Answer:
Some of the philosopher's theories could be contrary to Greek tradition since they do not follow the dictates of the gods.
Explanation:
Greeks were Pagans, thus philosophers and scientists who had rational ideas were in danger as the centuries changed. They looked for logical answers as opposed to anthropomorphic gods as the creators of the world.
Why should ancient philosophers’ ideas matter in today's world?
It doesn't matter if they should or shouldn't; the reality is that they do.
Here are some of the concepts that, dating back to the Greeks, have influenced the development of philosophy and civilisation (more generally) in the modern and current eras:
- Parmenides: Being: an unchangeable, immutable, continuous reality.
- Heraclitus: The Doctrine of Flux: The world as undergoing ceaseless change
- Democritus: Atomism: Indvisible entities that make up composites, their nature being explained by the difference in the quantitative aspect rather than the qualitative aspect of atoms
- Socrates: The Socratic Method, Conceptual Thinking
- Plato: Idea of Universals
- Aristotle: Logic, Science, Teleology
Both science and philosophy have been impacted by these concepts. Politics and ethics are topics I have not even begun to mention. These concepts continue to be present and addressed. For instance, despite the fact that contemporary science claims to have resolved the issue of teleology once and for all, the topic teleology attempted to address is still open. The Regress Argument is still a difficult concept for us to understand, and contemporary science has yet to discover a set of self-evident fundamental principles that can explain everything.
Thank you,
Eddie
The British claimed that what Parliament said at any given time was the law of the empire.
The founding of the British Empire was unsystematic and was made through war, treaty, and trade. In its entirety that lasted for 400 years, the developments during this empire rule through carrying out new laws and rules.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke both are great scientists and nature observers
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau Tells that man is naturally good and Also deals with states of nature whether its water or air.
- John locke also agreed with Jean-Jacques Rousseau on human and nature.
Answer:
Practically the entirety of the cases that the Supreme Court hears are cases that are on allure. The Supreme Court has unique purview over a not many cases, however these are very uncommon. This implies that the Supreme Court is quite often hearing situations where just matters of law are at issue (instead of issues of certainty). The Supreme Court is essentially, in those cases, attempting to choose if the law (regardless of whether rule law or the Constitution) has been effectively applied.
Explanation:
Cases heard by the Supreme Court for the most part include significant and troublesome issues of law. Cases that are not significant, or where the law is self evident, don't make it as far as possible up the stepping stool to the Supreme Court.
Thus, the cases the Court hears are those that include significant and troublesome inquiries of law. It hears those cases either after they have come up through the government court framework or after they have been chosen by the high court of a state.
The answer is C, The act infringed upon the freedom of speech and freedom of press because this act stated that people or countries cannot say negative things about the government or the war. <span />