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.