Recent Posts
A great historical fact we're seeing these days, where Hegel's dialectic is being applyed to the American system. As The Economist tries to explain why they agree with state's intervention as an "expetion" to save free economy (it means, save men from themselves) we see the state as some not human, as some kind of external entity that we don't understand.
I don't know where they got their notion of state, but it seems to be the same interpretation that americans have. The state is somthing that imposes you taxes and block development.
To remind some basics on the matter: the state is the reflection of the people, it is elected, paied and thus controled by the people. That's why we all should vote, i remember you all that never care for elections.
So this times are great, and thesis-antithesis-sinthesys is being applied to all the people that thought "freedom" meant doing no matter what. Freedom is important, but you have to remember that your freedom have to pass the same "universality" test (in Kant's way of thinking ethics) as anything else. And the state (thus the society, the people) is here to garantee that you're not abusing of your freedom.
As most market people do, i'll try some futurology on the matter. Anyway, if i'm wrong all i need to do is write another post contradicting myself.. I'd say that in some 10 years we'll have a more educated American society, that will have discovered what the state is and that will have a health care system as good as french.
As we walk towards the "inevitability" of Marx's system..
cheers, have a nice weekend.
Shared on
6 months ago the US/EU were defending Kosovos independence, while russians were claiming it was against i dont know which international law. Now its the exact oposite for Ossetia.
Do you still think their real reasons are based on "international rights"?
They must think were all stupid. For my side i think theyre clowns.
cheers
Shared on
Well, i didn't have much time to read philosophy these last months, so i had no new subject to talk about in the blog... since i don't like posting bullshit just to fill up some pages, there were no new posts these last months. Well, after some days off at work, i have time to think about some new ideas.
These post comes from the 4th "cartesian meditation" from the book from Husserl, "Meditations cartesiennes".
Somewhere on it Husserls comes to a delicate subject, causality. The average person will ask what's the problem about it, lets present the thing in 3 lines.
There are 2 main ways of seeing how causality affect us. The "determinists", who think the world can be defined by "cause-and-effect" rules, think that we can, by the mean of cience, describe and predict the world, and all it's "states". The main problem in that approach is that,
if we take causality to it's extreme, all our life would be already defined before we were even born, so we have no real "freedom" to define our lives. Thus, the other main way of seeing the world thinks that the world is a chaos, and we have freedom to define our will (this can be considered the Nietzschean way, even though it is way older than him..).
To avoid discusing if the world can be completely defined by rules, Husserl avoids the term, prefering the use of what he calls motivation. Thus, he leaves the question partially unanswered, and goes to his considerations about how phenomenology can analyse the world.
Well, following the ideas we presented in older posts, we can give a better answer to the question, although you might disagree in the end of it..
This blog considers the world as an ensemble of "infinite dimensional" facts. By "infinite dimensional" i mean that, for each fact that happens, the quantity of information that defines it is infinte. In our "math" version, this would mean an infinite dimensional vector, but let's leave maths for another post.
In the same way the world is "inifinite dimensional", we can see that causality, if it exists, has to be infinite dimensional. I mean, the causes that it rained all day are an infinite ensemble of things, from the factories in US and China to the sequence of climate changes from 2000 years ago till today.
This leads to the conclusion that the question about "causality" has no sense. Why?Because, if it exists, the real causality is infinite dimensional, thus impossible to be completely modeled. And if it does not, we wouldn't be able to have complete models anyway.
Please don't think that i undervalue the models we have today. History show us that in every domain our models evolve everyday, and without evolution we would still be living in caves. But we will never be able to say that a model is completely representative of the truth. There will allways be a black shawn to proove that our model is no good.
So the conclusion about causality is that "if i exists, it won't change a thing" (to use Sartre's phrase about God..)
cheers.
Shared on
Shared on
(inspired by the book of Jose Saramago)
And so the death went on a strike, so to use the normal words we employ today. But still, we keep on getting older. So, even if you don't die anymore, your body still gets weaker and weaker as time is still working
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
Following the last post a friend of mine asked for a little explanation on the Heidegger's concept of Dasein, which is mostly the same as Husserl's "transcendental ego".
Normally people tend to think it's a tuff thing to explain, but i bet this example will help us out. Remember Newton and the story of the apple falling in his head? I bet you can't understand now why am i coming with this one, but think again
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
There is a philosophical problem that have never been completely solved since Descartes, which many good men couldn't get to no final answer neither.
Its the impossibility for us to proove that the world around us really exists. To be clear and go straigh to the matter (i'm not here to tell stories), the last idea that came around to solve the matter was Husserl's "transcendental ego" and Heidegger's "Dasein", which are almost the same. They avoided studying men alone, instead they studied the men inmerged in "real", so that this problem no longer exists
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
Well, some comments on the subject.
I consider cultural resistance all those events or cultural work made to avoid that some kind of rite that was common in a certain community become history
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
Hi all, this one is quick.
This Manifesto was created 2006, by left wing people from UK mainly. It defends democratic and egalitarian aspects in politics, and i think it has quite a few good things written on it. I signed it myself, and i invite you to take a look on it
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
Ok, you'll think i just read Brave new World. No, it's no true.
Well, a post about one of the most important structures we in have in our societies. Family is a group of people often linked by genetic (somtimes not) that are supposed to help each other when in need. When you're a kid, your parents pay your school and take you to the doctor. When they get old, it's you that take them for a walk and of course, to the doctor
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
|
|
|
Add Comments
Read More
Comments (1)
Comment by Uula Limanski
on Transcending...
Thinking The World
Uula