Problem: Two distinct viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time. An opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of actually existing dimension that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead an intellectual concept (together with space and number) that enables humans to sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that space and time "do not exist in and of themselves, but ... are the product of the way we represent things", because we can know objects only as they appear to us.
The realist view is sometimes referred to as what?
---
Answer: Newtonian time


Problem: Under the early courts, when military conscription had been centrally controlled, military affairs had been taken out of the hands of the provincial aristocracy. But as the system broke down after 792, local power holders again became the primary source of military strength. The re-establishment of an efficient military system was made gradually through a process of trial-and-error. At that time the imperial court did not possess an army but rather relied on an organization of professional warriors composed mainly of oryoshi, which were appointed to an individual province and tsuibushi, which were appointed over imperial circuits or for specific tasks. This gave rise to the Japanese military class. Nonetheless final authority rested with the imperial court.
Where did final authority over the military lie?
---
Answer: imperial court


Problem: Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.
Who commonly, or at least attempt to, abide by the rule of law?
---
Answer:
politicians, judges and academics