Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

September 28 2017

Reposted fromfungi fungi viapanpancerny panpancerny

August 29 2017

2067 f4e2
Power of the proletariat
Reposted frompanpancerny panpancerny

July 28 2017

4467 0e53 500
Panie i Panowie, przed Państwem Arystoteles :v
Reposted frompanpancerny panpancerny

May 29 2017

2770 0245 500
Reposted fromquap quap viapanpancerny panpancerny

May 28 2017

8245 5ef6
Dlaczego mnie takie rzeczy śmieszą :v
Reposted frompanpancerny panpancerny

November 11 2014

Lilac chaser by Jeremy Hinton (2005).

1. If your eyes follow the movement of the rotating pink dot, you will only see one color, pink.

2. If you stare at the black + in the center, the moving dot turns to green.

3. Now, concentrate on the black + in the center of the picture. After a short period of time, many if not all of the pink dots will slowly disappear, and you may only see a green dot rotating.

What does this tell us about the nature of reality? There really is no green dot, and the pink ones really don’t disappear. If our perceptions are so easily fooled, what aspects of reality can we trust?
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes

June 30 2014

Play fullscreen
M. A. Numminen sings Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

Proposition 7
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes
Play fullscreen
M. A. Numminen sings Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

from Proposition 6
The general form of truth-function is: [p, ξ, N(ξ)].
The propositions of logic are tautologies.
Therefore the propositions of logic say nothing
In logic process and result are equivalent. (Hence the absence of surprise.)
Mathematics is a logical method.
All propositions are of equal value.
When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words.
The riddle does not exist.
If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it.
There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes
Play fullscreen
M. A. Numminen sings Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

from Proposition 4
A thought is a proposition with a sense.
The totality of propositions is language.
Man possesses the ability to construct languages capable of expressing every sense, without having any idea how each word has meaning or what its meaning is—just as people speak without knowing how the individual sounds are produced.
A proposition is a picture of reality.
A proposition is a model of reality as we imagine it.
A proposition shows its sense.
A proposition shows how things stand if it is true. And it says that they do so stand.
Philosophy is not one of the natural sciences.
It will signify what cannot be said, by presenting clearly what can be said.
Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be put into words can be put clearly.
What can be shown, cannot be said.
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes
Play fullscreen
M. A. Numminen sings Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

from Propositions 2 & 3
We picture facts to ourselves.
A picture is a model of reality.
A picture is a fact.
In order to tell whether a picture is true or false we must compare it with reality.
It is impossible to tell from the picture alone whether it is true or false.
There are no pictures that are true a priori.
A logical picture of facts is a thought.
If a thought were correct a priori, it would be a thought whose possibility ensured its truth.
A sign is what can be perceived of a symbol.
If a sign is useless, it is meaningless.
(If everything behaves as if a sign had meaning, then it does have meaning.)
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes

June 29 2014

Play fullscreen
Heidegger
by Pigor & Eichhorn

Was ist Sein? Was ist Sein? Was ist die Frage nach dem Sinn vom Sein
Was ist Sein? Was ist Sein? Was ist der Sinn vom Sein?

Das Fragen dieser Frage hat als Fragen nach natürlich sein Gefragtes Befragtes Erfragtes
Und als Fragen eines Seienden selbst den Charakter des Seins

Das Fragen dieser Frage ist ein Seinsmodus eines Seidenden das wir je selbst sind
Das heisst, das Sein dieses Seienden ist je meins

Und in seiner Jemeinigkeit, darum es diesem Sein in seinem Sein geht
Ou ou ou liegt ein Charakter des Daseins

Alles Sosein dieses Seienden ist primär Sein, daher drückt das Wort Dasein
Nicht sein Was aus wie Tisch oder Stein (nein nein)

Sondern sein Sein Sondern sein Sein

Da hat der hat der hat der Heidegger wiedama recht
Da hat der , da hat der Heidegger wiedama recht

Dasein ist Seiendes das sich in seinem Sein verstehend zu diesem Sein verhält (Ououou)
Und seine Wesensstruktur das  In der Welt sein wirft die Frage auf nach der  Weltlichkeit der Welt (Ououou)

Nach dem Umhaften der Umwelt nach der Inheit des Inseins
Nach der Weltlichkeit der Umwelt, der sogenannten Umweltlichkeit

Dem ganzen Zeug in seiner Zeugganzheit denn zum Sein von Zeug gehört je immer
Ein Zeugganzes darin es dieses Zeug sein kann das es ist oder führt das  zu weit?

Mamma lieber alle Heidegger Heidegger ou ou ou

Ich heideggere euch  in Grund und Boden
Heideggere euch den Schwarzwald rauf
Und wieder runter heideggere Euch die Hoden
Und maroden Schädel auf

Heideggere euch die Wand entlang
Heideggere euch - so klein
Heideggere euch zurück auf Anfang
Auf die Frage nach dem

Sinn nach dem Sinn dem Sinn nach dem Sinn vom Sein ...

Da hatter hatter hatter Heidegger wiederma recht ...

Heidegger Heidegger ou ou ou
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes

June 04 2014

A Taste Beyond Good and Evil!

Will to Power Bar
When your Wille zur Macht is a-flagging or you're just a little tired of transvaluating all values, try these! Nietzsche's Will To Power Bar transcends good and evil, it establishes new ideas, and escapes the constraints of Judeo-Christianity. Oh, and it's chewy, too! And not only is this fruit and nut bar delicious, its incredible, interactive packaging is like a nihilist's playground. Open the clasp and discover Nietzsche puzzles, trivia, and 12 steps to becoming an Ubermensch. There's even a cut-out Nietzsche mustache -- show us a Cliff Bar that has one of those! God might be dead, but flavor lives on thanks to our incredible Nietzsche's Will To Power Bar.

$4.99, Buy any 4 and save $1.00 each
THE UNEMPLOYED PHILOSOPHERS GUILD
http://www.philosophersguild.com/Will-to-Power-Bar.html
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes

May 23 2014

Not generally known by the majority in the history of philosophy the two ancient Greek philosophers Democritus (l.) and Diogenes (r.) are in fact one and the same person!
(cf. - Th. Rütten (1992), based on pictorial evidence by Hendrick Tebrugghen (1628))
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes

May 16 2014


Philosophy
Servant of the arts, or slave to the sciences?

by Roger Scruton

University and the people who teach in them are increasingly assessed on their output of ‘research’. Pressed to justify their existence, therefore, the humanities begin to look to the sciences to provide them with ‘research methods’, and the promise of ‘results’. To suggest that their principal concern is the transmission of ‘culture’ is to condemn the humanities to second-class status. Culture has no method, while research proceeds by conjecture and evidence. Moreover, while culture means the past; research means the future. 

History of art offers an interesting illustration. Generations of students have been drawn to this subject, in the hope of acquiring knowledge of the masterpieces of the past. The field of study emerged during the 19th-century in German universities, under the influence of Burkhardt, Wölfflin and others, to become a paradigm of objective study in the humanities. The hegelian theory of the Zeitgeist, put to astute use by Wölfflin, divided everything into neatly circumscribed periods – renaissance, Baroque, rococo, neo-classical and so on – and the ‘comparative’ method, in which images were shown side by side and their differences assigned to the distinguishing mental frameworks of their creators, proved endlessly fertile in critical judgments. Look at the works of Wittkower, Panofsky, Gombrich and the other products of this school of thought, and you will surely conclude that there has seldom been a more creative and worthwhile addition to the curriculum. 

But the very success of art history as a form of learning casts doubt on its future. Is there any more ‘research’ to be done on the art of Michelangelo, or the architecture of Palladio? Is there anything to be added to the study of the Gothic cathedral after ruskin, von Simson, Pevsner and Sedlmayer? And how do we confront the complaint that this whole subject seems to be focused on a narrow range of dead white european males, who spoke clearly for their times, but who have no great relevance to ours? All in all the subject of Art history has been condemned by its own success to a corner of the academy, there to be starved of funds and graduate students – unless, that is, it can be re-branded as ‘research’. 

In 1986 Patricia Churchland published Neurophilosophy, arguing that the questions that had been discussed to no effect by philosophers over many centuries would be solved, once they were rephrased as questions of neuroscience. This was the first major outbreak of an academic disease which one might call ‘neuro-envy’. If philosophy could be replaced by neuroscience, why not the rest of the humanities, which had been wallowing in a methodless swamp for far too long? Old disciplines that relied on critical judgement and cultural immersion could be given a scientific gloss when rebranded as ‘neuroethics’, ‘neuroaesthetics’, ‘neuro-musicology’, ‘neuro-theology’. hence art history has sought to rescue itself as ‘neuroarthistory’ (the subject of a book by John Onians: “Neuroarthistory: From Aristotle and Pliny to Baxandall and Zeki”). 

In opposition I would maintain that the humanities are real disciplines, but not sciences. rebrand them as branches of neuroscience and you don’t necessarily increase knowledge: in fact you might lose it. Brain imaging won’t help you to analyse Bach’s Art of Fugue or to interpret King Lear any more than it will unravel the concept of legal responsibility or deliver a proof of Goldbach’s conjecture; it won’t help you to understand the concept of God or to evaluate the proofs for his existence, nor will it show you why justice is a virtue and cowardice a vice. And it cannot fail to encourage the superstition that I am not a whole human being with mental and physical powers, but merely a brain in a box. 

Locke saw philosophy as ‘handmaiden to the sciences’. At the time there was much to be said for that idea: the scientific revolution was in its infancy and the fields of scientific enquiry were uncertainly defined. The task identified by Locke endures today. In areas like the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of language our discipline continues to contribute to scientific advance, and absorbs from the associated sciences a distinct intellectual polish. however, there is another and more important task for the philosopher, which is to distinguish genuine science from mere scientism. Philosophy is, and ought especially to be, a handmaiden to the humanities. It should be active in resisting neurononsense of the kind put about by Samir Zeki and John Onians. It should use its best endeavours to show why the attempts to rewrite musicology, architectural theory, literary criticism and the rest as branches of evolutionary psychology are destined to fail. It should be intent on distinguishing the human world from the order of nature, and the concepts through which we understand appearances from those used in explaining them. It is for this reason that I believe aesthetics to be the core of philosophy, far more important today than any other branch of the subject, even if dependent on those other branches for its central discipline. 

How do we combat scientism? A start is made if we give up the fantasy that the humanities are really fields of ‘research’. As I see it, the task of philosophy is to show the place of humane education in the wider self-consciousness of human kind. When I give a scientific account of the world I am describing objects and the causal laws that explain them. This description is given from no particular perspective. It does not contain words like ‘here’, ‘now’ and ‘I’; and while it is meant to explain the way things seem, it does so by giving a theory of how they are. I, however, am not an object only; I am also a subject, one with a distinctive point of view. The subject is in principle unobservable to science, not because it exists in another realm but because it is not part of the empirical world. It lies on the edge of things, like a horizon, and could never be grasped ‘from the other side’, the side of subjectivity itself. If I look for it in the world of objects I shall never find it. But without my nature as a subject nothing for me is real. 

If I am to care for my world, then I must first care for this thing, without which I have no world — the perspective from which my world is seen. That is the message of art, or at least of the art that matters. And that is why philosophy is fundamental to humane education. Philosophy shows what self-consciousness is, and explores the many ways in which the point of view of the subject shapes and is shaped by the human world. The Germans are right to refer to the humanities as Geisteswissenschaften: for Geist, self-consciousness, is what they are all about. 


Roger Scruton is a Senior Research Fellow at Blackfriars Hall and Visiting Professor at Oxford. He is the author of many books, including “The Aesthetics of Music” and “Beauty: A Very Short Introduction”, both published by Oxford University Press. His Stanton Lectures at the University of Cambridge will be published next year as “The Soul of the World”, by Princeton University Press, and his novel “Underground Notes” is shortly to appear from Beaufort Books, New York. 

Oxford Philosophy 2013, p.28-31
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/31640/OxPhil_e1_2013.pdf
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes viascience science

April 15 2014

0639 0554
"The moral behavior of ethics professors:
Relationships among self-reported behavior, expressed normative attitude, and directly observed behavior"

by Eric Schwitzgebel (pic.) & Joshua Rust

Philosophical Psychology, Volume 27, Issue 3, 2014, pages 293-327
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2012.727135

Abstract
Do philosophy professors specializing in ethics behave, on average, any morally better than do other professors? If not, do they at least behave more consistently with their expressed values? These questions have never been systematically studied. We examine the self-reported moral attitudes and moral behavior of 198 ethics professors, 208 non-ethicist philosophers, and 167 professors in departments other than philosophy on eight moral issues: academic society membership, voting, staying in touch with one's mother, vegetarianism, organ and blood donation, responsiveness to student emails, charitable giving, and honesty in responding to survey questionnaires. On some issues, we also had direct behavioral measures that we could compare with the self-reports. Ethicists expressed somewhat more stringent normative attitudes on some issues, such as vegetarianism and charitable donation. However, on no issue did ethicists show unequivocally better behavior than the two comparison groups. Our findings on attitude-behavior consistency were mixed: ethicists showed the strongest relationship between behavior and expressed moral attitude regarding voting but the weakest regarding charitable donation. We discuss implications for several models of the relationship between philosophical reflection and real-world moral behavior.
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes

January 26 2014

January 23 2014

6637 eecc 500
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes

January 22 2014

10 Misconceptions about Free Will


by Sabine Hossenfelder (Jan. 2, 2014)
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes

The Free Will Function


by Sabine Hossenfelder (Feb. 3, 2012)


"In my paper I just pointed out that there exist time evolutions that are neither deterministic nor probabilistic, certainly not in practice but also not in principle. Functions that do that for you are just functions physicists don't normally deal with. The functions that we normally use are solutions to differential equations. They can be forward-evolved or they can't and that is exactly the problem. Yet, there are lots of functions which don't fall in this category. These are functions can can be forward evolved, yet you have no way to ever find out how. They are deterministic, yet you cannot determine them.

Take for example a function that spits out one digit of the number π every second, but you don't know when it started or when it will end. You can record as much output from that function as you want, you'll never be able to tell what number you get in the next second: π is a transcendental number; every string that you record, no matter how long, will keep reappearing. If you don't know that the number is π you won't even be able to find out what number the algorithm is producing.

The algorithm is well-defined and it spits out numbers in a non-random fashion that, if you'd know the algorithm, is perfectly determined. But even if somebody monitors all output for an arbitrarily long amount of time to an arbitrarily good precision, it remains impossible to predict what the next output will be. This has nothing to do with chaos, where it's the practical impossibility of measuring to arbitrary precision that spoils predictability: Chaos is still deterministic. The same initial conditions will always give the same result, you just won't be able to know them well enough to tell. Chaos too doesn't allow you to make a choice, it just prevents you from knowing.

But what if you'd make your decisions after a function like the one I described? Then your decisions would not be random, but they wouldn't be determined by the state of the universe at any earlier time either (nor at any later time for that matter). You need to have your function to complete the time evolution, which is why I call it the 'Free Will Function.' "
Reposted fromArchimedes Archimedes

January 18 2014

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl