Absolute top of a text book o Amazon|
Абсолютный успех учебника
Oppikirjan ehdoton huippu
Absolute top of a text book
A new fantastic formulation of ebook, never seen before. I immediately get the desire to formulate my own main text book Suomi markalla mitaten in this way. With rich coloured illustrations it is most suitable for this kind of formulation. A third step after paper text book and ordinary e-textbook. A definite step forward. A completely new form of study guide reached by ingenious and complete internal linking of the text. The result is extremely rich contents by concise text. A combination of text book, encyclopedy, tag collection for exam reading, what else? Excellent litterary wording without one and only futile word.
I got at first glance the incentive to formulate my main textbook in this way alhough abandoned already 20 years ago, but containing all necessary elements to be combined with my pioneering lectures completely computerized just before introduction of Power Point. Fingers itching to apply this formsulation to two other texts, the translation of which from Russian to English and Finnish is my hobby and task at the moment.
Абсолютный успех учебника
Новая фантастическая формулировка электронной книги, невиданная ранее. У меня сразу возникает желание так сформулировать свой основной учебник Suomi markalla mitaten. С богатыми цветными иллюстрациями он больше всего подходит для такого рода формулировок. Третий шаг после бумажного учебника и обычного электронного учебника. Определенный шаг вперед. Совершенно новая форма учебного пособия достигается за счет оригинальной и полной внутренней перелинковки текста. Результат - чрезвычайно богатое содержание с помощью краткого текста. Комбинация учебника, энциклопедии, набора тегов для чтения на экзамене, что еще? Отличная литературная формулировка без единственного бесполезного слова.
На первый взгляд, у меня появился стимул сформулировать свой основной учебник таким образом, хотя он был заброшен уже 20 лет назад, но содержал все необходимые элементы, которые можно было объединить с моими новаторскими лекциями, полностью компьютеризированными незадолго до внедрения Power Point. Пальцы чешутся применить эту формулировку к двум другим текстам, перевод которых с русского на английский и финский - мое хобби и задача на данный момент.
Oppikirjan ehdoton huippu
Uusi fantastinen e-kirja, jollaista ei ole koskaan ennen nähty. Saan heti halun muotoilla oman pääoppikirjani Suomi markalla mitaten tällä tavalla. Runsain värikuvin se soveltuu erinomaisesti tällaiseen muotoiluun. Kolmas askel paperisen oppikirjan ja tavallisen e-oppikirjan jälkeen. Selkeä askel eteenpäin. Täysin uusi opinto-opas, joka saavutetaan tekstin nerokkaalla ja täydellisellä sisäisellä linkittämisellä. Tuloksena on erittäin runsas sisältö ytimekkäästi ilmaistuna. Yhdistelmä oppikirjasta, tietosanakirjasta, muistiinpanoprujuista tenttiin lukemista varten, mitä muuta? Erinomainen kirjallinen muotoilu ilman yhtä ainoaa turhaa sanaa.
Sain ensi silmäyksellä kannustimen muotoilla pääoppikirjani tällä tavalla, vaikka se jäi pois käytöstä jo 20 vuotta sitten, mutta joka sisältää kaikki tarvittavat elementit yhdistettäväksi edelläkävijäluentoihini täysin tietokoneistettuna juuri ennen Power Pointin käyttöönottoa. Sormet kutisevat soveltaa tätä muotoilua kahteen muuhun tekstiin, joiden kääntäminen venäjästä englanniksi ja suomeksi on tällä hetkellä harrastukseni ja tehtäväni.
Yksi parhaista kirjoista, joita olen koskaan lukenut, ansaitsee tietysti kaikki viisi tähteä, ylimääräisellä plussalla lisättynä.
Huomautukset Remarks Замечания
Perry Kevin: PhilosophyI would also like to formulate this way two of my Russian friends' books: I would also like to formulate this way two of my Russian friends' books:
Both in Russian, English, Finnish. I really wish to devote the inevitably short rest of my life to his work. Could not imagine more valuable passtime!
20201027-KindleImprovement for Perry Philosophy: Author name instead of "Key works" at the beginning of the list of Key works Pagetop
|Parametre lines at the beginning of the reader notes|
|2. 1,325,325,fil,eng,20201018,20201232,5,Perry Kevin: Philosophy||???|
|3. Amazon Link to source of purchased ebook...||???|
|4. eng Link to Ajk review at source of purchased ebook...||???|
|13||0002||CHAPTER 1 LIFE|
|23||000202||Diogenes the Cynic|
|35||000206||John Stuart Mill|
|45||0003||CHAPTER 2 MAN/SELF Thomas Hobbes Nick Bostrom René Descartes Jean-Paul Sartre Simone de Beauvoir Michel Foucault Charles Taylor N. Katherine Hayles|
|73||0004||CHAPTER 3 KNOWLEDGE|
|73||0005||David Hume Edmund Husserl Edmund Gettier Alvin Goldman Elizabeth S. Anderson Richard Rorty Michael Polanyi Alvin Plantinga|
|96||0006||CHAPTER 4 LANGUAGE Gottlob Frege Bertrand Russell Ludwig Wittgenstein Martin Heidegger|
|96||0007||CHAPTER 5 ART Edmund Burke Estella Lauter Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Friedrich Schiller Monroe Beardsley Iris Murdoch Arthur Danto Jacques Rancière|
|140||0008||CHAPTER 6 TIME Plotinus Augustine of Hippo J.M.E. McTaggart Parmenides of Elea Albert Einstein Henri Bergson J.J.C. Smart Ted Sider|
|164||0009||CHAPTER 7 FREE WILL|
|164||0010||Epicurus John Locke Thomas Reid Roderick Chisholm Peter F. Strawson David Wiggins Thomas Nagel Peter van Inwagen|
|190||0011||CHAPTER 8 LOVE Marsilio Ficino Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Arthur Schopenhauer Annette Baier|
|190||0012||Robert Solomon Harry Frankfurt Martha Nussbaum Alain de Botton|
|216||0013||CHAPTER 9 GOD Anselm of Canterbury Boethius Thomas Aquinas Baruch Spinoza Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz Charles Hartshorne Alan Watts Richard Dawkins|
|243||0014||CHAPTER 10 DEATH Heraclitus Lucretius Michel de Montaigne|
|243||0015||Albert Camus Bernard Williams Derek Parfit Shelly Kagan Steven Luper|
Plato believed that the world we perceive through our senses is deceptive, whereas the ideas that survive the scrutiny of rational thought are not.
What gives life meaning is “practical wisdom” (phronesis), which amounts to the ability to do the right thing at the right time in the right way and for the right reasons.
Happiness… is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action.
In Focus: Plato vs. Aristotle In Rafael’s famous painting, The School of Athens, we see Plato pointing up to the heavenly Forms while Aristotle points down to the concrete, social world. This visually captures a major difference between both thinkers.
For example, we cannot comprehend things without thinking of them in reference to space and time. We also cannot make sense of the interaction of things without thinking in terms of causal forces.
We do not bring any knowledge into the world with us. We only know what we experience.
it is our rationality and free will that make us human, and this means we’re responsible for our actions.
Whatever the case, Hobbes was an empiricist—he believed all knowledge ultimately comes from our sense experience. Since God cannot be experienced through the senses, he reasoned, He is a matter of faith and not rational knowledge.
After all, when the brain deteriorates, the mind does too.
Descartes did not assume, but instead argued from logical necessity, “I think, therefore I am” (Latin— cogito ergo sum).
THE ETHICS OF AMBIGUITY= It is in the knowledge of the genuine conditions of our life that we must draw our strength to live and our reason for acting.
According to Hayles, we’ve moved away from a humanist phase and on to a posthuman era, culminating in the current transhuman stage.
My dream is a version of the posthuman that embraces the possibilities of information technologies without being seduced by fantasies of unlimited power and disembodied immortality. HOW WE BECAME POSTHUMAN
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” —DANIEL J. BOORSTIN
But if that’s true, then we’d better know what we mean by “facts,” “truth,” and “knowledge.” Philosophers worry about the nature of knowledge: what we know, how we know it, and what we do with it. Any convincing theory about the purpose of life, the nature of reality, or the essence of humanity assumes that, to some degree, we know what we’re talking about.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” —DANIEL J. BOORSTIN
Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume stumbled upon one of the biggest puzzles in epistemology: the Problem of Induction. Contemporary philosophers still grapple with this problem. In order to understand it, we must distinguish between deduction and induction.
Where men are the most sure and arrogant, they are commonly the most mistaken. AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS
Contemporary philosophers have had some success using the laws of probability and statistics to show that, while we can’t be absolutely certain about anything, we can be almost certain about some things.
Edmund Husserl developed a new philosophical theory known as phenomenology, which, among other things, aimed to solve a classic problem in epistemology:
Natural objects must be experienced… before any theorizing about them can occur.
my thoughts seem to be pointing to something “out there.” Still, how do I know that there’s anything other than my thought? The view that we can’t really prove the existence of anything but our own thoughts is called solipsism (Latin: solus–“alone” + ipse–“self ”).
we must be careful to distinguish between “gender” and “sex.” Genders are constructed, and they usually come with a whole bunch of assumptions and values that play into how we interpret them.
Rorty was a pragmatist. Pragmatism is an American tradition that began with C.S. Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1910), and John Dewey (1859–1952). For pragmatists, truth is less about comparing our thoughts to reality, and more about seeing how they usefully fit into the set of beliefs and social practices that we already have. Pragmatists claim, “truth is what works.”
WARRANTED CHRISTIAN BELIEF=“ In religious belief, as elsewhere, we must take our chances, recognizing that we could be wrong, dreadfully wrong.
Many mathematicians seem to have so little feeling for logical purity…that they will use a word to mean three or four different things… THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF ARITHMETIC
Wittgenstein famously said: “The limits of my language are the limits of my world.” During his early days as a pupil of Bertrand Russell (see Russell here), he also believed that statements map onto facts rather than things in the world.
Wittgenstein radically changed his views on language in his later works, particularly in The Philosophical Investigations, which was published after he died. While he kept the view that philosophy is a history of confused language use, he now argued that the meanings of words exist in the way we use them.
The real question of life after death isn’t whether or not it exists but, even if it does, what problem this really solves.
Dictionaries are about the history of word usage which, according to Wittgenstein, is intertwined with human practices. He called these practices language games. They aren’t conscious or well-defined games, but rather ways in which people relate to each other and their surroundings. When thinking about meaning, such games are much more relevant than facts or logical structures.
Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man. INTRODUCTION TO METAPHYSICS (Heidegger)
The dictionary says, “unmarried male.” Does this provide us with anything more than a synonym for “bachelor”? Isn’t that what a definition is, a list of synonyms? When we say, “All unmarried males are bachelors,” we are stating an analytic truth, that is, a truth by definition. Analytic truths are different from synthetic truths, which result from discoverable facts about the world.
We know that song, dance, imagery and writing say more about the human condition than any biological description ever could. Humans have an urge to create, and exert much of their creativity in the production of beautiful objects.
The true locus of creativity is not the genetic process prior to the work but the work itself as it lives in the experience of the beholder. “ON THE CREATION OF ART” (ARTICLE, 1965)
“There is no present or future, only the past, happening over and over again, now.” —EUGENE O’NEILL, A MOON FOR THE MISBEGOTTEN In time, you’ll reach the end of this sentence. In time, you’ll get to the end of this book. But is time simply a movement from beginning to end, or are beginnings and endings a result of time? Some philosophers believe that time essentially involves change,
time you experience will not be the same as the time experienced by somebody moving far enough and fast enough away from you. In other words, there is no absolute time. Physics since Einstein holds that time is a fourth dimension
Nearly every cell in your body has replaced the cells you had when you were an infant; how is it true that you’re the same person as that infant? The area of philosophy devoted to these questions is called metaphysics—the study of the ultimate structure and constituents of reality, and of the sorts of principles we must assume to be true before we can even start doing empirical science.
Plotinus is primarily known for The Enneads, an appropriation of Plato’s work in which the Theory of Forms (see here) develops into an account of a complex “Chain of Being.”
Augustine offers the following solution: the future exists in our anticipation of what is to come, and the past exists as a memory retained in our soul. This means that all is in the present: the present of past events, the present of anticipated events, and the present of present events.
And men go abroad to admire the heights of mountains…yet pass over the mystery of themselves without a thought. CONFESSIONS
To set up his argument, he distinguished between two different ways of conceiving time. On the one hand, we can conceive of it as what he called the “A-series”: a series of moments ordered according to whether they are past, present or future relative to the perspective of the person referring to them. This series is in constant transformation, in the sense that every moment is first future, then present, then past.
On the other hand, time may be conceived as what McTaggart calls the “B-series”: in a B-series, moments are ordered in relation to one other. Each moment is temporally defined as being before or being after some other moment, and these “tags” are fixed. McTaggart argued that time essentially involves change and, since the B-series view does not make sense of change, it must be discarded.
Perhaps time is identical to change, or perhaps change takes place in time—in any case, they both seem to be inextricably connected. Scholars have interpreted fragments of Parmenides’s philosophical poem “On Nature” to support the view that change is illusory.
Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity. According to the theory, time is a dimension of space—so much so, in fact, that we should no longer talk about them separately, but rather in terms of “spacetime.”
Assume your hand is perfectly stable, so that the vertical distance between it and the floor is always exactly one meter. From your perspective, then, the ball travels a distance of one meter with every bounce. Now imagine there’s someone standing outside the train, parallel to the train. What does he observe as you pass him by? It turns out that, for him, your ball travels more than just one meter in one bounce. This is because, from his perspective, the train and the ball within it are also traveling a certain horizontal distance, and it must be taken into account.
Now imagine that each bounce of the ball counts as the “tick” of a clock. It follows that, for the observer outside the train, the space between the “ticks” of the clock is greater than it is for you—i.e., time is running more slowly. Einstein determined that both his and your appraisals of the passage of time in this case would be correct: an object’s movement in space relative to different frames of reference affects the value of time.
It was actually Einstein’s former teacher, Hermann Minkowski (1864–1909), who coined the term “spacetime” while working through the implications of his pupil’s discoveries. For Minkowski, the best way to conceptualize Einstein’s universe is as a four-dimensional network of space and time.
More specifically, we should think of time in terms of duration (durée), that is, a succession without distinction—a continuum imposed by our consciousness.
The present contains nothing more than the past, and what is found in the effect was already in the cause. CREATIVE EVOLUTION
Thus, we experience time as a kind of continuous “now,” pregnant with memory and expectation.
Events do not come into existence; they occur or happen. “THE RIVER OF TIME”
The early Stoic (Aurelius here) philosopher Epicurus adopted atomism. He prefigured scientific thinking by claiming that we should only base our beliefs on observation and logic. He was also a hedonist, which means that he identified the good with the pleasurable. Interestingly, though, he viewed pleasure as tranquility (Greek—ataraxia), which is ultimately the absence of pain. He argued that we should strive for tranquility, which rules out living an overly indulgent life dedicated to merely temporary physical pleasures. The short-term intensity of certain pleasures, he argued, should not be traded for long-term tranquility.
There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words. ESSAYS ON THE INTELLECTUAL POWERS OF MAN
The sense that we are authors of our own actions is not just a feeling but a belief, and we can’t come to regard it as a pure appearance without giving it up. “THE PROBLEM OF AUTONOMY” (IN AGENTS, CAUSES, EVENTS, ED. T. O’CONNOR)
“‘I love you’ is not just a phrase or an expression. It is not a description of how one feels. It is the opening to an unknown future, an invitation to a new way of life.” —ROBERT SOLOMON, ABOUT LOVE
Love is not just an emotion people feel toward other people… it is a special form of emotional interdependence. “UNSAFE LOVES”
The meaning of life is to be found in passion—romantic passion, religious passion, passion for work and for play, passionate commitments in the face of what reason knows to be meaningless. SPIRITUALITY FOR THE SKEPTIC: THE THOUGHTFUL LOVE OF LIFE
God and Other Minds, and Graham Oppy 2015, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): Assume that God exists in the understanding, but not in reality (kind of like Superman or Santa Claus). Anything that exists in reality is surely greater than something that only exists in the understanding. We can conceive of a being having all the perfections of God, including existence in reality. By (1) and (2), we can conclude that a being having all of God’s perfections plus real existence must be greater than God. But from (3) and (4), this means that a being greater than God can be conceived. But the very definition of God—namely, as the being of whom no greater can be conceived—rules out (5). From (5) and (6), our initial assumption, (1) had led to a contradiction. Any statement that leads to a contradiction is false. From (7) and (8), (1) is false. In other words, “God exists in the understanding but not in reality” is false. In order for (1) to be false, one (or both) of the statements contained in (1) must be false. In other words, either “God exists in the understanding” or “God doesn’t exist in reality,” or both, must be false. It is a fact that we can conceive of God—when I tell you about a being of whom no greater can be conceived, you understand
Aquinas contributed to many areas of philosophy, including ethics, epistemology (see Chapter 3), and political theory. He is famous for his five proofs of the existence of God, which he presented in his Summa Theologica (see key works below). One of these is known as the argument from design or teleological argument (from the Greek telos, meaning “end” or “purpose”). Arguments from design present some of the most intuitively compelling reasons to believe in a Creator, and are still amply employed today.
Leibniz had been similarly optimistic: If God is all-knowing (omniscient), all-powerful (omnipotent), all-loving (omnibenevolent), and all-present (omnipresent), then this world—his creation—must be the best out of all possible ones.
Trivia= Did you know that Leibniz’s theory is lampooned in Voltaire’s Candide (1759)? The story tracks the terrible misfortunes that befall a naïve young man who still thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.
Voltaire makes fun of what he interpreted as naiveté in Leibniz’s metaphysics. More importantly, in Candide, he highlights the problem of evil: if there is evil in this world, how can it be better than a possible world in which there is none?
According to Hartshorne, we have three possibilities here: (1) We find a way to make sense of the interaction between mind and body; (2) We reduce the mind to purely physical terms; (3) We reduce physical, bodily things to a basic psychic or mental principle that imbues them all. Hartshorne gave reasons in favor of (3), which is known as panpsychism—a form of pantheism. According to this view, all things are ultimately made up of a mental principle.
But why do we tend to think of death as unpleasant in the first place? It probably will be unpleasant (indeed, terribly painful) for the family and friends we leave behind… but will ceasing to exist be a problem for us? A lot of what we’ll cover in this chapter tries to answer that very question.
What’s so different about pre-natal non-existence and post-death non-existence? Contemporary philosopher Shelly Kagan (here) argues that when we’re alive, we actually have something to lose—namely, our life. But in pre-natal non-existence, we only have something to gain. The possibility that we can come into existence is enough to make that state special.
Oxford moral philosopher Bernard Williams:
Luper provides us with three views about death construed as an ending. The denouement view holds that death is the completion of a process of dying. The threshold view holds that someone is dead when their body gets to a point in which it can no longer support its vital functions. This is kind of like the threshold we reach when putting out a fire: as some embers still burn, the process reaches an irreversible threshold of completion. Finally, the integration view holds that death occurs when the systems that support life irreversibly cease to function as an integrated whole, even if they still operate individually.
While we may view death in several ways, technology and imagination pose problems when it comes to determining whether or not it is a permanent ending. We can suspend the functions of an organism, for instance, and then revive them. It seems strange to say that the organism was dead for a while and now it’s not. And what if we completely disassembled somebody, down to the very atoms that make them up? This would seem to entail annihilation: no life, no person, and no corpse. But a possible sci-fi scenario allows us to imagine reassembling such a person, atom by atom. In this case, we would be restoring life. Contrary to the suspension scenario, it does not seem strange here to say that we are dead when annihilated, and then alive when restored. So it’s conceivable that death doesn’t have to be permanent.
The first effect of cis that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders. cIS A HUMANISM
Cyberpunk and Transhumanism Cyberpunk is a science-fiction genre focusing on futuristic virtual environments that blur the distinction between reality and simulation.
THEORIES OF TRUTH
FORMALIST THEORY OF ART
EXPRESSIVIST THEORY OF ART
MIMETIC THEORY OF ART
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
MAN’S VISION OF GOD AND THE LOGIC OF THEISM-“ All things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of ‘souls’… or units of experiencing…
Symmetry Argument. What seems most intuitive about the argument is this: you’re not upset about the fact that, at some point in the past, you didn’t exist. What matters is that you exist now, right? Let’s say you’re a bit greedy, and you sometimes wish you’d been around a lot earlier. That’s fine. But the fact is, you don’t believe that past non-existence harms you, and you certainly don’t dread and fear past non-existence. And yet, for some reason, you worry about future non-existence. Why? How are non-existence in the past and non-existence in the future any different?