Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Creatine Alkaline Bigger Muscle
Origin of Philosophy today?
Origin of Philosophy today?
of George Minucci
The philosophy is called for his research on the whole rather than on the parties, in any industry or size it takes place: the metaphysical dimension, ontological, ethical, political, social, aesthetic, logical, epistemological. In any field, philosophy questions on key issues. What is essentially metaphysical? Essentially ontological? Essentially ethical? It is clear that the answers are dependent on different philosophies. Why philosophies differ? Reflecting on these differences mean to ask whether or not there is a condition for epistemological philosophy, which in some way to explain and legitimate the difference between the philosophies. This question, however, requires a solution in my opinion difficult, extremely difficult.
then begin to ask why there are different philosophies. Beyond any response we give, the problem is that the response itself can be the result of a philosophy, then it may be different depending on the different philosophies. For example, a Marxist, according to his philosophy, would not hesitate to assert that the philosophies are different in different contexts and historical materials, a Weber, however, drawn from a more philosophical basis (every human action as such has sense) would not hesitate to say that the philosophies differ different ethical and cultural contexts. As you can see the answer key guiding philosophies based on philosophical presuppositions, which in turn, by the way, a philosophical dignity in the sense that philosophical assumptions are made, the acceptance or criticism which is mediated by another, respectively, or philosophy. The speech we are doing is to show that in reality there is a philosophy of philosophy, a philosophy that determines the outcome of the philosophy in one direction rather than another. The philosophy of living itself. Of his reflections, his research, his freedom, his absence of extrinsic conditions, the data objects. It is epistemologically autonomous. The only prohibition is the dogma. Who wants to philosophize on the basis of assumptions that are not the result of a free critical reflection, actually makes a claim ideological, not criticism. But what is critical, foundation, ideology, what do these terms mean in itself, absolutely, this can not be fixed once and for all. The meanings of these terms, once again, dependent on different philosophies. All this does not certify a vicious circle, but the undeniable fact that criticism, freedom, the foundation and so on, beyond the contents of which are filled with different theoretical, are modalities, attitudes peculiar to the philosophy that forward with his performance style.
In this sense, the philosophy was born in Greece, because in this land for the first time, for all we know, the human eye is critical questions about the essence of things. Never mind that this is the essence of water rather than fire or air ol'infinito. Matter that the answer has been sought through a survey razionale.La critical rationality in philosophy is needed, however, is not that of scientific explanation, it is rather the consistency of critical discourse on which the conclusions resulting from the premises, which are those for that the way in which they are employed are the most obvious. Even here we touch on a difficult topic yet very interesting. The philosophy starts from the evidence of what is shown. Through critical reflection that matter in one way or another it comes to evidence. It may be presented after a long search by an empirical fact, from an intuition that arises from the soul, or is found through philological or semantic analysis of a term, a tradition, a religion. The philosophy, anyway, critical issues, starting from the evidence of what is by a free examination. But in turn the free critical analysis, reflective, evidence requires radical inescapable: the wonder of being, the feeling that being is not nothing for granted. Here we touch the soul of philosophy, which is perhaps the only necessary but not sufficient condition of its possibility: the feeling that nothing is worthy of being the object of wonder and question. The look is boyish and philosophical at the same time very demanding. Ask what the essence of things, with disarming simplicity compared to the ordinary. In this sense, radical philosophers and critics, thanks to the wonder of Being. In this way we shift the focus to another topic: it is very difficult to be philosophers in the present circumstances of our social system. Indeed, the bureaucratization of social existence, through organizational charts and job descriptions more or less formal measures to ensure the gear and the order for vocational roles, so conforming to personal identity, that this can no longer take the viewpoint of Wonder, and immediately preclude using procedures that disqualify as non-administrator, so you literally removed. It is difficult today to find a philosopher in public occasions recite his thought without bureaucratic procedures. Philosophy, since it assumes its own condition as critical reflection and interpretation in amazement, as never before and is under duty to take his own condition as even the critics of modernity irreducible, looms for a style radically humanistic. Historically speaking, this condition is the most important, not only because philosophy is a critical towards modernity, but also because any compromise with modernity removes the source from which it springs: the Me
of George Minucci
The philosophy is called for his research on the whole rather than on the parties, in any industry or size it takes place: the metaphysical dimension, ontological, ethical, political, social, aesthetic, logical, epistemological. In any field, philosophy questions on key issues. What is essentially metaphysical? Essentially ontological? Essentially ethical? It is clear that the answers are dependent on different philosophies. Why philosophies differ? Reflecting on these differences mean to ask whether or not there is a condition for epistemological philosophy, which in some way to explain and legitimate the difference between the philosophies. This question, however, requires a solution in my opinion difficult, extremely difficult.
then begin to ask why there are different philosophies. Beyond any response we give, the problem is that the response itself can be the result of a philosophy, then it may be different depending on the different philosophies. For example, a Marxist, according to his philosophy, would not hesitate to assert that the philosophies are different in different contexts and historical materials, a Weber, however, drawn from a more philosophical basis (every human action as such has sense) would not hesitate to say that the philosophies differ different ethical and cultural contexts. As you can see the answer key guiding philosophies based on philosophical presuppositions, which in turn, by the way, a philosophical dignity in the sense that philosophical assumptions are made, the acceptance or criticism which is mediated by another, respectively, or philosophy. The speech we are doing is to show that in reality there is a philosophy of philosophy, a philosophy that determines the outcome of the philosophy in one direction rather than another. The philosophy of living itself. Of his reflections, his research, his freedom, his absence of extrinsic conditions, the data objects. It is epistemologically autonomous. The only prohibition is the dogma. Who wants to philosophize on the basis of assumptions that are not the result of a free critical reflection, actually makes a claim ideological, not criticism. But what is critical, foundation, ideology, what do these terms mean in itself, absolutely, this can not be fixed once and for all. The meanings of these terms, once again, dependent on different philosophies. All this does not certify a vicious circle, but the undeniable fact that criticism, freedom, the foundation and so on, beyond the contents of which are filled with different theoretical, are modalities, attitudes peculiar to the philosophy that forward with his performance style.
In this sense, the philosophy was born in Greece, because in this land for the first time, for all we know, the human eye is critical questions about the essence of things. Never mind that this is the essence of water rather than fire or air ol'infinito. Matter that the answer has been sought through a survey razionale.La critical rationality in philosophy is needed, however, is not that of scientific explanation, it is rather the consistency of critical discourse on which the conclusions resulting from the premises, which are those for that the way in which they are employed are the most obvious. Even here we touch on a difficult topic yet very interesting. The philosophy starts from the evidence of what is shown. Through critical reflection that matter in one way or another it comes to evidence. It may be presented after a long search by an empirical fact, from an intuition that arises from the soul, or is found through philological or semantic analysis of a term, a tradition, a religion. The philosophy, anyway, critical issues, starting from the evidence of what is by a free examination. But in turn the free critical analysis, reflective, evidence requires radical inescapable: the wonder of being, the feeling that being is not nothing for granted. Here we touch the soul of philosophy, which is perhaps the only necessary but not sufficient condition of its possibility: the feeling that nothing is worthy of being the object of wonder and question. The look is boyish and philosophical at the same time very demanding. Ask what the essence of things, with disarming simplicity compared to the ordinary. In this sense, radical philosophers and critics, thanks to the wonder of Being. In this way we shift the focus to another topic: it is very difficult to be philosophers in the present circumstances of our social system. Indeed, the bureaucratization of social existence, through organizational charts and job descriptions more or less formal measures to ensure the gear and the order for vocational roles, so conforming to personal identity, that this can no longer take the viewpoint of Wonder, and immediately preclude using procedures that disqualify as non-administrator, so you literally removed. It is difficult today to find a philosopher in public occasions recite his thought without bureaucratic procedures. Philosophy, since it assumes its own condition as critical reflection and interpretation in amazement, as never before and is under duty to take his own condition as even the critics of modernity irreducible, looms for a style radically humanistic. Historically speaking, this condition is the most important, not only because philosophy is a critical towards modernity, but also because any compromise with modernity removes the source from which it springs: the Me
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)