<p>Isn’t Obama trying to incorporate the Keynes method?</p>
<p>Why do vegetarians eat soy meat? D: WHY?</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>Not all vegetarians do. </li>
<li>If they do, they most likely LIKE it.</li>
</ol>
<p>Tofu can be good. 
And I’m not a vegetarian.</p>
<p>You don’t need to eat soy meat to be a vegetarian. It sounds like goo.</p>
<p>Is it possible to takeover the world ( like world domination)? I’m really serious about the question, and curious at the same time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In contemporary society, I would have to say no. The only way I could think of is if someone (or some group) came up with a superior technology that no one else had that would allow them to do that. And even then…I’m unsure.</p>
<p>I would think no, overall. But it is certainly interesting to think about. I just believe that if one person or group starting amassing power and started wars and whatnot, there would be a huge reactions(I know, bold statement—maybe WWIII).</p>
<p>So, I think not. </p>
<p>P.S. I like the game RISK.</p>
<p>Can you briefly sum up the differences between the world today and 100 years ago? Try to focus on the big picture, especially how people think and how society is structured.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, a lot of old philosophers probably didn’t have great editors. Even contemporary ones, too! (See Derrida…)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not that I’ve been qualified for other questions, but I am SO SO unqualified for this. I don’t know if I would even give an accurate assessment for the US alone, let alone the entire world.</p>
<p>I think the world is better overall though! (technology, health, culture, etc…)</p>
<p>Want to try to answer your own question? I’m interested in what exactly you were looking for…I feel like if I asked my history teacher(s) this, they would totally BS it.</p>
<p>lol culturally we are so much poorer than 1000 years ago.</p>
<p>It’s certainly more peaceful though</p>
<p>^Really? I didn’t know the Dark Ages were so culturally enriched!</p>
<p>I kind of wanted you to treat it philosophically. My opinion is irrelevant (which really means I have no idea how to put my thoughts into words here).</p>
<p>
Thank you :]
I agree, I think it would be impossible. Too have the power to take over a population of 6 billion would require an immense form of power and technology.
Oh, your reference to RISK was quite surprising. I’m actually playing that right now, hence why I ask it.</p>
<p>By the way, I know mentioning the Dark Ages is totally Eurocentric. But I really don’t think much has changed in the last 1000 years, and what has changed has gotten better. We think of ancient times as being so different, but there are a lot more similarities than we think…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dislike this form of thought.</p>
<p>We have more and more books (meaning more good ones, yes, along with the terrible ones), and the same goes for music (certainly advanced), movies (which were nonexistent), and the list goes on. I honestly don’t know how you can say culture (culture makes me think of the arts…) hasn’t gotten better. Also, just we’re more respectful, in general (chivalry does NOT count).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>K, I’m just going to repeat your second sentence…if you say something, perhaps I can respond, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I love, in history, finding examples or ideas that are paralleled in both ancient eras and contemporary/recent times…I mean, I think there are obviously so many tangible changes and ideas as well, but…I would agree that there are more and deeper similarities than might appear on the surface.</p>
<p>^^^ There are. Those of antiquity were advance for their years. Just thinking about the Pyramids,sphinx, and all the amassed history before the rise of Rome is mind boggling. Imagine, what if the Dark Ages were never to have happened. The past 1,000 years did bring change, but only from the 1400’s onward, with the 1800’s having the greatest impact toward the creation of the modern world.</p>
<p>oh yeah. I meant 100 years ago. It makes a large difference now that I see my mistake haha</p>
<p>Chivalry does count lol
Ruggiero and Orlando did chivalrous stuff</p>
<p>Sculpture was much more advanced in Ancient Greece than it is now, dare I say</p>
<p>Should I take teaching classes because I want to be a school counselor, or should I go on newspaper staff because I’m a good writer?</p>
<p>Also, what do you think of the iPad?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Politeness count. Chivalry was just to get in girl’s pants.</p>
<p>I think women are obviously in better positions now than 100 years ago.</p>
<p>And I don’t care if you wrote 1000, 100, or 10(hm…), or even 1 (well…), I would argue that culture is better now. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know nothing about sculpture, so IDK.</p>
<p>Art might have been better hundreds of years ago (meaning what the more prestigious/popular stuff was).</p>
<p>For instance, I HATE this idea:</p>
<p>Cezanne: <a href=“http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/PhilCeKe.jpg[/url]”>http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/PhilCeKe.jpg</a> (awesome)
Ellsworth Kelley: <a href=“http://images.artnet.com/images_US/magazine/features/karlins/karlins3-9-09-9.jpg[/url]”>http://images.artnet.com/images_US/magazine/features/karlins/karlins3-9-09-9.jpg</a> …His influence was the Cezanne painting, and he just took out the water part and made it solid blue. This makes me want to vomit on his paintings, then they actually might look like something interesting.</p>
![http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/PhilCeKe.jpg[/url]](http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/PhilCeKe.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
![http://images.artnet.com/images_US/magazine/features/karlins/karlins3-9-09-9.jpg[/url]](http://images.artnet.com/images_US/magazine/features/karlins/karlins3-9-09-9.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>
</p>
<p>Um…I would say go on newspaper staff, since writing is integral to teaching, and if you STILL want to be a teacher, you can take teaching classes (counselor classes?) later. I would say writing is more important now. Writing is VERY useful (duh).</p>
<p>iPad=stupid name. IDK about the actual thing really, though. Some people seem to think it isn’t much better than the iTouch though.</p>
<p>lol Ellsworth Kelly is where I’ve drawn the line between what is art and what is not.</p>
<p>Art: Kasimir Malevich/Suprematism, Op Art, Ellsworth Kelly’s Red Blue Green</p>
<p>Not Art: Pop Art, Comic Books (yes, that includes Roy Lichtenstein), Ellsworth Kelly’s panel things at the Art Institute of Chicago</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol @ Roman de la Rose</p>