come

Question by Juan Lopez: How come in every portrait of Adam and Eve Adam has darker skin?
I just find it weird. In every picture of the two Eve is very pale. I don’t know why. Just found that a little odd. Also, dos anyone kow what happens to them? I don’t remember any mention of their deaths or anything like that.
Yeah I know artists paint it differently but I’ve seen about 10 portraits where he always had darker skin than her. I always thought. It symbolic or something to that effect.

Best answer:

Answer by Fireball
artists do what they wish…they died..

What do you think? Answer below!

{ 0 comments }

Question by Ryan Tyhurst: Can you help me come up with a situation that is similar to this one but different?
For instance, I might say, had I jumped forward from medieval times and had never seen a TV
before, that it appeared that there was a very tiny man behind a very tiny desk trapped behind the glass presenting to me the evening news. This would be my subjective conception of it, formed only from my observations without any outside reflection on it. Stepping outside of that, reflecting on what is happening, and researching a bit in to modern technology, I would come to find out about video cameras and how television shows were broadcast. This would be my objective conception of it. I could also say, objectively, that, while at first appearance it did understandably seem to be a tiny man and desk trapped behind glass, I am now sure that it is not. In this way the objective viewpoint obviously trumps the subjective viewpoint, while still explaining how the subjective viewpoint would be arrived at.

Best answer:

Answer by الشفقة والرحمة
I think I have answered this question twice but it keeps disappearing. It had to do with a tidal wave being the hand of god or a set of fractals.

Give your answer to this question below!

{ 0 comments }

Question by L.T.M.: Interesting case, where do you come down on this?
What did he do right? What did he do wrong?

SACRAMENTO, CA – An airline pilot is being disciplined by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for posting video on YouTube pointing out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security.

The 50-year-old pilot, who lives outside Sacramento, asked that neither he nor his airline be identified. He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.

He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.

Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff’s deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.

At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot’s gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A follow-up letter from the sheriff’s department said the CCW permit would be reevaluated following the outcome of the federal investigation.

The YouTube videos, posted Nov. 28, show what the pilot calls the irony of flight crews being forced to go through TSA screening while ground crew who service the aircraft are able to access secure areas simply by swiping a card.

“As you can see, airport security is kind of a farce. It’s only smoke and mirrors so you people believe there is actually something going on here,” the pilot narrates.

Video shot in the cockpit shows a medieval-looking rescue ax available on the flight deck after the pilots have gone through the metal detectors. “I would say a two-foot crash ax looks a lot more formidable than a box cutter,” the pilot remarked.

A letter from the TSA dated Dec. 6 informed the pilot that “an administrative review into your deputation status as a Federal Flight Deck Officer has been initiated.”

According to the letter, the review was directly related to the discovery by TSA staff of the YouTube videos. “The content and subject of these videos may have violated regulations concerning disclosure of sensitive security information,” the letter said.

The pilot’s attorney, Don Werno of Santa Ana, said he believed the federal government sent six people to the house to send a message.

“And the message was you’ve angered us by telling the truth and by showing America that there are major security problems despite the fact that we’ve spent billions of dollars allegedly to improve airline safety,” Werno said.

The pilot said he is not in trouble with his airline, but a supervisor asked him to remove public access to the YouTube videos.

He does, however, face potential civil penalties from the TSA. He said he would likely go public when it becomes clear what the government plans to do with him.

By George Warren, GWarren@news10.net

Update: Whistleblowing pilot explains why he did it

http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=113731&catid=2

Excellent group of answers! Maybe the best I’ve seen on this site yet.

Best answer:

Answer by Mike
Airport security is a farce.

Give your answer to this question below!

{ 0 comments }

Question by Ryan Tyhurst: Can you help me come up with a situalion that is similiar to this one but different?
For instance, I might say, had I jumped forward from medieval times and had never seen a TV
before, that it appeared that there was a very tiny man behind a very tiny desk trapped behind the glass
presenting to me the evening news. This would be my subjective conception of it, formed only from my
observations without any outside reflection on it. Stepping outside of that, reflecting on what is
happening, and researching a bit in to modern technology, I would come to find out about video cameras
and how television shows were broadcast. This would be my objective conception of it. I could also say,
objectively, that, while at first appearance it did understandably seem to be a tiny man and desk trapped
behind glass, I am now sure that it is not. In this way the objective viewpoint obviously trumps the
subjective viewpoint, while still explaining how the subjective viewpoint would be arrived at.

Best answer:

Answer by Daniel
This is loosely described as a form of Anachronism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism

That being said, lets do the rest:

“I am now sure that it is not. In this way the objective viewpoint obviously trumps the
subjective viewpoint, while still explaining how the subjective viewpoint would be arrived at.”

This idea and your ideas related to Universal through objective understanding is very greek in origin including the anachronism. I’ll use Plato to help us grasp at what you’re talking about. The naive man perceived a Particular representation of knowledge. After critical inquiry he arrived at the truth, but his previous representation allowed him a degree of understanding while still incorrect. After achieving a universal he’s able to see the tv for what it really is.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good

and read Plato’s dialogues.

***

You should stray away from using the terms objective and subjective in your arguments. It’s often too general of terms to describe how we come to know something. It also may give you trouble later on in reading Philosophy. e.g. Dualism has issues with interactionism and Physicalism has it’s own with qualia. It’s important to at least understand what each school are talking about. Going too far with objective and subjective can lead to biases.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

{ 0 comments }