Out Of Office Reply Wedding

The birth of philosophy, according to Giorgio Colli



is commonplace in the tradition to present the origin of philosophy as a result of a change in human thought, which leaves the mythical view of the world to get into the power of reason. Often given to pre-Socratic philosophers need primacy in this revolutionary, but because they still exhibit slight remnants of mythology enshrined in its rational musings and reflections, were the figures of Plato, Aristotle and later his disciple, who have shaped the history final germination of thought based on reason, ie, philosophy. These are the faces true wisdom, we are told, not the Homeric comedians or poets. With the wisdom born of reason, philosophy, "love of wisdom," thus marks the beginning of human interest in knowledge, truth and goodness.

Giorgio Colli, one of the most prominent philosophers (so to speak) " freethinkers, would be (in part) according to this whenever who turns, and we understood, the same word which means" philosophy. " His book (just a hundred pages) " The birth of philosophy " could be included the agenda of all apprentice philosopher, or teacher of philosophy, maybe not so much by its content but because it calls to read backwards the history of ideas, and thus provides a new twist to the notion of philosophy . We are not able to confirm or refute Colli, but his proposal is so attractive that we are reluctant to collect and disseminate it. Here we make a simple review of some of its main theses.

Almost half of his work, Colli mentioned a few words of Heraclitus, a riddle whose meaning would be that while the senses, and what they convey, are condemnable, yes it would be our attempt to make this experience sense of something stable, something external to us, to try to fix it, the falsify, known is his expression " can not step twice into the same river ", which states as the only existing instant sensation, not there is nothing behind target. In parallel, another key issue in Heraclitus is the " pathos" of the occult, as noted Colli: designing the ultimate foundation of the world as something unfathomable. We refer to the gods of the way we want, as symbols, but always considering that this term is incorrect, precisely because the hidden nature of them ("the nature they like to hide primary, "says Heraclitus). All this leads to a conception of "soul , the occult, unity, wisdom, as we do not see or we take, but of us." Colli just holding all the wisdom of Heraclitus can be understood as a "tissue of enigmas that refer to a unfathomable divine nature," the sense of physicality in the world, its diversity, is an illusion, a web of riddles, a tapestry of opposites solution is reached only with the attainment of unity, the god, which covers " day night, war peace, winter summer ..."

But if the source of Greek wisdom of experience mystery, mysterious and mystical, how the substrate could go religious to rational thought and discourse? It's the same question we might ask in relation to the Middle Ages, when converged on the same main characters, the different perceptions of the one same reality: magical and rational, hidden and manifest, intangible and material. To Colli solution in antiquity came from the hand of the dialectic, understood in its primary sense, as the art of debate. The challenge for one man to another, requiring you rebut it in relation to knowledge, either that or affirmation. Following the discussion reaches a new knowledge, product good refutation of the thesis of the interrogator, but its confirmation to the adversary can not cope with arguments. Here are not required judges to decide who wins, is the very nature of the discussion that provides the verdict. As Aristotle taught us and mentioned Colli, " prove a particular proposition is to find a concept (universal ) such that, as applied to two sides of the same, so based on that connection can be derived (proved) proposing . " Any discussion would then be "universal search increasingly abstract. " Later

Colli says that the puzzle appears as " dark background, the matrix of dialectic." Enigma so designated because the sources as " problem, but in the dialectical language the term is present as a challenge, therefore, the enigma is the germ of the dialectic, enigma almost always presented in a contradictory (as the very essence of dialectics). Mysticism, agonism, dialectic, rationalism ... All these expressions were somewhat antithetical in ancient Greece, but would be subsequent phases of the same phenomenon. Also

Colli refers to the preparation, by generations of dialectic, "of a system of reason, of logos as living phenomenon, concrete, purely oral, and written the discussion (as with Plato's works) would only be a substitute for low value. Colli wondered whether the building contains logos of doctrinal content of the reason (beyond the conceptual training and regulatory standards of discourse), and the answer to it is negative, because the approach underlying interest "destructive." And this interest was already on the origin of the dialectic: if adopts a thesis questioning, the interrogator (if it is effective in its task) will destroy it, but if you choose the antithetical, it is equally, if victory falls on the side of the respondent is merely dialectical ineffectiveness of his opponent. The consequences are devastating, as Colli said: " any trial can be refuted." Therefore, any doctrine or " scientific proposition is equally exposed to destruction."

After Heraclitus, Parmenides figure, shrouded in the whirlwind and dialectic, is facing a new "problem" deciding between being and nonbeing. Parmenides send opt the first choice, because if we would choose the other drowned in the nihilism of the dialectic, the devastating trap of a " not" eternal, everything and everyone. The " is " safeguard, according to Colli, the metaphysical nature of the world. But Zeno of Elea, a pupil of Parmenides, is a dialectical shift. Although it is said that Zeno makes use of the dialectic is intended to defend his master pluralists who reject total monism of Parmenides, the truth is that this application is directed, however, to reject the path of " is "and passing through its opposite, the same his teacher forbade further. Zeno dialectic argument erupts in an orgy extreme, generalizing the dialectic devastating to every area, object or concept. The dialectic, says Colli, "ceased to be an agonistic theory into a general theory of ' logos'."



is reached, then, to the fact that everything that is expressed and which refers to objects sensitive or abstract, and there exists the same time, " and also demonstrates that it is possible while impossible. " In short, the dialectic involves the destruction the reality of any object. To Colli, " Zeno realized that he could not block the development of dialectic and reason, as descendants of the area of \u200b\u200b enigma" he tried, however, to enhance the dynamism of radical dialectic, to its absolute end, reaching a total nihilism. Wanted to see, in short, that the world around us is nothing more than mere appearance, a pale reflection of the divine world, and nothing else. Zeno later thinkers, and even Aristotle himself gave to overcome the paradoxes of Zeno (seen in a previous note), but none managed to prove it. If

still await the rebuttal (true, irrevocable, categorical) of zenonianas thesis, this may mean, Colli said that his would be the quintessential sound logos, " the endpoint Greek rationality." The reason of ancient Greece was seen as a "discourse" about something, a logos that speaks of something else; Colli says that "something" is " religious background, the experience of mystical exaltation, what ratio tends to express in some way, through the mediation of enigma. " Then lost that role logos allusion, and deemed autonomous discourse as itself a mirror of a separate object. But the reason originally began as a supplement, because it was rooted in something beyond it, something the same speech, the logos, he could not reveal, but just pointing that out. Instead of building a new formulation of the logos, who signed a " autonomy of reason, remained primitive rules of logos, which was only half ... and that it was genuine became ... a spurious logos. "

Gorgias, the radical skeptic (see corresponding note), with its three main theses ("nothing exists" "If there would be unknowable," and if not, shall not be communicated to others ") opened the final domination of nihilism, put everything into question, even to the divine nature. " Gorgias," says Collier, "is a wise states finished the era of wise." With Gorgias also occurs a change in the conditions in which they live discussion: until then had a private, for certain social class or specific group (purely esoteric, then, given their limited knowledge provided to a restricted circle); from V century BC, however, opened the field of dialectical isolation, and went to be performed in an environment reserved for a large, populous and less exclusive: the dialectical abandons the ' secret' and enters the public. Thus, the dialectic starts adulteration, since instead of minds at stake have a large group and inexperienced listener, without joining. The discussion ends, begins the sermon.

rhetoric and makes its appearance, after besmirching the dialectic. Despite its oral nature, the conflict disappears, no longer face, contradict and 'struggle' towards a dialectical victory, but that now prevails is a rhetorical in which he tries to convince, subjugating the populace that listens. Not only comes into play dialectical force, but also an emotional component, the seduction of the audience. "The dialectic fighting for wisdom in the struggle rhetoric wisdom led to power." The content of the dialectic individual returns to the world of humanity, their passions and interests.

A dessert item that sets the decline of the ancient wisdom it is the " gradual spread of writing in literary sense " dialectical discussion in abstractions and the words of the logos are apprehended, are captured by the same participation in the discussion, but on the sound fades the interior. Plato indicates Colli, created dialogue as literature, in which his narrative ran through the various content of the discussions, undifferentiated audiences: the same Plato who appoints the new genre as "philosophy", which then define the word written about abstract issues, rational, political and moral.

With Plato is possible today to appreciate the qualities of ancient Greek thought, and noted its importance far beyond that as a mere anticipation stammering "Consider what we should confine ourselves to ignore the wisdom of such thinking. In fact, "Plato its literature calls 'philosophy ' to contrast the ' sophia' previous ." Plato defined earlier eras (Heraclitus, Parmenides, etc.) As the era of the "wise " while humbly defines itself as a "philosopher ", that is, as the "lover of wisdom "(but still does not possess, unlike those mentioned). Plato says

that the wisdom passed on by writing will always be untrue, apparently, no art can convey a letter, or last to know. Although there will never describe thoughts as to clarify its meaning, since it will always say the same thing. Elsewhere, Colli said: "Plato broadly denies the possibility to express a feeling seriously," if this is true, all I know Plato (ie, their written texts), you might not be anything serious ... Moreover, if the script has the courage to Plato (" if someone puts in writing what is the product of his thoughts ... it is true that mortals have removed trial " Seventh Letter), then, as Colli question," Would it be too all subsequent philosophy ... something serious? "

Finally, Colli said" philosophy was born, a creature too complex and mediate to contain within itself up new possibilities for living. The faded writing ... what we wanted to suggest is that the above philosophy, the trunk to the tradition that uses the name " wisdom" and leaving that soon withered stem, is for us ... more vital than philosophy itself. "

wise or wrong, biased or weighted, creator of a philosophical nonsense or a new understanding of rationality, it is not appropriate to discuss Giorgio Colli is his bravery, a daring bordering on insolence, which allows you to examine common issues in the light of a new approach. The result is a different way of dealing with the philosophy, knowledge and values \u200b\u200bthat underlie this ancient discipline, which means Colli and controversially controversy has been portrayed. At thirty years after his death, we pay this small tribute to a thinker against the tide, he swam in troubled waters for the sake of philosophy, be it wisdom or a simple love for her like a distant promised land we can see, but which, despite all efforts we make, we can never arrive.

Can Boones Farm Give You Heart Burn

What surrounds us

" Circunvalante philosophize about what would be entering the same. This can only take place indirectly. Well, as we speak, we think of objects. We need to reach by means of objective thought the telltale signs that something is not objective is Circunvalante.

example of what I said is what we have to think together. The separation of subject and object, which always are, and we can not see from the outside, become our object to speak it, but inadequately. For separation is a relationship between things of the world I faced as objects. This relationship is an image to express what is not at all visible, which is never target itself.

This separation of subject and object when we make sure we continue to think in pictures, from what we are originally present, as something that is in turn a multiple sense. The separation is originally different when I go and intellect to objects, such as living in my world environment, such as "existence" to God.
intellects
As we deal with things understandable, of which we have, to the extent that occurs, a knowledge of universal validity and necessity, but is always object determined.

as living beings, situated in our world environment, we are made in it by that which we experience intuitively sensible, for what we really live like this, but does not capture any general knowledge.

as 'existence' we are in relationship with God, transcendence-through the language of the things that makes transcendence figures or symbols. The reality of this being figures do not capture nor our intellect and our sensibilities vital. God is the object a reality that we are only given as "existence" and is in a completely different dimension from that in which they are empirically real objects, which can thought to need, which affects our way.

This is how it is dismembered as Circunvalante want to make sure that, in various modes of being circunvalante, and that's how the collapse occurred at follow now the theme of the three modes of separation of subject and object: First, the general intellect and consciousness that we are all identical, and secondly, the living being within the meaning of which we each of us a unique individuality, third, the "existence" in the sense that we are properly that in our historical .

Karl Jaspers, " philosophy, Breviaries, FCE, 1973-1995.

Read Farm Lessons #11

Plato's aesthetic



We all know that Plato expelled from his ideal state to dramatists and epic poetry, in addition, it appears that the Athenian significantly appreciate the natural beauty around him, as attending the place where he was, the environment that served for discussion or merely physical rest, depending on their usefulness. Not looking at the world and admired its beauty, but was in the world and appreciated its functionality for certain times and circumstances. With this background, we could conceive of the personality of Plato as insensitive to beauty, but the reality is more complex, and not without contradictions, if it is fair to recognize his lack of interest in natural beauty, not so with human beauty, and with that created by our civilization.

The reason that Plato expelled almost all the poets from his Republic was due to moral and metaphysical reasons, but this did not imply that felt no appreciation for the compositions of Homer, for example, or you do not have a certain admiration: "We praise lot of Homer", " I speak, even though the fans and reverence for Homer, who in my youth I have mastered, I do so retract" and " are willing to acknowledge that Homer is the greatest of poets and first of the tragic " are textual samples Republic pointing the obvious that Plato professed respect for that.

art of appreciation for the beauty that produces art (or, rather, is the art itself.) Any theory of art must be based on the notion of beauty. For Plato, beauty really exist, and this in the world of the senses involved or derived from a universal beauty, of which sensible things were more or less successful approaches. There are varying degrees of beauty: a beautiful object is ugly when compared with a beautiful woman, a funny chimpanzee is never more beautiful than a handsome man, and he always will be ugly in front of a god. The universal beauty, for its part, does not comprise a part of beauty and ugliness another, nor beautiful in relation to certain things and ugly in relation to others, but like all ideas, is "eternally self-subsistent and uniqueness herself. "

It follows that the universal beauty is not something material, can not be translated into a thing of beauty, the beauty is universal, as any form, supersensible, so that works of art (painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, dancing, singing, music, etc..) is inevitably fall into a lower dimension within the range of Beauty. Beautiful things are under our senses perceive it, while the Beauty archetypal, universal, it applies only to intelligence.

One difficulty in establishing a definition of beauty applicable to tangible manifestation occurs when beauty is equated to the utility, efficiency "useful everything is beautiful " said Socrates Hippias Major. So one school of diligent and obedient student, you get superb academic results, it is beautiful? A mechanic whose skill fix our car is beautiful? Even A gas cylinder is beautiful by the mere fact of competition heated with water from our shower? Way to leave this predicament follows Socrates drawing attention to determine whether this utility is used for a purpose good or a bad one, what works for one purpose can not be beautiful ruin, says Socrates, but just how good it is, if only what we consider good is beautiful, then, says Frederick Copleston, " the beauty and goodness can not be the same, since neither the cause and effect can be identified ." Socrates concludes by stating that perhaps the beauty is that which produces a pleasant feeling to the sights and sounds (music and beautiful voices, women and men handsome, well-made statues, etc..). But if this is the universal beauty, how to identify it with the intangible that is proper to it? How can the universal beauty, a transcendental form, according to Platonic metaphysics, be appreciated by our senses? If everything beautiful object creates pleasure and satisfaction, in full view either ear, then they must have some common character which gives them their beauty and is present in both. And what is it? Perhaps the pleasure to serve for any purpose that is useful, we produce an emotion, an impulse, an incentive aimed at rewarding action? But if this is so, as Socrates says we're back to square one, and we have not really solved anything, a mere circular reasoning. Neither beautiful nor useful. Any skill or ability
generates "real objects products (pencils, books, buildings, made by men, and rocks, plants and men, made by the gods), or" images, which mimic but not actually perform the functions of the original. The images are false imitations of reality, and even have part of it (if not, would not images, but another example of the same thing), so are in a second degree of detachment from reality of Forms: indeed, imitative art is " two degrees below reality, because it is simple like ," the artist does not copy objects with accuracy, but mimics the simple appearances. The painter, says Plato, is a pseudoartífice , not drugs, which have genuine ability, but as cosmetics, that give the appearance of health rather than health itself.

know something is to capture its eternal form, but the arts, imitations of imitations (imitation of specific forms of the sensible world, which in turn are true copies of the Forms) can not produce themselves be knowledge . However, a work beautiful art treasures possessing a relationship with the Form and, sometimes, the artist, unconscious of what he is doing, can have a moment of inspiration, or intuition, reaching true knowledge and directly, perhaps be possessed by a god.

For this reason, the arts can and should play a role in the social order of the State. To find out what we must first examine what effect in men. On the one hand, art gives pleasure, it has beauty, and it is a pure pleasure, in the sense that it is generated by other causes (eg, eating when hungry), but, however, Sometimes the art gives way characters (in dramatic poetry), which change their own reality, behaving undesirably and acting without honesty and dignity, its natural produce false pretense and vulgar pleasures in the auditorium, so they should, says Plato, be punished. However, given that the arts have the quality to influence attitudes and behaviors of the people, must be specified for the ideal state which can be appropriate behavior and what harmful, Plato is confident that the artistic imitation of a bad attitude or behavior is a call for individuals to do the same, imitating such behavior in their lives, and consequently all pages that distils improper or immoral behavior, whether heroes or gods should be removed from the education of the Republic. By contrast texts indicate appropriate virtues and powers must be read and distributed, and even created if there are, for the sake of the younger generation.

If properly used and properly channeled character education, dance, music and poetry are essential tools and very beneficial for the formation of citizens, says Plato. Despite its severity to the application of the arts in society, the Athenian recognizes its value and greatly respected, but always stresses that the artist should show irreproachable social responsibility, so that would guide their creations to the good of the community, transmit values \u200b\u200band human attributes that enable people to improve their condition to get closer to virtue.

Plato The restriction proposed for the creative dimension of the artist, therefore, is not due to a bias on the arts, to a certain fanaticism that despises those aesthetic manifestations that do not fit our tastes, but it fits in the mood Platonic ideal of a state where all its elements, including those that depend on both the sleep of reason, aim to provide stability and a spirit of righteous men.

art Should stick to a merely social, restricted to the collective good, rather than creative freedom of its practitioners that may cause deviation in the behavior and modes of behavior considered correct? In today's society we have an obvious answer to this question, would, however, wonder how far the role of "arts" (today we would speak more correctly means) in us, and how far it is beneficial to do so, and also could question why certain individuals, unable to distinguish between an attitude suggestive artistically or socially acceptable and desirable to adopt and discard a the other (known cases of violence or aggressive behavior after viewing a film, television, or after a few hours with some video games), without recognizing that the mere presentation and appearance in a television series or a computer game not is the necessity or expediency, to transfer it in any way real life life where there is no button to close the screen, or "opponents" virtual as flesh and blood, nor the ability to start, never a new game.

Licencias De Conducir Washinton, 2011

Al-Farabi (I) Diogenes of Sinope



Nicknamed "The Second Master " by Arab historians (the first was, of course, Aristotle) Al-Farabi, (born in Baghdad to 870 and died in 950, approx.) Renewed philosophy gained by the followers of Aristotle, neoplatonizada conveniently, through various comments to his works.

Among the many concerns of Al-Farabi emphasizes, first, his attempt to prove a certain correlation between the thought of Plato and Aristotle. Despite their obvious differences, the Iraqi philosopher conceded that it was merely accidental differences, and to prove he even compare text to text. The apparent contradiction is the product, he said, identifying two reasons: 1) personal conduct, since Plato shown as an ascetic concerns outside earth, while Aristotle is a man of street, however, both forms of life respond to their own characters, and aristotelian is only practical application, in partnership, signed by his teacher and 2) method, synthetic (and lighter) in the latter, and analytical (and darker, tinged with mythic) in that, while the Athenian myth uses the wisdom to hide the unworthy, while Aristotelian simplicity is lost as soon delve further into their meaning. That contradiction

also four basic philosophical issues, such as: 1) Logic , as both disagree on how to achieve a perfect definition, or what a syllogism and how to make appropriate conclusions, although Al-Farabi believed that both positions are reconciled in the end, 2) Epistemology , since Plato admits the existence of the World of Ideas, while Aristotle denies. This is a major difficulty, but the philosopher of Baghdad's resolve to modifying Plato to Neoplatonism, and closer to Aristotle to Plotinus, so that both views will converge, despite their undeniable differences. Another complication is how we hear of the ideas if you do not exist in this world; Al-Farabi does not clarify this point, since torn between whether to grant full immortality of the soul. Moreover, if knowledge is mere memory, what is the role of memory?, Al-Farabi concludes that Plato's doctrine is a theory that explains the role of memory in knowledge, while Aristotle accepted for entry to the genesis of knowledge feelings as both data memory, 3) Metaphysics first, the doctrine of vision, according to Plato we see from the emission of something that flows from the eye that is directed toward the object. To his pupil, however, is the eye that is influenced by the object. Although Al-Farabi seen in both positions a certain affinity, the difference is insurmountable. And second, Plato denied the eternity of the world, but Aristotle said, so the only way for the Iraqi philosopher overcome this contradiction is to deny the Aristotelian thesis and giving the world a creation out of nothing; and 4) Practical Philosophy, Plato the natural abilities are more important in shaping our personality which acquired habits, while Aristotle believes just the opposite, for Al-Farabi, however, Plato says only the difficulty of developing our natural abilities, and Aristotle also tends to say that education is not everything and should respect the way of being of each individual, our philosopher, in turn, ensure that the child has a receptive almost total power, and the role of their natural constitution very minor, this character would have a potential only, updatable only by the act of exercise habits. In the section

epistemological, Al-Farabi out as the highest degree of that is for the metaphysical science of being as such, the principles of science and being that is not present in body or any body . The concept of being listed as being quota caused, and must be itself. The latter is pure, the only necessary, no cause, no matter what form, or end, is very pure, pure thought and pure lover, so you can identify with God. Al-Farabi identifies the paths leading to the demonstration of God: 1) all being receives its existence from another, in a string that must be completed in the first, 2) contingent beings must have their existence only if necessary, 3 ) every possible potential to be updated by the pure act, and 4) any effect that there is by its very nature must come from an extrinsic cause (God). Being first is devoid of the imperfections of the contingent beings, so that it can not properly describírsele definírsele or because his greatness is beyond the genus or species, is at the same time, present and hidden, and their existence goes beyond our intellect, so we can only have a rough idea of \u200b\u200bHim. God is absolute life, and is pure contemplation, for it must be the happiest of beings, the same happiness is He, who loves himself, and love together, loving and beloved.

As God is One, Al-Farabi states that the multiplicity observed around us arises from successive generations. Of God comes only his intelligence, of which flows to generate power and secondary causes. So, all things follow a certain pattern, a certain hierarchy within creation: 1) Being Single, 2) secondary causes, 3) Understanding Agent, 4) Alma; 5) Shape and 6) Matter. The bodies, meanwhile, includes six genera: 1) Body of the celestial spheres, 2) Rational Animal, 3) Animal irrational 4) Plant, 5) Mineral, and 6) Four Elements. This order demonstrates the existence of a universal law that comes from God, everything flows from there only if necessary. The chain needs of all things is absolute, God needs only to know oneself to know all things, this is knowledge that sets off the cosmos, the eternal and unchanging mechanism of our Universe. God emerges only a single being, the first set, outside of him, he first created may be the seed for the multitude, which is why, says Al-Farabi, the first set is one of their number, but in terms of multiple nature. Al-Farabi

difference may nominally be necessary. In this inevitably accompanies existence to its essence, because both are mistaken, in the possible, however, there is added to the essence of the creative act of the first set. This, in turn, he received if there's to be first formed as a starting of the one, from which it will be possible multiplicity. It is diverse in essence, and therefore also in action.

physical Cosmos, to Al-Farabi, is a set of concentric spheres in whose center lies the Earth and revolve around him nine areas following a perfect, uniform circular motion, a move that party to all this intelligence in area immediately above, this movement is the desire of perfection so characteristic of being first, so that the whole cosmos moves in pursuit of absolute perfection, love this product perfection.

The combination of the four elements that come from raw materials generates, under the influence of celestial spheres (especially the sun) the constitution of the terrestrial world, because of the approach or departure from the star produces cold and heat generation and corruption. But the way in which these influences take place, and how bodies are prepared to receive the forms is not completely predictable, so that the phenomena are causal agents nor will the bodies, and we must resort the experience for physical knowledge.

The tenth intelligence that influences our world is the intellect, the operator of the Cosmos we perceive and because of the union, therefore, between matter and form through an intellectual operation (Think the separate essences of things). It is the intellect that moves the soul, the truly human understanding, to lead to knowledge, but humans do not have a whole infinite scope in which to work and learn from, in fact, each being created, Unlike the first set, is bound to a particular class or group that limits and understands. Therefore, the created beings can not escape their destiny marked.

created Things are good at what they own more than one (of being) and deficient in that they possess multiple, the higher the multiplicity, deficiency. Thus, al-Farabi affirm that evil is inevitable in the formation of things, it is necessary and even beneficial, since, without evil, there would be no good in created things, in the earthly world beneath our feet. The cause of evil lies in the one divine, but, as occurs in the natural multiplicity of the first created, its cause is reduced to this multiplicity, so that the cause of evil is not from God.

Fetish Of Woman In Nylon Stockings

were four main schools of philosophy that flourished in times of Alexander the Great, of the Stoics , skeptical and Epicurean talked in the past, so now we focus on one of the most representative of school left (cynics) Diogenes of Sinope , its founder. Another opportunity is reserved for Antisthenes, that master and disciple of Socrates.

Diogenes lived along the fourth century BC, between 403 and 323, probably. This means that their existence covered about 80 years, quite an advanced age at the time. Died, apparently because it retained its breath (others suggest it was because of a dog bite, or tuck a piece of raw octopus ...), very same day that Alexander, and the city of Corinth, where he died, He paid tribute featured funeral, while a monument was erected Sinope, samples those of love, respect and admiration that, quite possibly, the same Diogenes had censored, according to his peculiar vision of the world and most sincere people.

Everything we know comes from Diogenes comments, anecdotes and statements attributed to him, but since they did not let any text (like Socrates, gave prominence to the verbal interaction, dialogue, that the written word) biographical details that remain to be considered credible only in part, is almost certain that there is enough (maybe even most) of legend in subsequent references about his life.

Sinope Diogenes had to leave a young man and that while working in the coin shop had forged his father ran a few pieces (presumably under auspices of a certain oracle, and also with parental consent), and fled to Athens, where he spent the rest of his life and met Antisthenes, wanting to be his student, but the trainees had never cynical, nor wanted, so he tried to drive away the young man with a stick, but Diogenes was persistent, and also flattering, proclaimed that any stick was big enough to take away from a man whose words were worth listening to, Antisthenes, pleased by the harangue, he accepted the boy. However, later the student criticize the teacher, not to live according to their own theory, eventually calling him a "trumpet heard nothing but himself." Diogenes, meanwhile, would act always based on their ideas and thoughts, even if it meant a radical break with all that surrounded him. Diogenes

soon adopted the customs and ideas cynical, as mentioned by Jean Brun: " no country, no city, homeless, poor, homeless, living a day, and saying" look for a man, throwing his cup and bowl to see a child drink from a cupped palm of your hand and eat on a piece of bread ...". Diogenes claimed an austere lifestyle, independently of individuals and institutions, in line with nature and away from material possessions. It is said that sleeping in a barrel, always naked, and that only carried a coat, bag and a staff. He lived "like a dog", from which derives its name just cynical. Riu Antoni Martinez mentioned that " who nicknamed him the name 'dog', probably wanted to signal their total lack of aidos (shame, modesty and respect) and his character Frank anaídeia or bestiality, to which Diogenes nodded, and have considered that the epithet "dog" it was adjusted, which boasted ".



rejected any agreement, be social, moral, aesthetic, food or education. He wanted to lock a universal brotherhood, not only men but also animals. His cosmopolitanism, regarded as a world citizen and not just the particular polis, raised blisters on Greek society, where identity was closely linked to citizenship, and, as is well known, when the Emperor Alexander I was sitting in the steps of the temple of Cybele, impressed by the humility of the man, asked if I needed anything, anything, that he would give him, Diogenes replied: " only ask that I not obstruct sunlight." As mentioned by the historian Diogenes Laertius, some attributed to Sinope cynical conviction that "men Remire watch and jewelry as they buy, and examine their lives so little."

But Diogenes never wanted nothing more to achieve under the Greek arete, and "moral freedom in the liberation of desire", the starting point of the Stoic school, as we saw and said Bertrand Russell. This way of living and was considered under Plato in Diogenes saw "a Socrates gone mad." We can better understand the disciple of this if we remember that Diogenes, for example, used to eat in the middle of the Athenian market (reprehensible attitude at the time), sleeping in any corner, once urinated on a man who had insulted him and thrown bones, and even defecated in the amphitheater. He even masturbate in the assembly ... His rudeness was intolerable, his outspokenness and spontaneity, puzzling. The waste of repairs as radical generated the current pejorative and "cynical" who does evil and flaunts it.

As Frederick Copleston says, "ensures that [Diogenes] advocated community of women and children and free love while in the political sphere declared citizen of the world ... He advised positive asceticism to attain freedom. In connection with this were their deliberate mockery of convention and he did in public what is generally considered that it should be private and still not even in private must be . "

For Diogenes and the Cynics, civilization and society generated a multitude of material needs for individuals, however, are completely dispensable. Evil is not in men, but in society in which they live human beings, he asserted, carry within us everything that is truly indispensable to our welfare; greater independence of our material needs more happiness. At least we attend to our reputation, our properties, including social and political organization, at least give importance to love (a form of bondage of desire, for the cynical), at least we feel the loss of a friend, a woman or a son, including his death, then we will be freer, more virtuous and more independently. The latter statement is when, surely, we feel sympathy for Diogenes ... Thus, the supreme, final and absolute virtue, is the return to natural state, which can only be achieved through the "autarky" deficiency that needs of the Cynics, the end of Socratic roots but suitably modified to give it a whirl consistent with what nature provides, and not responding to a property of perfection, as Plato thought.

Some of the anecdotes that illustrate the life of Diogenes are really funny: for an apprentice to follow him and learn his ideas, made him a rope attached to a herring, a symbol of austerity, and go round the villages with the hanging back (the young man fled when he saw what he was forced to make ...); once saw a woman sitting on a sumptuous litter, he said, "this is not the cage that deserves a beast" and when a child, the son of a whore, was throwing stones at a crowd, he snapped: "Be careful, that surely will strike your father" also asked him once what to do if you received a blow, we know now what I would say the Christian tradition, but Diogenes replied: "Put a helmet" and, seeing a clumsy goalkeeper was not even once to the target, sat next to it and proclaimed: "Here at last is where I will be truly safe. "

Except for their manners, their cosmopolitan ideas and teachings transgressive, the life of Diogenes contains precious little philosophy. But their existence is a good example of how one can go against, how the values \u200b\u200btaken at a time for correct and consistent with virtue are not of great importance, and not because relativism should flood the world, urging each to lead the life that please, but because when it comes to education, precepts and principles, attributes considered appropriate and values \u200b\u200bthat make us human beings as such, still discussed, and often without reaching any conclusion, which may be those and what is better without. We are not, therefore, much more advanced today than in times of Diogenes

Finally, just to make sure out around us, the proposal of austerity and simplicity that this material is promoted far, perhaps farther than ever, to be implemented. The virtue of Diogenes had no effective implementation at the time, today would be absolutely impossible to achieve, even in a more mild and tolerable. If we corrosive materialism and the needs it generates, is there a possibility of taking (some, only some of) the ideas of "dog" of Sinope? Could anyone (or rather anyone want) to live with: free, independent, sovereign itself above social needs, moral precepts laid down and manners to use? Would he or she is a brave man, an iconoclast, or just a fool, a crazy imbalanced and lunatic? What would happen to him in a modern world? How much does it take to pull the trigger or jumping off a bridge to the calm waters of social loneliness and darkness of life?

Raylene Richards Iwiki

Ethics is a reflection on human conduct that is directed toward solving problems both individually (for example, how I can achieve happiness, or how I should live to be over my constituent animality) and social (how to achieve peaceful cohabitation and tolerance). Platonic Ethics, which contains details of Socratic thought and will be further expanded, corrected and conceptualized by Aristotle, is eudemonistic, since it is geared to achieving the highest good of man, that is, to your happiness. The highest good is the development of personality, your soul, so that they acquire the status must be found and, therefore, be happy.

At the beginning of Plato's dialogue Philebus, two speakers are arranged in two opposing positions: Protarco argues that the essence of good is pleasure, while Socrates believes that is wisdom. Soon, however, both admitted that life coded into one of those states, and The power to the fullest, life itself would not be human existence of which do not take part, experience, memory, knowledge, would be as empty as the other to reject the bodily pleasures. A good life for man, they conclude, should contain both intellectual pleasures as those involving body to satisfy a desire, whenever sparingly.

In the first competition is supposed imperative of the exact science of timeless objects, ie, geometry. The geometry describes the truest knowledge as possible about the most remarkable fact. But as in the world of our experience we find no more than a crude approximation these timeless objects, you must attend a second type of knowledge that describes, assuming, always, that it is an inferior knowledge, a knowledge in this manner would, for example, provided by music or poetry. Of bodily pleasures, for its part, accepted only those who report health and goodness to those who experience, and despise those who generate malice or insanity. It looks, well, an affinity between knowledge, of wisdom, and the satisfaction of desire can provide, trying to find a fair and accurate mixing.

happiness is only achieved thus far finding or ratio between a wise life and a joyful life. And it is essential to the practice of virtue, equivalent in this context to look both God and man possible. Platonic ethics comprises four fundamental virtues that derive from the analysis of psychic parties presented the human (rational, irascible and concupiscible). Thus, the soul corresponds concupiscible moderation, temperance smart, because anyone who shows mild in the pursuit of virtue will work in a good and beneficial, so that temperance and wisdom are not completely mixed. Second, the irascible soul relates to him a capacity for sacrifice, a fortitude in adversity, own courage of those who go into battle, not away from the front row despite being exposed to danger. These two virtues are unified in the present or generated by the rational part of soul of prudence, which is truly good for man and the ways to achieve it. In turn, the three virtues above are added and integrated into a fourth, more important, producing the perfect harmony of the soul is justice. On the four Platonic virtues tour moral life of men, as they cover the identification of good practice (wisdom), its effective implementation social (justice), the courage to achieve it or defend it from attacks and threats (strength) and moderation required under which we can control and not confuse the right to excess bodily pleasure (Temperance). Plato

always believed that no one would choose evil knowingly. I thought that if someone acted or chose to do something bad was because they imagined that, in fact, what he did was good, but in fact was the opposite, if one is carried away by the evil is because, he argued Plato, knew the true good, or because the passion temporarily hands, dazed for a while until it recognizes himself, which seemed apparent good real good. This, however, does not exonerate the individual from moral responsibility because it would author of a serious offense, to allow the passion to dominate over reason.

Polemarchus, she says Plato in The Republic, had applied his theory that it was convenient, and just do right by those things coming if they were good, but with enemies, if they were bad, there was no remorse towards them and had to act with malice. Plato rejected this maxim (probably very popular in his day, but also in the current ...) that should be good with bad friends and family with our enemies, Plato argues that doing evil can never be good , and can never provide a good or happiness. In mouth Socrates, Plato says that damage to the agent is to make bad worse, Socrates concludes that if you follow the guidelines proposed by Polemarchus, the outcome of their way of "doing good" and promote justice is "doing worse man unjust, "but, obviously, a similar action is only appropriate for a violent man, and not the one who is seen as reasonable and virtuous.

Unknown Driver Toshiba Portege M300

Plato's Ethics Concepts and terms: "Will to Power" on Heinrich Mann

In the rich creation and provision of philosophical terms that Friedrich Nietzsche gives us ("moral herd," "Superman ", "eternal return ", etc..), The term" will to power "is one of the most poorly understood, and thus ranked the lowest.

need to understand, first, consider that the world of Nietzsche does not comply with any significance beyond man, of life itself. There is no God (remember his famous dictum that divinely lapidary ...), and no soul, not even a world beyond. All these entities own of Western metaphysics have disappeared, remaining only the man and life, the world as a tangible manifestation. The world is not God's work, nor life, ours is función de -o puede concebirse bajo- un fin trascendente. Lo que cuenta es el aquí y el ahora, esta vida que vivimos, que es, sin más, una expresión de una “voluntad de poder”.

Esta voluntad de poder la contrapone Nietzsche a la “voluntad de vivir” de Arthur Schopenhauer, quien retrata la vida en “ El mundo como voluntad y representación ” como una voluntad meramente ciega que busca la perpetuación y la dominación de los dominios en la naturaleza, una voluntad irracional y perniciosa. Schopenhauer exhorta a abandonar este impulso, retirándose de la corriente que destruye el mundo y limitándose a una mera voluntad de vivir. No obstante, Nietzsche considera to it as the product of a grudge against life itself, is not best expressed pessimism and gloom which brought about Schopenhauer and, inevitably, to a rigid asceticism and limiting, cut off from the human and Privador growth of its own :

"Likewise, hatred against the will attempt to see in the renunciation of desire, in the" To be subjective without purpose or intent "(in the" pure and unwilling subject) a higher value, the superior value par excellence. Severe symptoms of fatigue or weakness of will, because she really is the boss of the wants, and they point the way and assigned as
...."
Nietzsche distinguishes between two types of forces, which are those that dominate and direct the actions: first, an active force that creates and promotes a life up, growing and yearning for self-assertion, and, second, a reactive force identified with a decadent way of living and dead, whose dream is the disappearance of the here and now and the anxiety of the past, fraught with hopes and empty promises. Schopenhauer's position reflects, obviously, this second approach to the world and life, is a manifestation of reactive and resentful attitude to life.

Thus, Nietzsche's will to power is an active force and, by itself, a fact of life, not need any other force than their own, no life force (in the manner of Bergson, for example) or any foreign idea to its realization. However, this does not reduce man to the purely biological, not limited to organic as a complete description of their being, but it treats life as a manifestation of the will to power. The will to power is a force, yes always, always aspiring to further development and refinement, which surpasses all nihilism and any limitation of human vision, one that proclaims as true and certain that only exists and only has the idea and transcendent (which begins thought of Socrates and Plato and goes between the ages because the Judeo-Christian influence) as opposed to the immanent and vital.

"And you know, in short, what is for me 'the world'? I have yet to mostrároslo in my mirror? ... This world is a monster of force, without beginning or end is a fixed amount of force as hard as bronze ... is a force that is everywhere one and many as a set of forces and force waves perpetually restless, forever in contrast, ongoing reflux, with giant-year recur regularly ebbs and flows of its forms, ranging from the simplest to the most complicated of the quietest, the most fixed, most cold, in the hottest, most violent, most contradictory, to return immediately to the multiplicity of the simplicity ... This is my Dionysian world which perpetually created and destroyed himself, the enigmatic world of the twofold luxury, this is my "beyond good and evil" ... You want a name for this universe, a solution for all its riddles? Do you want to sum a light to you, the darkest, strongest, the bravest of all the spirits? This world is the world of will power and nothing else. And you are also the will to power, and nothing more ... "

But nuances in the meaning of "will to power." For though it may seem, this term does not refer to a desire on the part of will power, acquire or increase, dominating more and better things and beings. The will does not want power, but power is what you want at will. That is, the will means how is linked to what she wants, how does what you want-how, also dominates its own power, and how, consequently, do not want the power itself, as an end. Gilles Deleuze said: " should not be fooled by the expression: what you will. What you want a will is not an object, an objective, end. The aims and objects, including the reasons are still symptoms. What you want a will, according to its quality, is to affirm or deny their difference which differs . " So, what is in the will to power is nothing more than a boost to aim its own lift, its self, the highest form of all that exists. There is, therefore, any feature of a political or social in it, or claim of title, but responds to a descriptive force is not subjected to any other outside force, or God is worth more than life itself . Its most direct and profound desire is not to take something or someone, to dominate, subjugate, but, as the driving force is reduced and lies in the act of creation is creation itself. Creating, in effect, new values, creation of a higher life form, so conspicuous that excels on the existing
According
all, life, our life is a particular case, a small part of this strong momentum in the will to power, and expansive force of life up and defeat of nihilism, decadent life. Thus, as Antoni Martinez said Riu, "any driving force is will to power, the whole creative force is the essence of being, and as stated principle, lies beyond good and wrong. " Against the image of a traditional will, whose desire is to attribute values \u200b\u200bset, move into them and not limited to, Nietzsche reiterates that the impulse of the will to power is to create new values. No aspiration or pursuing power, not in any way desired; only, by their overwhelming desire for blind and irrational instincts, to forge the values \u200b\u200bof a new master, the aristocrat of morality, the Superman who, even today, awaiting his appearance in our world today.

Silverado Rst Spoiler

Art



At first glance, the short little volume of Heinrich Mann appears to provide a brief and very personal introduction to some important person history of thought. Picking a brief biographical stroke, Mann captured in a few lines his inclinations and his antipathy towards these geniuses (they all are, although each in its own way) and try to argue in such a short text of the strengths and weaknesses of them. I think far achieved its purpose, though not entirely share your view in the case of Friedrich Nietzsche. However, the idea behind, and emerge from time to time, all the work of Mann is the defense of a democratic culture in which most, the mass and the group, are considered the engine of society, and the human future. The gregarious primate is, here, understandable, given the time and circumstances and social policies that Mann wrote his essay on Nietzsche (1939).

First it is fair to recognize the merit of the brother of Thomas Mann's critique of the German giant figure, so dear in his day, when Nietzsche was raised to the Olympics one day and another well. His courage to swim against in their appreciation of the work and impact of the latter and we deserve our sympathy, should have the guts to think differently to the intellectual framework of your time, especially if your critical thinking regarding a character so deeply rooted in culture and the action of a country as it was Nietzsche in Germany in mid-century. We can also successful grant as censorship Mann to the particularities of Nietzsche's personality: proud, arrogant, contemptuous, boastful, deified, petulant, etc. All of these shortcomings was the author of "Ecce Homo" and "Aurora", a mere glance at his writings reveals and shows its character and consideration of himself.

Reading Mann's essay reveals a palpable resentment towards Nietzsche. It is a resentment of what he wrote, because his ideals, values \u200b\u200band actions. Except a few attributes of Nietzsche appreciated Mann ("It was genius, contradictory, always truthful"), almost everything, both what was and what drove, that both defended and attacked what is reason for criticism. For the brother of Thomas Mann, for example, Nietzsche's, but responsible, at least it instigator of totalitarian regimes, wars with millions of innocent victims and personal inclinations close to madness, by its nature anti-social and anti-gregarious (do not confuse the terms.)



"Nietzsche has voted for the war, especially war with many casualties," says Mann. It also ensures that peacetime in which he lived influenced his eagerness to fight, tired of so much peace and quiet. Nietzsche called for the dispute, confrontation, the rise of aristocratic culture, a few above the others, the mob, the people, the sacrifice of most of the rise of a small group, creator of new values. His metaphysics, Mann added, "it suited him and nobody else."

are understandable, again, these accusations in the historical context in which he lived Mann, and are criticisms, too repeat, they keep a substantial reflection of an interpretation "fair" that Nietzsche can be done within a conventional context. However, to fully understand this thinker is necessary, we suspect, even looking beyond his time and situation social. Not because their writing or their claims can not be applied in time, but because it is beyond him as we can, perhaps, to guess the direction of his thoughts, and their actual intent.

Nietzsche's texts are themselves complex and contradictory. Sometimes provide conflicting readings, and others do not transmit more than confusion, as Mann himself says. This was, of course, many stakeholders made approaches to his works and his words, justifying their actions (either laudable or barbarians) by the ambiguity of Nietzsche. That has happened, for example, with the hedonistic (Nietzsche always advocated free life, to regain the instincts and reinvest what the priest had described as "bad" [all that, actually, is good in life], and vice versa), who clung to the German to give vent to their long-repressed impulses. However, Nietzsche never saw with good eyes and uncontrolled self-indulgent hedonism, we must demand discipline, sacrifice, and even asceticism, to ensure fidelity to the increased life, a life increasingly outdoing itself. Only those who master their impulses and passions are the great men, the "masters", the true aristocrats, but not by his aristocratic status, as Mann seems to interpret, but by creating new values, for being "beyond good and evil" and they are the vanguard of a new morality.

Warriors also covered by the pen of Nietzsche, are not "warriors" violent ("blood is the worst witness of truth, even poisons pure doctrine," he said on one occasion the philosopher) in the usual sense are not soldiers leaving the battlefield to give his life for one side or another, but subjects that are strong and noble because they have realized the falseness of life and rejects the moral of the slaves, because they see God's great sham, and try to assert their own existence and radiate life, elevating the values \u200b\u200bunder individual self-improvement.

Although Nietzsche speaks and writes about peoples' slaves' and 'gentlemen', does not subjugate such strata "social" to a split rail and desirable, but a mere historical fact, are no less' slaves 'those rich and powerful who use their resources to harass, violate or cause hardship to the poor and homeless, because ultimately they are also subject to slave morality and the scope of traditional values. About being a "driver" of war or racism or in favor of radical nationalism, Nietzsche also said: "The narcissism of the Germanic race consciousness is almost criminal" or "I have a simple rule, not having any dealings with promoters of racism."

Thirst for Nietzsche, in short, is to create a society (but always starting with the individual) states in its values \u200b\u200band merits, a new appreciation of life, lively, replacing the traditional Christian understanding. This requires the emergence of a moral innovative, creative individuals a series of new human traits.

Heinrich Mann, meanwhile, calls for a moral, if I may say so, democracy, a culture that sends the group, trends gregarious, in which even the individual grows by itself, is still subject and anchored to the "herd morality" in terms nietzschanos. Mann argues that the good, positive for society, it is equally good for the individual or, if you will, it is best for all can not be, as in the case of Nietzsche, the triumph of an effective minority, but share a common destiny and improvement within social and democratic.

is, therefore, two different perceptions of the role to be played, and how to play "the individual within the social union. A searching the splendor of an "aristocracy" strong and assertive, creative new values \u200b\u200band ideals persecuting Dionysian; other parks his personal drive, or limited, in pursuit of a collective balance of income and democracy that has as its goal the enrichment of all. Faced with such radically opposing two proposals, the election will never be easy, and may end up deciding more for our own personal biases than by a rational and detached analysis of the benefits and harms both, of course, present.

Chamomlie Tea Give Bad Dreams

Nietzsche, philosophy and art criticism

" Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that deals with analyzing the concepts and solve problems that arise when contemplating aesthetic objects. Aesthetic objects, in turn, are all objects of aesthetic experience, hence, only after sufficiently characterized the aesthetic experience, we are able to define the class of aesthetic objects. Although there are those who deny the existence of any specific aesthetic experiences, does not deny, however, the possibility of forming aesthetic judgments or giving reasons that support such lawsuits, the term "aesthetic object" would include, therefore, those objects around which issued such trials and there are such reasons.

Aesthetics are typically formulated in the philosophical questions "What do you mean? and "How do you know? "within the field of aesthetics, like philosophy of science raises the same issues in science. Thus, the concepts of aesthetic value or aesthetic experience, as well as the whole range of specific concepts of the philosophy of art, are examined in the discipline known as aesthetics, and questions like "What is what make beautiful things? "or" What is the relationship between art and nature? "-and any other specific questions of philosophy of art-are aesthetic issues.

The philosophy of art covers a narrower field that aesthetics, because it only deals with the concepts and issues that arise in connection with works of art, excluding, for example, the aesthetic experience of nature. However, most of the aesthetic issues raised interest and perplexity at all times specifically related to art: "What is art? Is there truth in art? What is an artistic symbol? What do you mean works of art? Is there a general definition of art? What makes a work of art good? "Although these issues are typical of aesthetics, have their place in art, and not arise in connection with aesthetic objects other than works of art.

philosophy of art should be carefully distinguished from art criticism, which deals with the analysis and critical appraisal of these works of art, as something opposed to the clarification of the concepts involved in those critical judgments, that the mission of the esthetics. Art criticism is specifically designed works of art or art classes (for example, belong to the same style or genre), and its purpose is to foster appreciation of them and facilitate a better understanding of them. The critic's task presupposes the existence of aesthetics because, in the discussion or evaluation of artistic works, the critic uses the concepts discussed and clarified by the philosopher of art. The critic, for example, says that a particular work of art is expressive and beautiful, the philosopher of art tries to analyze what you mean when you say that this work of art possesses these characteristics and, equally, if such claims are defensible, and how . Speaking and writing about art, the critic assumes the clarification of terms used, as is proposed by the philosopher of art, and consequently, what one critic writes not aware of this sin is exposed to a lack of clarity. If a critic described as expressive a work of art without having clear ideas of what that means, the result is a conceptual confusion .

MC Beardsley and J. Hospers, "Fundamentals of Esthetics " , Cátedra, Madrid, 1976.

Can I Use Thermos To Make Baby Bottle

Philosophy Ancient China: Ancient China Confucius Philosophy



Undoubtedly, the most famous teacher and philosopher of ancient China is Confucius (Kong Qiu ), which lived between 551 and 479 BC. The Children no deviation in the middle of a materially poor environment, and the young Qiu (Kong is the family name) had to work hard to pull ahead, either as official retail stores to monitor the state of Lu , or count and care of sheep and goats. Later, and within the court, he studies the rites and traditions, and soon became a famous lawyer, thanks to his travels, he reported experience and lessons.

Even then many followed him for his wisdom, and followed him wherever he was Kong, regardless of location or conditions. At the time of Confucius, China was divided into fiefs, with the courts of the gentlemen on one side and peasant villages, on the other. But wars were losing their land and many noble titles, and survival were devoted to teaching, providing their knowledge and skills. The lawyers were a group of scholars devoted to the rites and ceremonies, as well as the dissemination of classical texts, among which was Kong. Prevented during periods of warfare and hostility to practice in the courts, Confucius, he taught his disciples. Although he wrote nothing, and the western Socrates, his disciples gathered in a book, Lunyu , sayings and aphorisms of his master key, we know here by the name " Analects" of Confucius.

Confucius had a unique relationship with religion. Often marked spiritual master, in reality Kong Qiu was averse to "contact" with the spirits, in fact, it seems that not even talk about extraordinary events, such as rejecting the mythology, so richly, had nurtured the Chinese tradition. But this hostility towards such issues is due rather, it seems, that Confucius wanted to devote all his energies to serve as moral guides of men and women. This is not a disguised atheism, but a spirituality of a more mundane and practical to the purely away and mystical.

But what Confucius meant by a Supreme Being, Heaven or Deity? It is not too light, given resignation to talk about heavenly forces, or death, as always put the moral and just governance. Habituated to respond evasively (" If I do not know life, what we know of death? " or when he said that wisdom is " serving men with justice and respect the spirits, keeping as far away from them as possible. .."). Hence, many scholars have seen in the Confucian doctrine, rather than a religion nor a belief system (since no gods, pantheon, or temple priests), a philosophy of a social and political. In China

old accepting the doctrine of "heavenly mandate", he considered that every human being received a celestial order, urging it to fulfill the duty entrusted to him for the good of the community. This mandate, support of morality, it is sometimes difficult to find, but once the individual finds out, should be geared towards achieving them, regardless of whether the result, if the consequence of their actions, will be good or bad, but by the act, to fulfill his obligation, his duty. In this sense, the moral doctrine is clearly Confucian ethics (and not teleological, that is, one that considers primary purpose or the consequences arising thereof.) But another question is whether the individual can make your own celestial mandate, because even if we put all our strength and determination, there is always strength ming, destiny, of the inevitability of the future: Confucius used to say "if my principles succeed is because that is willing, if they fail is because it is willing . " So, what we do is search our heavenly mandate, find it and devote our energies to its realization, doing our duty, but we observe and keep in mind that success is not unique product of our will.

The moral perfection, the realization of our mandate celestial should always be based on two deadly virtues: the benevolence and righteousness . The latter is to always, in every circumstance and situation, what is right, fair or compulsory, accepting what we are commanded to perform the duty. As Jesus said Mosterín, " is a formal basis, a situational kind of categorical imperative, which opposes or benefit li ... to do what needs to be done because it's fair or right, without considering the consequences or the possible advantage ... because if we do what we do because we think we should do, then you do not act morally. This position is a clear precedent for the Kantian ".

Benevolence, in turn, corresponds to altruism, compassion and love for others, our request for help, benefit and encourage our neighbors. In contrast to the righteousness, the compliance of benevolence has no formal status, forced, but springs spontaneously from within due to human feelings. Compassion and altruism (shu shaping the , main guide work) suggest, in anticipation of Kant's thesis that " what you would not that make you yourself do not do your others " and therefore we do to others what we would like also do unto us. Confucius says that we will be benevolent and righteous if we try to be and act morally towards others and if we invest our efforts in that direction only.

If, as stated in the preceding note , Mo Di Confucius and blasted the lawyers was a result of his doctrine of the gradation of love. Kong was in the family, and love extended to this, the basis for all social relations. However, in the family are not the same loving treatment all: no one wants the same way a mother than an aunt, a brother or a cousin. Thus, love is not provided universally and indiscriminately to any human being simply by virtue human, but is adjusted according to the proximity of that person in relation to us. Benevolence urges us to love more intense and faithful to our brothers and father, even in adverse circumstances (or precisely because of them), as other individuals. Our love must conform to the proximity and relationship we have with them. Therefore, love is superior in terms of immediate family members (parents and older siblings), and less intense as we go out of it (neighbors, villagers nearby, unknown, etc..). Kong Qiu

includes rituals and ceremonies as an essential part of our morally upright and correct. We must not forget, but enhance them, for this and for that we practice in a spontaneous and open, non forced benevolence needs to be achieved, achievable only through discipline and education. Self-control can act straight and honest, be respectful of rituals and practice, and gain wisdom. Confucius himself did just that state in his old age: " at seventy I could follow what my heart desired without being impropriety." A state in which we act spontaneously, without effort, but always in harmony with right, then what was done and what should be done are, already, the same thing.

regard to improving State, Kong Qiu said the main remedy for their management were the clarification of the names. Ie " if names are not correct, the words do not conform to what they represent, so that the tasks are not carried out and people do not know how ... States that the names meanings and accommodate them to the facts. In the higher man say there should be nothing improper . "

Kong also believed that the only way society could function properly and be useful at all was through the proper performance of duty and the particular role of each individual: good governance is that "the sovereign is sovereign, minister, minister, father, father and son, son . " The behavior and character of each must display the qualities and behavior of their own, " only then the society will work well and be well governed ."

How Much Is A Used Iron Horse Maverick 3.3

: Moísmo



Also called zi Mo or Mo Tzu, Mo Di embodies the first major thinker after Kong Qui (known as Confucius , discussed shortly). He lived right in V century BC, and played an important role in the society of his time since he was an expert in economics and war as well as their knowledge and moral cutting boards lavished wherever he worked. The Mozi is the book containing the teachings of Mo Di and his disciples.

Although it seems that in the first instance, Mo Di learned some guidelines and Confucian approaches, he soon found them inadequate to address the social and political problems that prevailed at the time. For example, Mo Di considered unnecessary excessive preoccupation of Confucius and his school (that of the lawyers ) for rituals, including ceremonial and funerary cults, as represented an unnecessary expense, a purely aesthetic and very damaging for economic welfare and social, and also a great hypocrisy of the scribes, who cared for the preparation of rites in honor of the spirits not really believing in them. Mo Di

created a school, Moji , whose members follow a strict discipline and where they learned everything about the defense of cities, fortifications, etc. The school, which used to receive people from lower classes (as opposed to that of Confucius, who only accepted the nobles) had quasi-military organization and obedience to a superior (Di Mo himself, who was the first master) , and lived a very simple and austere. Its purpose was to train staff helpful the state, but always based on the ideas of Mo Di, whose ultimate goal was to "streamline society, eliminating useless traditions and introducing practices designed for the greater good of the community (Mosterín, 2007).

Mo Di's doctrine on the idea of \u200b\u200b"universal love." Mo Di argued that to distinguish between good actions and bad, right and wrong, and between appropriate political direction or harmful, we need a criterion or a method that allows us to elucidate (hence born an interest in logic and principles): This criterion Mo Di sums on making or performing what Heaven desires. And what Heaven desires (understood as a divine institution and staff, ordering of events) is not more than, as might be expected, a universal and unconditional love for all citizens of the world. Heaven is not so different from each other, but equally gives light, darkness, and sent them all rains, storms, benefits and misfortunes. If this is the way that Heaven we serve, then we too must do the same. The "universal love" which gives love to all human beings without any special consideration, is the vehicle through which society can win trust, respect and help and prosperity. If the leaders and rulers implement this principle the evolution and improvement of peoples' quality of life and progress would be evident and the benefits (enrichment of the poor, increased stability and peace time, population growth, etc.) achieved a new boost golden age.

The principle of "universal love" is a direct reply to another, that of "gradation of love", typical of the Confucian school, which advocated a different scale in the application of love, as it had to love and treat very differently to strangers or foreign to one's own family. Love for a neighbor or someone who see little to be much smaller and less intense than which we provide to our parents or siblings. Di Mo believed that segregation and discrimination loving courtiers common in environments similar to the followers of Cofucio was humane treatment only caused hatred, conflict and family selfishness, and without the need to order and pacify the world.

Intelligent, rational, thought Mo Di, only needed for the same reason to understand and apply the principle of universal love, because they understand that doing good impact and expands the good around us, while doing evil is to enhance pain and evil, facts that do not benefit anyone. But others who do not become convinced universal love must persuade them using religious fears. Thus, it was vital reinstate the belief in spirits to show that all human action has consequences punishable, that is, that everything we do will be rewarded or punished depending on whether it is in fact in line with the views of those. Mo Di's belief in Heaven and the spirits was rather concerned that straightforward: although the warriors, which formed a part, held that belief to belong to the common people, unlike lawyers, who had long were skeptical ( despite maintaining the rites, as stated above), Mo Di was what motivated him entice the unbelievers with the punishment of their actions that orient towards the universal love.

Finally, we will acknowledge the special relationship of Mo Di war. Mo Di was a convinced pacifist, knowing that violence and clashes lead to war, the greatest disaster possible that men are capable. The war is morally reprehensible, of course, but also affirms that all war Di Mo provides no good to either side, in fact, what is lost in a race that (in lives, effort, time, money, wealth) is always much more than what was obtained, however large. Di Mo explains in these words:

" Consider a country about to enter war. In winter the cold is terrible, in summer heat. This implies that either winter or summer you can make war. But if done in the spring, the fields will not be seeded, if in the autumn crops are not harvested. And if you lose only one estanción, the number of people who die of cold and hunger is incalculable. Consider the equipment, weapons, arrows will be lost, destroyed cars, oxen and horses that fall, military casualties, the unfathomable number of people perish. The State will have robbed the people and reduced income source of profits. And all this, why? Because they covet the fame and the spoils of winning the war. The we gain is useless and is far less than what we lose .

How many people, goods and cultural fortunes remain standing and worthy of admiration if, since Mo Di uttered these words, the leaders and chiefs State, Emperors and presidents of the republics and governments have had in mind before ordering the entry into war with his brothers?

Red, Green, Orange, Yellow Wires In Ceiling

Introduction to the thought of Karl Marx (Epilogue)



Series "Introduction to the thought of Karl Marx (6 parts)

-Epilogue: Impact of Marxist thought.

After examining the roots, characteristics and some practical applications claiming the thought of Karl Mark and Frederick Engels in the society of the late nineteenth century, now conclude the series with the influences and the relevance of such thinking in the following century, and the criticisms leveled at certain philosophers.

One of the most remarkable peculiarities of Marxist philosophy is that, besides having great importance in the history of ideas and thought, his thesis crystallized in a practice applicable to the realm of "ordinary life", ie Marxism failed to overcome the intellectual framework to embrace the social and political action. It was the first time this happened (especially at such a large scale, almost global, and with deep roots wherever performed). Lenin and Stalin

, architects of the Communist Revolution in the Soviet Union, Marxist ideology introduced broadly understood but could change some parts or concepts that, in practice, proved difficult to implement. One of the tenets stolen was the period known as the "dictatorship of the proletariat," Marx phase was only temporary, while Lenin was forced to extend in time indefinitely. For this the state was indispensable, while that, remember, believed to be a mere constitir process.

After 1917 Marxism began to expand and reached distant frontiers, not only throughout Soviet rule, but also to nearby countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and China, among others. But such thinking has also left its mark in countries which did not directly applicable due to the formation of parties of a socialist or communist. However, if communism had a rather short life, since only a few decades after its introduction, and especially in the nineties of last century, communist systems ended up choking and collapsing, mainly in the former USSR and Eastern Europe.

This has served to verify that is not always the adoption of Marxist ideas has been as true that Marx himself would have liked, or that such ideas are not applicable in the present historical progress, or lack of sufficient strength or interest to be. Moreover, the communist regimes, far from liberating the working people, was a spur to the oppression and violation of fundamental human rights, to the point of generating a series of horrible and unacceptable genocide in the USSR and China and other countries Communist spirit (believed to have been around a hundred million deaths generated). Concentration camps legendary dramatic famines and purges and imprisonment and corruption, etc.., etc., indicate the possible change of direction that some depraved leaders can get to make their own benefit of Marxist theory.

Intellectually, the Marxism has had both supporters and detractors great illustrious. Georges Politzer, for example, represents the Marxist philosopher enthusiastic, sometimes to unsustainable levels (praising the Leninist policy, and we have already discussed some of their depravity), Karl Popper, in turn, implies the opposite side, strong criticism. One of the biggest censorship that Popper's philosophy is communism has been submitted as an allegedly scientific theory (based on scientific knowledge at the time, and follower of the same methods) and, instead, be completely wrong in their forecasts, advocated the overthrow of capitalism and the emergence of communism, the liberation of the people the disappearance of the State, etc. But, of course, all this has not been fulfilled and, moreover, communism has been the system that has succumbed to his own failures, and capitalism has come to prevail. The facts show that the Marxist philosophy was wrong. Popper concludes his critique by saying, probably rightly, that there is no scientific way to predict events future, but, only, it is possible to reveal general trends.

A critic is calmer L. Stevenson, who points to the inadequate approach to Marxist theory and its application to more complex society. Stresses also that many of the problems that communism had not said any remedy to solve, and in some cases worsened further. However, given that Marxism was able to improve the working conditions of the proletariat: increasing the amount of free time, raising wages, allowing these workers to participate in the future and operation of the enterprise, greater equality among employees, more will continue small businesses, etc. All these proposals in principle marked for communism, have been adopted and enhanced by modern capitalism, generating a substantial improvement in employment conditions and welfare, while increasing performance and production companies.

Therefore, it was both a conceptual and application error which cut short the life of Marxist philosophy, which condemned communism the ostracism and darkness. He died because he did not see that their own assumptions could be poisoned and polluted by greed and the clouding of the great prophets and preachers, prophets, in the name of communism, were blind to the power. Fortunately, his death was not final, as everything in the universe, has risen from the ashes to stop enriching, ennobling and to some extent, the enemy system, capitalism, despite its countless chaos, corruption and vileness, has grown and matured become the model for economic and social growth truly remarkable.

However, there is much to polish under neoliberalism, much to correct and almost everything to innovate. Waiting environment, waiting for the man himself, awaits the same idiosyncratic work, all hoping for a violation of, or reform. Wait a revolution in the concept of work, to perceive and understand it not as an obligation, but a desire daily. Something that breathes life, emotion and joy, not mere economic resources or quality of material life.

The road that lies ahead to achieve this is almost infinite. So let's start walking.

( fundamental Bibliography:

- History of Philosophy , JR Ayllón, M. Izquierdo, C. Diaz, Ariel, 2005
- Dictionary of Philosophy, Ferrater Mora, Ariel, 1994
- Dictionary Herder Philosophy, Cd-Rom, 1997)

Raylene Richards Zodiac

The 'Idol' by Francis Bacon



Among many other intellectual facets, Francis Bacon is remembered primarily as a promoter of the inductive method, proceed away from the traditional Aristotelian and redirect the knowledge of his time to the scientific nature of reality. His most important is "Novum Organum " and contains a logic that understands the rules of the new method, one that interprets nature (constructive logic), and a critical section (destructive logic) whose pages contains the theory of the "Idols" (idola ), which is discussed here today.

Idols are as prejudices or errors that people make when interpreting nature and that it is free if you want to achieve broader understanding of it, concise and accurate. These "false notions" generate a wrong perspective of what exists, hampering the understanding of natural laws and burdening our ultimate vision of reality. Idols block or alter the understanding of what happens around us, but fortunately no possibility of getting rid of them. This requires knowing where to appear, in what contexts and situations of our daily lives. Once done, you will need to supplant the concepts and axioms own Baconian inductive method, but in any case, although not reaching the latter point, what is in essence is to empty our mind of all feature of knowledge, bias or errors a priori.

Bacon argues that there are four different kinds of idols

- Idols of the tribe, which are connected to the same human nature and our understanding of the world. Are due to our intellect imagines a series of parallels, connections, similarities and correspondences not actually exist (or only in the minds of people ...). Intellect is responsible for relating facts and concepts, then a concatenation legitimate warning from them, for the sole reason that he is, to him, reasonable or compelling. For example, the belief that all planetary motion should be circular and perfect is an idol of the tribe because it is believed, only by the mere fact that we preferred this particular geometry, not by the evidence, substituting "superstitions the supreme truths of nature, the light of experience, pride and vainglory "in the words of Bacon.

- The Idols of the Cave are those of the individual man. Each of us lives in his own cave, a cave where light is refracted nature and altered. Our notion of reality is altered and shaped " either own unique nature of each, or education and dealings with others, or by reading books and the authority of those who grow and admire each . "Almost every man builds his own idols particular cave, so that its diversity is immense

- The Idols of Forum (or Trade, Market or ) " arising from the agreement and the association of the human race each other ." Men, designate often mistakenly particular meanings to certain terms or expressions of language. There are words that have meaning and yet not denote any reality, while others some real things are defined or used improperly confused. Such idols are those that Bacon regarded as more dangerous, cause verbal dispute and that "insinuate to the intellect through the agreement of words, but it also happens that the words are twisted and reflect their strength of intellect, which becomes sophistical philosophy and science. "

- Finally, the Idols of the Theater are those penetraton in the intellect of man from " of the various dogmas of philosophies and also from the evil laws demonstrations." All previous philosophy is, for Bacon, " composed and performed a fable in which were forged fictitious and theatrical worlds ". Also, something similar can be said, according to Bacon," many principles and axioms of sciences, which were imposed by tradition, credulity and negligence . "Bacon said that the only authority they have such schools, theories or scientific or philosophical axioms is that they are building a large product verbal talent, but its content is hardly enlightening to discover the natural laws. Bacon classified into three groups to Idols of the Theatre: sophistical (based on false arguments, such as Aristotle), empirical (based on erroneous generalizations, such as the alquismistas) and superstitious (which are based on the reverence and respect for mere authority, as Platonism and Pythagoreanism).

[These four types of idols Max Scheler added a fifth, the Idols of Internal Knowledge that produce those who argue that all perception of oneself (no external knowledge, like its predecessors) is correct and accurate with reality, reflecting the human being as it is in truth.]

Once we remove the idols, whatever they are, our mind will be able to acquire a genuine knowledge, knowledge based on the laws of nature and that without any a priori background, we can finally access and reach an understanding and develop a description of the world and its workings as it actually is.