why can i not find my poems on poetry.com/ Managing Editor/ Howard Eli?

answers1: hard issue. research on bing and yahoo. it can assist!
answers2: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: <br>
<br>
Until recently, the domain name Poetry.com was owned by New Catalyst
Fund[citation needed]. On March 7th, 2009, Lulu.com purchased that
domain from NCF. Publish Today and Noble House Books, the branches of
Poetry.com that managed the publishing and printing of their books,
have gone out of business.[1] <br>
<br>
According to their press release, Lulu has aggressive plans to
completely revamp Poetry.com and bring it under the Lulu brand. The
site will be renamed to Lulu Poetry, and will be targeted to poets who
want to connect with their peers and have access to resources to
receive reviews and feedback on their poetry as well as recognition,
contest prizes and helping them publish their work. <br>
<br>
Poetry.com was previously run by a Maryland-based company called The
International Library of Poetry, also known as the International
Society of Poets and the International Poetry Hall of Fame,[2] This
company was considered by many to be a vanity publisher. Poetry.com
claimed to coordinate monthly poetry contests and other services
through its website, though the actual competitive nature of these
contests was disputed. The site's ostensible primary purpose was
publication of poetry anthologies submitted by aspiring authors, and
invitations to poetry conventions hosted by the group. The Better
Business Bureau of Greater Maryland classified the business as a
vanity publisher, and notes that the quality of the poetry submitted
to them "does not appear to be a significant consideration for
selection for publication."[3]

How to publish my poetry?

answers1: To find places that take poetry submissions you'll need to
find places that print poetry, read them to see what kinds of poetry
they publish and then [and this is the hard part] evaluate yours. <br>
<br>
Poetry doesn't have a huge market (though the amount of poetry being
published is larger than at any time in history), most print
publications are poorly funded or rely on volunteers or students, so
your chances of being paid are slim. I find it interesting the number
of writers who want to be published but do not support those who
publish poetry. How many books of poetry have you purchased in the
last year? How many journals do you subscribe to? What do you do to
advocate for poetry in your community, to make a market, to cause
interest?
answers2: Self publishing is a route to go.
answers3: Start out with self publishing and monitor your response.
Amazon is a good place to start. See link.
answers4: extremely tough situation. do a search on to a search
engine. it can assist!

Is Philosophy skincare a good brand?

answers1: I like them both. Both are great but also up to which
product of them u choose. <br>
Let just say only some product of them that fantastic. <br>
<br>
Philosophy : <br>
1. C powder, only if u not allergic it will give u good healthy white skin. <br>
2. Hope in a jar for moisturizing. <br>
3. When hope is not enough - good serum. <br>
<br>
Jurlique <br>
1. Rose water - give your skin moist&fresh up also smell good. <br>
2. Rose hand cream - 1 word 'great' <br>
<br>
Guess u shold try. Hope I help.

Easier book of postmodern philosophy?

answers1: "New Philosophies of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics
and Critical Theory" <br>
by William Outhwaite
answers2: What Jim said...in spades! <br>
<br>
Before trying to make sense of that stuff, I suggest you do an online
search for the "Sokal Hoax" if after that you're still interested, try
Foucault's' "This Is Not a Pipe" to start.
answers3: Well I hate to break it to you, but obfuscation is a key
component of postmodern stuff. It hides the fact that there is no real
argument in it! <br>
<br>
Having had formal training in philosophy I would suggest you read
something in the analytic tradition. Although the content is difficult
it is intellectually honest and very rewarding. I suggest something
like this: <br>
<br>
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7630.html <br>
<br>
Volume one has quite a bit of first order logic so I suggest avoiding
it unless you're good at mathematics or have studied computer science.

Does philosophy lack action?

answers1: You might be thinking about a controversy in the history of
philosophy. Karl Marx (often now thought of as an economist - but he
would have called himself a philosopher) wrote in his 'Eleven Theses
on Feuerbach', 'Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world
in various ways; the point is to change it'. <br>
<br>
Essentially, Marx thought that the attempts to discover a timeless
'essence of man' that philosophers of his day were engaged in was
fruitless. Man, and all his ideas, were a product of the economic
system he was born into. To understand this is to want to change the
economic system for the better - so man can be at his best. People
have been arguing ever since whether philosophy needs to have a
practical impact on the world. <br>
<br>
Some people think philosophy is taking a holiday from the world, just
asking random questions that do not change anything. There are
philosophers of whom this would be a valid critique. But these are
bad philosophers. <br>
<br>
Marx certainly changed the world. Reading Heidegger can be a life
changing experience - it can cause you to live your life in a
completely different way. The ancient Stoic philosophers used thought
to find ways to live fearlessly, and with compassion for all those
they met. And the founding father of all philosophy - Socrates used
dialogue to lead people into a state of aporia where their certainty
of who they were and what the world around them was like was utterly
shattered. From this state they could find a newer more authentic and
more truthful identity. People often found this process devastating
as well as highly rewarding. <br>
<br>
Good philosophy changes lives and changes the world - as it changes
the whole way people see themselves and the world. Anything else
isn't worthy of the name.
answers2: Dont believe all you hear. There are different Philosophies.
If philosophy lacked action. Then my days in war would have stopped me
or My solution Triple Output implemented by another nation would not
have turned off Global Warming, but it did, confirmed by our Satelite
reports 11/28/2012. Global Command
answers3: You act according to your philosophy as influenced by your emotions.
answers4: Yes ,you can look up non-volitional action in Taoism
answers5: not really. you can be philosophical while taking action.
answers6: Yes. I don't think there is a Philosopher's Without Borders
group in the world.
answers7: An example would be someone who believes that 2 healthy
intelligent beings would create a healthy intelligent baby. So that
person, if healthy and intelligent goes on the hunt for the same to
create a baby. He puts his philosophy to the test. That's action.
<br>
Putting your philosophies to the test. <br>
If one feels the key to life is to have fun he lives that theory. <br>
If one feels the key to life is to have money, he goes out to do so. <br>
If one feels the key to life is to please God then his life reflects that. <br>
Some people talk the talk but do not necessarily walk the walk.
Philosophy without action. <br>
I am a philosopher of action. I don't sit around and tell people
things that I myself haven't tested or willing to put to the test.

to what extent can philosophy be considered as science?

answers1: Well I think that Yahoo Answers got it right when they put
this section under Arts & Humanities. Science looks more at hard
realities whereas the Humanities are more concered with the intangible
aspects of what it means to be human, just like philosophy looks at
the intangible parts of knowledge.
answers2: I would say that the two are linked as they both emphasize
reason and the search for truth. Philosophy is mroe on the
metaphysical level, while science deals with the physical realm. I
think they both use similar thoguht processes and ideals of truth to
arrive at thier conclussions.
answers3: Philosophy is actually a kind of science; it is a general
science which is interested in everything (mainly) and which pushes
minds to think in order to find answers to all the questions.
answers4: The rational counterpart or anti-thesis to Science is Art
and the Synthesis is Philosophy. Art is skill a certain knowing, while
science is mere love of understanding and philosophy is love of
wisdom. In essence Science is void of intuition and volition, art is
random and it is Philosophy that can explain the practical merits of
either in a neutral fashion. Hence given a argument Art and Science
take turns playing prosecutor and Defense but in the end Philosophy is
always the Judge! <br>
<br>
Note how Plato asserts the highest Government role to Philosophers and
the second role to Artists not Science, but warns that the reason is
Artists are the most dangerous!
answers5: I consider myself a philosopher, and I have great respect
for science. Given this I would never try to argue that the two
intersect. There are a few reasons for this: <br>
<br>
Philosophy doesn't use the scientific method. No hypothesis testing,
no experiments, etc. <br>
<br>
Philosophy doesn't seek to discover or establish laws, it seeks to
discover or establish truth. <br>
<br>
Philosophy isn't necessarily systematically arranged. It certainly can
be, but it doesn't have to be. You can have philosophy without
systematic arrangement. The same can't be said for science. Systematic
arrangment is a necessary condition for science, but not for
philosophy, thus the two can't be the same. <br>
<br>
The closest it comes is if you use the "knowledge as facts or
principles" definition of science, but even this is problematic. You
can certainly discover principles with philosophy, but facts require a
level of objectiveness that philosophy just might not be capable of.
<br>
<br>
If the places where science and philosophy differ, it's my opinion
that the lack of the use of the scientific method really draws the
line. Even the social sciences (political science, sociology, for
example) have seen the necessity of the scientific method, and have
started to use it. Philosophy has not. <br>
<br>
I must qualify all of this: I'm not looking to make a value judgement.
The fact that philosophy is not a science has zero effect on its
usefulness, it simply means that science and philosophy are two
different things. Science doesn't intrinsically mean "good" and not
science doesn't intrinsically mean "bad." They're just different. <br>
<br>
I would assert that philosophy is bigger than science. It can
encompass all things - morality, religion, ethics, even science itself
(there is a whole academic field on the philosophy of science). To me,
philosophy is the consideration of all things, science takes these
things and considers them individually and breaks them apart for
study.
answers6: Philosophy is the most rigorous of sciences - it is the
mathematics of knowledge. It examines the truth, the knowableness and
the means by which we can be certain of everything we think we know.
It is the height of science.
answers7: There's no unified philsophy nor unified science. The two
domains intersect and require each other. And even then its always
discontinuous philosophies meeting disparate sciences. There are no
robust reductions of one to the other or even one type to a glimmering
category. <br>
<br>
Science doesn't always use the scientific method: for instance,
choosing which theory to use, given more than one theory which predict
the same data, there's often institutional disputes, but no empirical
testing. Some sciences can't even use the scientific method because we
cannot observe all the implications of the view, as in any theoretical
physics... <br>
<br>
Philsophy, likewise, doesn't omit the scientific method. The use and
reliance on thought experiment demonstrates this. Instead of searching
the empirical world for actual data that conflicts with a thought
experiment, a philosopher looks for possible counterexamples.
Hypothesis, evidence (in the form of possibilia), conclusion. <br>
<br>
Not to mention the amount of empirical studies that philosophy relies
on-- for example, look at the literature for personal identity.
Without brain bissection as an empirical fact, none of the wild
conclusions follow. Or look at Neural Plasticity as a scientifically
documented phenomenon, and then look at the discussions generated in
the philosophy of mind.
answers8: Everything starts with philosphy. People do things a
certain way based on their philosphy toward it. I would'nt call
philosophy a science more so than a way of life.
answers9: The be conscious technology means wisdom and records of
what's fairly real and conclusions that are based upon unquestionably
evidence and logical reasoning. To the quantity a philosophy adheres
to those concepts in its attention of actuality, it could rightfully
be seen a technology.
answers10: They both involve the systematic search for truth and
encourage a rigorous kind of thinking about the world. And they share
a common origin; instead of having philosophers and scientists, we
used to have mostly "philosophers" who were a combination of both
(like, say, Aritstotle). But philosophy and science today are clearly
separate disciplines. Science is based on physical experimentation;
if there isn't an experiment involved, then what you have probably
isn't science. There's some gray area about things like astronomy,
and other fields where rigorous sorts of observation are used instead
of experimentation, but for the most part, science is a discipline
defined by the process of inductively reasoning from experimental
data. Philosophy is not. <br>
<br>
If you throw mathematics into the lot, this becomes still more
complicated. A lot of important math has been done by philosophers;
look at Leibniz, for example. In the last century, philosophers (like
Wittgenstein) basically created formal logic as we now know it.
Bertrand Russel worked on set theory. It should be noted, as well,
that mathematics is not an experimental discipline (except for the
naturally exceptional case of proof by exhaustion). <br>
<br>
Linguistics, too, has significant overlap with some types of analytic
philosophy. And also to mathematics -- computational linguistics is
an interesting (if arbitrary and confounding) field. <br>
<br>
Psychology and philosophy have also historically overlapped -- Freud,
Jung, and Lacan, all psychologists, are much more important to
critical theorists than they are to psychologists. With the advent of
behavioral psychology, which is a more explicitly scientifically
discipline, psychology and philosophy are drifting apart again. <br>
<br>
At any rate, I've gone on long enough. Suffice it to say that
philosophy is an incredibly broad field which informs and is informed
by any number of other fields. When we can't or don't have
inductively-derived data in any field, philosophy is sometimes what
fills the gap. Are the brain and the mind the same thing? Ask a
philosopher, not a neuroscientist, because there is no experiment that
can tell you the answer. All we can do is think very clearly and
rationally about the question -- and that is what philosophers are
there for. It's not science, but that doesn't mean it's not useful.

Philosophy Metaphor?

answers1: If not for philosophy we would have no 'intelligence'. Our
very process of thinking requires that we have knowledge (which is
metaphysics, such as "that is a tree" or "the dog is soft".) It
requires epistemology (such as "I know the dog is soft because...) Our
actions require that we have given thought to our ethics; even as
little children we know our parents have said "no hitting".) <br>
<br>
Without logic you can't think; our brains are hardwired to think in
terms of induction and deduction, though we may learn other forms of
it. <br>
<br>
So philosophy is not a battle against something that comes from words.
Words are our friends, if we have the will to use them realistically.
answers2: Since Ludwig Wittgenstein once said words to the effect that
the only thing left for "philosophy" to "do" is to analyse language
(Grammar as philosophy? Philosophy as Grammar?), your quote sounds
like one of his aphorisms. But it is a good metaphor, since the most
common fallacy in reasoning is what Aristotle called the "fallacy of
names" (in translation: "the argument that turns upon names only" ) or
the fallacy ambiguity in more modern speech. <br>
<br>
ARISTOTLE: <br>
Let us now discuss sophistic refutations, i.e. what appear to be
refutations but are really fallacies instead. We will begin in the
natural order with the first. <br>
<br>
That some reasonings are genuine, while others seem to be so, but are
not, is evident. This happens with arguments, as also elsewhere,
through a certain likeness between the genuine and the sham. For
physically some people are in a vigorous condition, while others
merely seem to be so by blowing and rigging themselves out as the
tribesmen do their victims for sacrifice; and some people are
beautiful thanks to their beauty, while others seem to be so, by dint
of embellishing themselves. <br>
<br>
So it is, too, with inanimate things; for of these, too, some are
really silver and others gold, while others are not and merely seem to
be such to our sense; e.g. things made of litharge (Lead? KB) and tin
(lead plus tin = solder ??? KB) seem to be of silver, while those made
of yellow metal look golden. <br>
<br>
In the same way both reasoning and refutation are sometimes genuine,
sometimes not, though inexperience may make them appear so: for
inexperienced people obtain only, as it were, a distant view of these
things. <br>
<br>
For reasoning rests on certain statements such that they involve
necessarily the assertion of something other than what has been
stated, through what has been stated: refutation is reasoning
involving the contradictory of the given conclusion. <br>
<br>
Now some of them [reasoning or refutation (i.e. refutation = elenchus
= what Socrates did KB)] do not really achieve this, though they seem
to do so for a number of reasons; and of these the most PROLIFIC and
USUAL DOMAIN is the argument that TURNS UPON NAMES ONLY. <br>
<br>
It is impossible in a discussion to bring in the actual things
discussed: we use their NAMES as symbols instead of them; and
therefore we suppose that what follows in the names, follows in the
things as well, just as people who calculate suppose in regard to
their counters. But the two cases (names and things) are not alike.
For names are finite and so is the sum-total of formulae, while things
are infinite in number. <br>
<br>
Inevitably, then, the same formulae, and a single NAME, have a number
of meanings. Accordingly just as, in counting, those who are not
clever in manipulating their counters are taken in by the experts, in
the same way in arguments too those who are not well acquainted with
the FORCE OF NAMES misreason both in their own discussions and when
they listen to others. For this reason, then, and for others to be
mentioned later, there exists both reasoning and refutation that is
apparent but not real. [The Sophistical Refutations; Ch. 1] <br>
<br>
Thus Wittgenstein, if it is actually him, and Aristotle seem to be in
a modernly "strange" agreement. <br>
<br>
Kevin
answers3: Yes. You are absolutely right. <br>
<br>
"Metaphor is a poetically or rhetorically ambitious use of words, a
figurative as opposed to literal use. It has attracted more
philosophical interest and provoked more philosophical controversy
than any of the other traditionally recognized figures of speech."
answers4: The practice of Philosophy is a battle against ignorance;
the light in the dark; and, the quest for enlightenment.
answers5: Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our
intelligence by means of words. Thoughts on this metaphor? <br>
<br>
~~~ "All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense,
meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and
meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and
true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson
<br>
<br>
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" -
The First Law of Soul Dynamics <br>
<br>
"There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying
to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil." - Alfred North
Whitehead <br>
<br>
<br>
Or does anybody have anything better? <br>
<br>
~~~ A better metaphor? <br>
A metaphor is only as 'good' as the 'mind' perceiving it! <br>
A great 'mind' can perceive a book of matches and Know the Universe! <br>
<br>
Besides, isn't everything a 'metaphor'? *__-
answers6: I would say philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment
of the mind by means of reasoning. It is the misty realm of myth and
superstition and dark regions of the unknown that could bewitch
intelligence, enabling the intelligent to conceive strange impressions
and very cleverly devise ways to express what is not understood
through proof but accepted through beyond doubt believing. Then it is
literature instead, and not philosophy, that fights with words against
whatever in the world is seen wrong or for whatever is seen as right.
<br>
<br>
Philosophical thought remains at the forefront of whatever the mind
has in sight. There to roam about the twilight zone between the known
and the unknown, a place however within the reach not in yet the
grasp. Philosophy then then by the methods of abstract reasoning
prepares that region for the application of the methods of science.
This is why philosophy is described as the mother of all branches of
knowledge, i.e. maths, science, psychology, sociology etc.