerful Man and Il Penseroso means The Thoughtful Man. He aptly termed it The Thoughtful Man, not The Sad Man. When we are not happy we are thoughtful, not sad. When we are not happy, it is to thoughtfulness that we are falling, not to sadness.
Of course there is more sadness in the world. The poor and the rich, civilized and uncivilized, black and white, and most of them are sad. Mainly because everyone is running after happiness. Unhappy people are trying to overcome sadness while happier people are struggling to maintain their happiness. This ultimately leads to sadness. Therefore most of the people are sad. The main reason for sadness is greediness or craving. Except for the few people who have overcome this craving, all are sad. This means there is more sadness in the world.
Let's review: there is dying, attacks, bombing, and who knows what else. This world has been overrun by sadness and despair.
In spite of the ceaseless yearning for happiness, many people do experience true happiness, and sometimes it comes during the bleakest of circumstances. Many people define happiness incorrectly, when what they really mean is *joy* (not entirely the same thing). One can be happy by being content, or satisfied, or find happiness in the joy of others.
Life is the characteristic state of organisms. Properties common to terrestrial organisms are that they are cellular, carbon-and-water-based with complex organization, having a metabolism, a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and through natural selection adapt.
An entity with the above properties is considered to be organic life. However, not every definition of life considers all of these properties to be essential. For example, the capacity for descent with modification is often taken as the only essential property of life.
This definition notably includes viruses, which do not qualify under narrower definitions as they are a cellular and do not metabolize. Broader definitions of life may also include theoretical non-carbon-based life and other alternative biology. The entire Earth contains about 75 billion tons of biomass (life), which lives within various environments within the biosphere.
Other opinions from the community:
Most of these answers are only being said so that the writers feel good about themselves. Listen closely.
I have depression too, and there are seriously times when I am 100% prepared to END it. What stops me? My brother. Focus on your loved ones. Think of how much they would suffer if you left.
Your skin isn't paper, don't cut it.
Your smile isn't a sneeze, don't cover it.
Your are not a book, don't judge yourself by your cover
And most importantly, your life isn't a film. Don't end it.
I hope this answer encouraged you to at least try to get some help. I hate therapists, so I am personally stuck, so whatever I can do to help you or anyone else is important to me. Stay strong.
In this level of reality, our concepts of absolute perfection have an extremely low chance of occurring as you envision it. This is because we have an imperfect view of our reality. Also, true absolute perfection is beyond our ability to correctly or accurately comprehend. On the other hand, excellence or "good enough" perfection is certainly attainable with practice and dedication to doing your best.
Answer 1: It allows people to see their wrong doings. It improves the quality of our lives by knowing somebody can forgive you.
Answer 2: This is not a religious forum. Answers must not be one sided, it's rude.
Answer 3: I'm sorry... but what about the first answer was inherently "religious?" Or rude? And, also, did the 2nd answerer not notice that this is the "Religion & Spirituality" area of this web site? How is rudeness, then, on account of a religious answer -- which the first answer was not, it's worthy of note (but which mine, here, is certainly and unapologetically about to be) -- even possible here, in this particular section? Oy. Sorry for that rant, but... c'mon! (See, there? Now I think I need Answerer 2's forgiveness.) [grin]
In any case, the nature of emotional healing, when it comes to the spiritual practice of forgiveness, depends, in large measure, on who's doing the forgiving, and who's being forgiven. As the first answerer suggests, there is at least some healing on the part of the one being forgiven which derives from it; and, yes, I suppose that, along the way, they also can see their wrongdoings. In that, however, is not forgiveness's real magic.
Forgiveness is, first and foremost, for the benefit of the one doing the forgiving. Until and unless the one wronged finds a way to forgive whomever wronged him or her, then the bad feelings about it in the wronged person just fester... get bigger and bigger. Thoughts of retribution -- worse, even ultimately acting on them -- can result; and such thoughts and concomitant actions can bring about all manner of other negative consequences for all concerned. They are, in fact, a further wounding.
"To forgive another person from the heart is an act of liberation," wrote the late Roman Catholic Priest, Father Henri Nouwen. "We set that person free from the negative bonds that exist between us. We say, 'I no longer hold your offense against you.' But there is more. We also free ourselves from the burden of being the 'offended one.' As long as we do not forgive those who have wounded us, we carry them with us or, worse, pull them as a heavy load. The great temptation is to cling in anger to our enemies and then define ourselves as being offended and wounded by them. Forgiveness, therefore, liberates not only the other, but also ourselves. It is the way to the freedom of the children of God."
When challenged with the task of forgiving those who have wronged us, we often cite that the offender is not remorseful as our reason to not even try. It's always easier to forgive someone who recognizes and acknowledges his/her wrongful and hurtful act, and who is truly sorry.
Again, Fr Nouwen: "How can we forgive those who do not want to be forgiven? Our deepest desire is that the forgiveness we offer will be received. This mutuality between giving and receiving is what creates peace and harmony. But if our condition of forgiveness is that it will be received, we seldom will forgive! Forgiving the other is first and foremost an inner movement. It is an act that removes anger, bitterness, and the desire for revenge from our hearts and helps us to reclaim our human dignity. We cannot force those we want to forgive into accepting our forgiveness. They might not be able or willing do so. They may not even know or feel that they have wounded us. The only people we can really change are ourselves. Forgiving others is first and foremost healing our own hearts."
Many believe that forgiving requires that the person being forgiven understands what s/he has done wrong, and is sorry; that it's like the old Japanese proverb which holds that forgiving the unrepentent is as difficult -- and as (in)effective -- as trying to draw pictures in water. But nothing could be further from the truth. Forgiving the unrepentant is, in fact, the form of forgiveness which so completely visits upon us its truest magic.
The writer, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), an atheist, understood this better than most, as evidenced by his having so deftly written: "Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel of the boot that crushed it."
And so, in that sense, it is a model for God's Grace, itself. The whole witness, in fact, of Jesus' life and death is to the very depths of God's forgiveness... his unearned Grace. English poet and artist William Blake cited, in fact, the capacity of Jesus to forgive another, and to reenter, vulnerably, into the deepest relation with another, as among the strongest evidences of Christ's being God in flesh.
So, to the original question: We need emotional healing in our lives for the same reason that we need physical healing... because life wounds us. We need forgiveness in our lives because it's a sure path to doing something about it.
But getting there is no small fete. "The weak can never forgive," Ghandi wrote. "Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."
"Loving your enemy doesn't make you a doormat," Mary Mannin Morrissey wrote, in tacit agreement. "You do not lie down and say, 'Go ahead, step on me again.' Doormats are passive; [but] loving your enemy is an act of the heart. You may never change the person who has wronged you, but in the course of loving an enemy, the life that is transformed is your own. Forgiveness doesn't happen to us by accident; it's up to us to participate as co-creators in bringing about what it is we deeply long for; to experience our wholeness and completeness. Forgiveness ultimately frees us."
IMPORTANT CAVEAT: All the above having been said... er... well... you know, technically, written... it's important for the person who's been wronged to remember that in keeping with forgiveness being more for the benefit of the forgiver than it is for the benefit of the forgiven, whether or not one forgives must beentirely one's own choice. As a spiritual practice, and to keep from happening such as what Fr Nouwen herein suggested could happen -- that "[a]slong as we do not forgive those who have wounded us, we carry them with us or, worse, pull them as a heavy load -- then, yes, it is obviously more psychologically and emotionally and spiritually healthy to forgive, if you can. However, do not be pressured into it by anyone!
The process of forgiveness must be entirely voluntary, from the heart, and not at anyone's persistent -- and especially self-interested -- urging. This is particularly relevant in the case of persons who are, for example, abused by someone in their lives... maybe in a church, or a school, or at work, or in/at any other institutional kind of setting; and who are then, subsequently, pressured to forgive their abuser by either the abuser, himself/herself, or by someone in the abuser's group or institution.
Such pressure on the person who was abused is usually self-serving on the part of the person or persons doing said pressuring; usually so that the abused person will not either sue them in court, or report the incident to police, or both. Do not be pressured like that by anyone!
If you are abused, report it to appropriate authorities, and then seek professional help. Or, if the professional help you seek could help you decide both if and/or how to so report, then, fine, do it the other way around, if you like. But whatever you do, get, as quickly as possible, away from those who are any part of the system or group which has harmed you; then get to someplace safe; and then, and only then, start figuring out how to help yourself by reaching-out to safe, professional and appropriate others who can then help you do whatever is the right thing, under the circumstances. Never go to whomever your abuser, or those in his/her group or institution, tell you to go to. Such is a prima facie conflict of interest -- its very definition -- because, remember: they're part -- at least technically, if not actually -- of that which harmed you. They are, by definition, insufficiently disconnected from it all to be in any way helpful to you. They have, inherently, skin in the game, and so should not be listened to, no matter what. Get away from them, and into the hands of someone both disconnected from either them or you, and who's professional and experienced and qualified!
Down in the "sources and related links" section, below, is a link to an excellent article on the John Shore website entitled "Six Things to Know About Sexual Abuse and Forgiveness." Be sure to read both it, and the articles and/or web pages to which that article links you (and read, though with a grain of salt, the comments, too, because there are some pretty smart people who read and comment on John's website). It/they contain some potentially very helpful/useful information.
Bottom line: Persons who are abused have a long road of likely professional help ahead of them in order for them to recover and start to feel whole, again, in life... if that's even possible, depending on both the person and the situation. Yes, of course, I herein encourage forgiveness as both a spiritual practice, and a potentially-helpful recovery tool. However, even if a person either can't or won't forgive, then so what? It's his/her right to either forgive, or not, at entirely his/her option; and no one should ever pressure him/her otherwise. Period. It's a simple as that, really.
For more about forgiveness, just generally, be sure to see the "sources and related links" section, below.
Answer 1: they have a bad habits like smoking etc.
Answer 2: Considering the americans virtually colonised the philipines during and after WWII I would assume that their 'bad habits' arise from that section of the globe. To even ask that question with regard to another race or ethnic group is at the very least in bad taste and shows ignorance of any equality issues.
Answer 3: Wow, I hope that at least the asker, and the first answerer are Filipino, else the racism, here, is so thick it can be cut with a knife. What an ugly both question and first answer; and the second answerer's "bad taste" and "ignorance" accusation based on "equality issues" smacks almost of the pot calling the kettle black. In any case, Filipinos have no worse "negative traits" than any other humans -- certainly none, in any case, worth culling from the herd of the negative traits of any humans -- and shame on the asker for the premise of the question!
To suggest that any race has inherently "negative traits" -- even only for as long as it takes to ask what they are -- is not only the epitome of racism, but it verily characterizes it. Such questions shouldn't even be asked...
...not because they're politically-incorrect (which, of course they are, but that's not the reason), but, rather, because they assume something as fact...
...sort of like the question, "so, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" assumes. Such questions can't actually fairly be answered. Period.
Filipinos are Asians, no different at their core, than any other Asians; and all Asians are human beings, no different at their core, than any other human beings. They have no "negative traits" which any other race of humans don't also have.
And it is not true that Americans "virtually colonized the Philippines during and after WWII" in any manner that would explain whatever some racist considers to be Filipino "negative traints"... or even positive ones, either. Filipinos have done an excellent job of holding-on to their rich heritage, not withstanding any American presence there. Whatever are Filipino "traits," are not inordinately influenced by Americans.
Filipinos, in fact, are who and what they are in spite of Americans; and for a better understanding of that, do a little research on the Philippine-American War, and of Mark Twain's feelings and actions about it, and his concomitant writing of his thoughtful and moving "The War Prayer" in response.
a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs. It is a system that attempts to understand the fundamental principles of the sciences, the arts and the world that sciences and the arts deal with. It has many branches that explore these principles such as knowledge, reasoning, being in general, beauty and human conduct
This is true to an extent in that, being doubtful or unsure about something gives one the desire to research and find out as much as they can about it. So, in essence that individual will become more knowledgeable as he seeks the answers to his doubts.
you start by creating premises that make the conclusion probable but not necessary (as is the case with deductive arguments).
Socrates was Greek
Most Greeks ate fish
Socrates probably ate fish
this is an inductive argument, because it is based on probability. the natural sciences frequently use this type of argument
First pick your subject and have ready certain facts which can be put forward for discussion. The facts may be argued for or against, but in the end all come to a general conclusion of the possibility that the facts contain enough evidence to argue the point, certainly enough to satisfy all concerned that the possibility that the evidence put for or against has merrit.
One of his reasons for believing in god is that he knows (or thinks) that God is perfect. Since perfection includes existence, he therefore assumes that God must exist.
Descartes made a series of increasingly unsupportable suppositions to back up his beleief in God:
1. I exist (A supportable statement for an individual - Cogito ergo sum)
2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (The idea that anyone can develop an idea of a perfect being is not provable. The Aztec may have thoght their bloodthirsty gods perfect as well)
3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (There is no proof although it is believable that humans are not perfect and it is debatable if the idea he has of a perfect being is indeed perfect)
4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (This is a flight of fancy)
5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (Buddhists, for example see perfection in the loss of being)
6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (This does not follow from any of the above statements)
The male mounts the hen from behind and stands on her back. The rooster's cloaca transfers semen into the cloaca of the hen. The cloaca is a common receptacle for the intestinal tract, the reproductive system and the urinary system. A spermatozoa sac makes its way up the oviduct and is stored in accessory sex organ in the female. There, the sperm is nourished and released over several days. So the rooster does not have to mate with the hen each time she lays an egg to produce a fertile egg. Fertility only remains high for about 10 days before another mating is needed to increase fertility of the eggs laid. Egg yolks that have a germ cell on the surface are ovulated about every 24 to 26 hours. The spermatozoa fertilize the germ cell, then the albumen, or white of the egg is secreted around the yolk by the reproductive tract. Then the shell membranes and the shell are secreted and deposited as the egg travels down the reproductive tract. The egg is laid back through the cloaca, as mentioned above. This is the way fertile eggs are laid by the hen. The hen would still lay eggs if a rooster were not around, but the eggs would not be fertile.
Honesty has been always the best policy. A peaceful mind is a valious treasure.
Because when you do, it reflects on yourself and that would also be part of God's job.
The matter in question of "not judging someone" is in the context of "condemnation"... not in the matter of "discernment."
Paul tells God's church to "be discerning" about the things they see, hear and do, all the time... in accordance with the Righteousness of the Scriptures. He tells them to PREPARE themselves for their future responsibility to BE THE JUDGES OF THE WORLD when Jesus finally appoints each one of them Positions of Authority in the Kingdom of God over the nations when He returns to earth with it.
The 1) prophets tells us... 2) Jesus tells us... and 3) Paul tells us:
1) "...JUDGMENT was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints POSSESSED KINGDOM." (Dan.7:22)
2) "...When the Son of Man shall come in His Glory, and all the Holy Angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His Glory: and before Him shall be gathered all nations... Then shall the King say to them on His Right Hand, Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from thefoundation of the world." (Matt.25:31-34)
2a) "...he that overcometh, and keepeth My works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron..." (Rev.2:26-27)
3) "Do ye not know that THE SAINTS SHALL JUDGE THE WORLD?..." (I Cor.6:2).
The matter of "not judging someone" is one of the ATTITUDE of the one doing the Judging -- it's a "holier-than-thou" attitude of hatred, superiority and condemnation that the person judging holds in his heart over others.
The bottom line of this attitude is in this judge's DENIAL OF THE MERCY AND GRACE OF GOD TO FORGIVE OUR SINS.
If Jesus' Mercy and Forgiveness is not good enough for the condemned of such "judges"... then it certainly doesn't work for the "condemning judges," either.
Jesus did not "condemn" anyone... and His Mercy... and the sin-purging power of His shed Blood through Faith are still being offered to anyone who repents of their sins, turns to Him and cries out to Him for forgiveness.
This is the "judgment call" that Jesus forbids men to make against other men. He forbids us to "CONDEMN" one another... the Judgment call of which automatically comes back upon the one doing the Judging -- thus CONDEMNING HIMSELF [as mentioned in the answer above]!!!
"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matt.6:14-15)
All men should be making "judgment calls" every day of their lives... in order to know the right or wrong path to take in the walk through life. And those calls should be made in accordance with the laws of God... in harmony with them. The Ten Commandments: His Laws of Love; Love God... Love One Another.
"This is My Commandment, that ye Love One Another, as I have Loved you." (John 15:12)
If Jesus didn't condemn us... and Forgives us, still -- neither do men possess the right to condemn. We may know right from wrong [in accordance with God's Word]... and judge which path we will take in our own lives [and we must constantly make Judgments in these matters every day]. And we may advise others if opportunity arises to do so. But no man may "condemn" another, to deny another man Christ's Salvation. That's when Judgment gets "bad."
There are individuals who are born with a variety of syndromes and genetic conditions that involve the sexual organs. This is obviously something over which people have no control. Rarely, there is ambiguity about what most of us take for granted: a clear distinction between physically male and physically female characteristics. How would believers determine that this and other sexual anomalies do not come from god?
There are no sexual anomalies, the answer to creation of Male and Female is defined in Genesis 1:26,27, there is no ambiguity there and there is no transgender. There is perversion of sexual acts and physical body parts, which is ramped this day and age, that is identified in Romans chapter 1. A man remains a man and a woman remains a woman as they were originally designed.
The two don't cross over unless forced through the perversion of the acts of men as are thoroughly defined in Romans 1 as stated above. So the answer to your question is a transgender woman created by God our Father? No she is not. A Transgender woman is an abomination created by men, usually a male who has been augmented with a woman's breasts.
The question in philosophy and psychology is that while a tree falling "should make" sound, the existence of the sound can depend on its ability to be perceived (now or later). While physics states that a tree falling will create the vibrations we call sound, their existence as sound is only recognized when perceived (heard) and cannot be absolutely postulated unless and until this occurs. This can be extended beyond this example, as far as the metaphysical concepts of existence and perception, e.g. without someone or something there to perceive it, does the tree even exist at all?
The philosophical and perceptual psychological background about this question:
Philosopher George Berkeley wrote A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710). He wrote, in part, "But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park [...] and nobody by to perceive them. [...] The objects of sense exist only when they are perceived; the trees therefore are in the garden [...] no longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them."
"The objects of sense..." refers to objects or events that we perceive with the 5 senses--hearing, sight, smell, taste, touch. However, as a philosophy question, raises the issue of perception in philosophy: Does something still exist if we cannot perceive it with one of our senses. And, just what do we perceive...
For twenty-years after Berkeley's writing, philosophers took up " consideration of the emergence of meaning" (quote from Wikipedia). In 1754, William Fossett paraphrased Berkeley's writing in Fossett's writing, Natural States. However, it should be noted neither of these philosophers actually stated the quote in question ("If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound").
Over 100 years later, in June 1883, a question was posed in The Chautauquan magazine, "If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings would there be any sound." [Italics added].
This idea in 1700s-1800s was seminal work about the idea of perception. It has lead to a host of similarly phrased questions posed to students, first in Universities to philosophy and psychology students, and then to high school students.
The point is to generate thinking about problems of perception.
Some similarly stated questions include:
Below, other contributors take up various positions, including strictly scientific points of view.
Related Response to the above:
This is a philosophy question. Yes, events happen even though we are not paying attention. This is speaking straight logic. However, it may just depend on the individual's concept of reality.
A Question About Evidence
How do we know said tree fell if no one was around to witness it, or even hear it? It's a philosophical question, so it does puzzle the mind. It's like exercise for the mind: the more you use it the stronger it gets.
Another answer that attempts to bridge perception with science:
Although this question is often restated as a crude satire, "If Helen Keller fell over in a forest would there be any noise?", the answer stays the same. A sound does not depend on the perception by a sentient hearer. Examining the question, there are three conditions that set the scenario:
The scenarios above would make a sound, because mum, herself, could hear her own voice. So, I do not agree with that answer and support all the perspectives above the last one. To put it simply, vibrating air is only vibrating air. That does not mean that it is making a sound, because a sound requires sensory organs and a nervous system to process the vibrations and then interpret those vibrations as sound.
Here is my analogy: If a person blows a dog whistle, does it make a sound? Not to a human, but only if there is a dog close enough to hear it.Then it would make a sound.
So the answer really should be, in my opinion: if a tree falls in the woods it does not make a sound unless there is anything from an insect to a human being to hear it. It Depends on Factors Involved It depends how hard the tree fell. What if it fell so hard that it can be heard half way around the world? Also are we assuming that the vibration in the air is not sound until it reaches our ear? What is the speed of sound? Is a ball not a ball until we catch it? Is wind not wind until we feel it? Does a chair exist to a blind individual until the individual sits in it? Sound exists whether we are around or not. It is only the matter of if anyone is around to translate the sound into information. Another Opinion I think that it does make a sound because if it makes a sound when we are there then why would it not it if we were not there?
If I knock on wood we all hear the same thing so we cannot change what it sounds like on our own (maybe small differences but barely).
So the sound is not completely in our mind; meaning that it must make a sound no matter if anyone is there or not
Really it Would
The reason it would is the same reason you don't hear much Japanese in America. Some one makes that sound and others hear it, but you don't. The answer is yes because you may not hear it and no one else will, but it will make a noise. It's the same as if you weren't near the forest but another was and a tree falls. They hear but you don't. When they tell you they heard a tree fall you believe them. That's because that person heard it but, you did not. Another Opinion Says No When the tree falls and it finally makes impact with the ground a vibration forms (in the same way ripples form when a rock is thrown into still water). This vibration sets out from all directions of the point of impact, if there is a living being within the range that the vibration can travel it will then be interpreted as a noise. If there is no living being within the distance the vibration can travel it will not be interpreted as a "noise", to be a noise it must first be experienced/perceived. So the new question is 'If a vibration is caused by something in the woods is and no one can hear or feel it is it real'? O.K. the only real answer to any metaphysical questions such as these is that consciousness makes the sound into how it will be perceived. Without consciousness the vibration could not be interpreted as a sound. Your conscious thought (the voice in your head asking this question) was the answer to the question all along. Answer Yes, it does. Sound is mechanical energy. And sound will be created when the tree falls. If no one is there to hear it, that does not negate the fact that the sound was created and radiates out from where the tree fell.
No "opinions" are needed. This is a question that is very straightforward. There is nothing rhetorical about this query, nor is there anything mysterious or metaphysical involved. The question asks about what would happen if a tree fell in the forest, and we have to assume it did to run this "thought experiment" to its conclusion. And that conclusion is that there would, indeed, be sound. It's not rocket science. According to Definition of Sound, No. According to Merriam-Webster, sound is the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing. So that means that vibrating air is just that, mechanical vibrations of air molecules. When those vibrations are perceived by the sense of hearing, then they become a sensation; the sensation of sound. That is why we have an auditory cortex in the neocortex of the brain that interprets those vibrations as a tree falling, a bird singing, or the wind whistling through the leaves.
Here is an example: If you never heard a tree fall as it crashed to the ground and you were standing in the woods blindfolded as one fell, you would hear noise. The noise would be the vibrations in the air of the tree hitting the ground. Most likely you would hear something, but you would not know what it was. But, if you had heard enough similar noises before, your brain would then be able to identify the vibrations as being produced by a tree falling. Then it would be a sound.
So, going by the Merriam-Webster definition, the tree would make air molecules vibrate, but would not make a 'sound' if it fell in the woods and nobody was there to hear it.
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.