Communication Needs Of Stroke Victims

Answering the question What is life, is not actually answer the question What is man, as science has helped

Hello Doctor Philo, a small issue that bothers me for some time, especially in the current wave of major bioethical debates. Before discussing the definition of life, or knowledge of life, I was wondering why the man he seeks to define, except to answer questions that the progress of science raises, about the very definition of man?

the question box

Dammit ... Not an easy question, especially as the concept of life occupies a considerable place in the history of science: volume André Pichot devoted to this issue is 970 pages ( History of the concept of life in the Publishing Tel).

And how not to be troubled by the connection between these two questions when we remember that in the 60 Michel Foucault said fact that the man was a concept that would vanish in the scientific field, at a time when François Jacob declared that in laboratories, research no longer interested in life but living (meaning to the phenomena of life). Besides Doctor Philo who taught philosophy in a past life recall that in the philosophy of terminal programs, it is the living contained and not life .

short, when we stop talking about the man, we stop at the same time to talk about life.

This proves the relevance of your question and at the same time we do laying more ...

That does not mean it is uninteresting, only that it has a historical dimension.

-> If I try to still the adventure of a reply, it will be with lots of dots.

actually thinking to define human life by setting it to behave as materialistic. What should surprise no one if we accept that it is the scientists who do.

Because if you say "understand life is understand man "when you attach the property of human physiological data - or even the raw material. We will say that genes are responsible for human nature, and these genes are themselves a stack of DNA molecules ie chemicals. And you go, such as Our President, explaining that homosexuality and pedophilia is genetic.

What is excluded from the human in this case? On the one hand freedom; pass. On the other hand, the story is to say, the effect of changes cultural and human environment etc ...

I guess you were expecting yet another exclusion: Yep ... The soul ! What about the soul? Can it be defined scientifically? Where are the genes the soul?

In this case, a tip: abandon science and open the Bible. In Genesis, we see that God created like that, without more, animals. But when it comes to human life unfolds: there is the clay which is his body and the breath of God that comes to animate. That is to say: life, humans is twofold, while in animals it is simple.

The man then has the life in two different forms and that is where does this extraordinary property to a living being immortal - partial, but still.

Best Location For An Owl House

Y there a responsible other than causality?

question in the question box.

causation is synonymous with responsibility?

Does it mean that one wonders if this is the cause that has produced such an effect which is the origin of responsibility?

But then we must also ask: what is it that the "causal ?

Anyway the question is too classic (millions of pages to the deal have probably already been written), and yet far from being resolved (see the discussion on whether to try the crazy) .

However, Dr. Philo has committed to meet its honorable readers and it is not one to shrink from its responsibility

talking causality How does one? Of cause efficient? The related cause will ? Is this a topic that has been in full knowledge event, or was he ignorant of the effect, or incapable of being aware of what he doing?

- It's been a long time does not touch the court that the animal has caused injury, and is no longer considered (or not) the criminally insane.

-> So the attribution of responsibility requires not only that we have done what gives rise to liability, but we still have the desired .

So few answers:

1 - There is liability only where there was something that was done involving the human will - or divine.

And so the fact strictly natural (the earthquake that devastated an area, the storm that sank the boat) does not give rise to any liability.

Similarly, the chance is not responsible: the fact of winning a fortune at Loto has absolutely no meaning in this field.

2-Ask the question of liability, it raises the question: when can we say that we actually wanted what happened. We remember the formula "Responsible but not guilty ", which meant that there formal responsibility but not real, when you do not really want what happened. Judged at this time Duch, the torturer of Cambodia, which as the Nazi executioners pleads for obedience exculpate himself. They did, yes - but they did not want.

3 - More interesting, this observation is consistent with Ricoeur to say that this issue requires resolution prior to another question: who is the real agent of action? Or if you prefer: Who has done what one is talking about?

The Selling Of Organs Pros And Cons

Must be from people who come to play their dog on my property?

Hello Dr. Philo, here: we have a great ground we have with love. As it is not closed two people go there to play their dog. The first time I informed them that this was private property, they did not. But since they come every day.

- Is it normal that it annoys me at the highest point or is it selfishness.

- Why am I so hard to tell them to leave?

- Do I feel guilty to have so much property that we have yet so easily won?

Isabelle (Note this Post )

Here's a question that might as well be addressed to the lawyer and / or psychologist.

If it is for the philosopher, then it is our relationship to private property that is queried

Because if we leave (temporarily) aside the second question, we are dealing with an issue typically Rousseau.

is indeed Rousseau wrote that private property is defined by excluding the right of others to do what they want from our well : property before a sense is a reality characterized by the exclusion of others. My property is the domain of my private life, only entered those I authorized. And not all their dogs. And especially not if it is to defile their droppings.

The question is not so much to know why it annoys you because, given what we just said property, and your invaders being duly warned that they were on the you, they do not take into account but rather how it is that you feel "guilty" of owning this property, "and why you reluctant to enforce your rights .

So we can try several answers:

- As soon as you are without thinking rather Rousseau (1), and you get the idea that the private property n is not something really legitimate I mean that mankind could live without private property there.

- En suite, as Rousseau also says (it's in the Social Contract this time), the property must be proportionate to human needs and capacities of work (he is still the land ownership and thus the field size required to support the farmer).

However, as you point out, this great land is commensurate with your work since you bought your due compensation. This work is just upstream of the possession and not after (as is the field that is legitimized by the farm work).

- Finally, that this way of excluding people is an attitude you unsavory morally . Even if you are unsure of wanting to love our neighbor as ourselves, yet we have an old fund that we recommend human hospitality for the passing stranger. It is believed that the Greeks: the beggar who is at your door may be disguised as a God who comes to the testing of hospitality.

So if your invaders - and their dog - are gods, let them.

If not, then plant a fence and buy a gun.

(1) See the text :

The first one, having enclosed a piece of land, thought of saying: This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors would not have spared the human race who, pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget that the fruits belong to all, and that the land belongs to nobody. (Discourse on the Origin of Property, 2 nd part)

Step By Step On How To Make A Zulu Hut

My question is: it means to be Polished?

J prompt hon corresponding to refer to my recent post on the relationship between politeness and hypocrisy. (See here) because I do not see the moment much to say.

I can enjoy any time to reproduce the text of Schopenhauer, for those who would not read online:

Pigs porcupines

"On a cold winter day a herd of porcupines had put in a tight group to ensure mutually cons jelly by their own heat. But soon they felt any damage to their spines, which made them differ from each other. When the need to warm was close again, the same problem occurred again, so they were tossed to and fro between two evils until they finally found an average distance they makes the situation bearable. Thus, the need, born of emptiness and monotony of their inner life, drives men toward each other 1ES, but their many ways of being unpleasant and intolerable defects disperse them again. The average distance and they eventually discover that living together becomes possible, politeness and good manners. In England they cry to someone who does not hold at this distance: Keep your distance ! By this means the need to warm up is, indeed, only half satisfied, but, in contrast, does not feel the injury of quills. But who has enough inner warmth own rather stay outside of the company not to feel discomfort or cause injury. "

Arthur Schopenhauer - Parerga and Paralipomena

Nothing But Water Manila Shop

artist and sportsman, same trade

I think someone called artist when the loom of a person of no use other than provoke emotions and feelings. Then the musicians as much as the athletes are in my eyes of artists.

Commentary post What an artist?

1 - Artist would be a trade.

2 - This art does not consist in producing a work, but to induce emotions in others.

3 - Artist and Athlete = same nature.

The difficulty with the art - and therefore with the artist - is to draw the boundaries of the concept, that is to say, given the characteristics without which art stops to be art and the artist an artist.

When you meet these challenges with the uncertainties raised by the other concepts that you add in the relationship (what a job? What is a sport?), Then you need someone who comes with a strong club for a little respect borders.

1 - On the craft, the idea of artist in our civilization was built by rolling back the role of learning - ie the art - in favor of the inspiration of genius, talent, etc. ... Not to be too romantic, we say that the essence of the artist, is precisely to exist beyond the art

2 - Regarding the work, c ' This is where the challenge is greatest. It was very common idea the artist produces a work and not just emotion . A work, that is something that captures its author - at least, something that lasts.

Yes, but as Nietzsche pointed out, the dancer leaves behind him any work, his art, his art disappeared with her dancing.

3 - Is this a reason to identify artist and athlete? Assuming that the athlete produces only the emotion in the viewer - not a feat that pushed the limits of human ability - why not? It is clear that some sports straddle art and sport - and just can think of equestrian sport, but also ice skating. However

: art is something that goes beyond the fleeting emotion. Art, even without producing lumber, lasts well beyond its manifestation.

Hannah Arendt said that even it's own art than to produce something that lasts because it is not for consumption.

-> The work of the artist - his product - is also something that gives think, something you can see, hear again, almost indefinitely, always with a new sensation , always thinking more .

The artwork is what we did never finished speaking .

So much the better if the sporting achievement in this category ...

Auditorium Seating Chart Doc

What is laughter.?

What is the purpose of laughter? Why do we laugh? What exactly is laughing? What is the function of laughter?

The box Questions

54 seconds. This is the average time spent per page by the readers of this blog.

then 54 seconds to respond to 4 fundamental questions about the laugh confess dear reader, Dr. Philo has a tough task.

-> As to the purpose, we can already distinguish

- First there is the laugh-expression, laughter "angels" as the kid photographed by Willy Ronis laughing just because that life is beautiful. This laughter accompanies the joy as Spinoza says that the apparent shift to greater perfection. This laugh-demonstration has no purpose: it exists and that's all.

Note that we do not laugh that where vital interests are not at issue: where the seriously requires us to obtain a result, laughter creates a pose. And not only should not be pressed by the vital need to laugh, but it also must consider laughter as human - as strictly human Rabelais said - because laughter that accompanies the joy is the happiness index and man seeks not only to live, but he also wants to live well (Aristotle).

- There is also laughter penalty: it is he who sends a message. It's mocking laughter, laughter which penalizes ridiculous.

-> Here we can examine the source of laughter, laughable ,

Doctor Philo found in his wallet, the book of Bergson - Laughter ( Test the meaning of the comic ): there is a metaphysics of laughter that deserves a little more than 54 seconds.

According to Bergson, the joke comes from something made by a caricatured human fact. This is something that has become stiff and mechanical, which is mismatched short compared to the flexibility and efficiency action. The gibberish, the gesture that is repeated without reason, the verbal tic, a comedian like Julie Ferrier has maximized (see for example his singing teacher here).

We laugh because this repetition, this mechanical character of behavior gives us an image of what would matter if the man takes it home on the mind, began to do mechanically what his intelligence done with the flexibility of the invention.

Laughter is a clash of matter and spirit, so it's good behavior metaphysics.

We're at 58 seconds, all players have packed up.

Can Shaving Cause An Outbreak

Are there things that machines will never do?

The question we pose today Doctor Philo was asked multiple times, and they proposed a variety of tests to know where to stop the machines in their imitation of man.

known today especially the Turing test of making a user interact with a computer with the aim of establishing for certain if the other side, there is another user, or if it is the machine that meets all alone.

In fact, Dr. Philo tried-adventure with a program ad-hoc (1): he was very disappointed. The doubt did not take more than 3 seconds. When he asked the caller what he thought of Barack Obama, the machine responded with a stereotype, like "You can reword your question? "

Already Descartes had raised the question of proof between the animal (considered by him as a machine) and the man there was a total difference. And this evidence is the use of language.

For example: a parrot says hello to his mistress, not that he is happy to see her, but because he hopes to have the food she was accustomed to give reward for having spoken. In other words, the talking machine does not with about and may not reflect reality. (See text Descartes here )

Another example: God has created Adam and he wondered if he invented a machine or if the man knows how to do that thing that the machine can not not do . He had the answer when chewed Adam's apple. A machine can not fish, that is to say, do what it has not been invented.

But I still prefer the test of Lady Lovelace, which is seldom mentioned.

Already Lady Lovelace was the daughter of Byron, which commands respect and arouses amazement in defining a test to pass to computers. But above all, the test is the creation of Lovelace: the machine, which is unable to create, that is to say, invent something that can not be deduced analytically data that are already known (2 ).

In fact, a machine that can create, it's scary. Example:

Many years ago IBM had produced a powerful computer chess player, Big Blue , against which Kasparov, world champion, lost. It said while some of moves made by the machine was pure creations, we would never have been able to infer from the database of prior parties stored in the memory of the machine.

was a machine that had passed the test brilliantly Lovelace: IBM has dismantled and nothing more was ever heard of.

(1) On a site on spam discussion: this is Alice .

(2) Is analytically deduced what was already contained in the given subject to analysis. A bit like the submarine surfaced beneath the sea existed before becoming visible.

Similarly, in the example of the parrot, "Hello" to the mistress is derived analytically the condition of the parrot: he's hungry.

Contact Jacob Delafon Paris

Is being polite means being hypocritical?

Hello Dr. Philo!

I have a disturbing question:

Is being polite means being hypocritical?

Where are the boundaries between politeness and hypocrisy?

the question box

Hello, honorable correspondent. May Heaven be gracious to you and your wishes come true.

is what the Doctor Philo will try to do for you.

1 - politeness as social code

- The idea that politeness could be a form of calculation means that it would be hypocritical morally commendable to be rude to some people, and that the person's own calculation would be hypocrisy that distorts the true politeness.

We then include Alceste, the misanthrope who has flared in Molière's effect against the cowardice of courtiers with cautious politeness hide their true thoughts as hypocritical compliments. Politeness can be the cloak of respectability that actually covers the hypocrisy.

- However, one is tempted also to oppose this with the politeness obeying a cultural and social norm, just as the executioner made a thousand Chinese kowtow to what he will cut into 120 pieces alive. Nobody will say it is hypocritical of him, but we admire the rigor of the social norm that is needed even in these extreme cases.

2 - Politeness is a virtue morality (respect for others):

Kant's respect for others recognize its value as a human being. Respect is the effect produced on us by the supreme value of others in morals, manners would be the most common mark of this respect, provided of course be agreed and not imposed by the use.

3 - Where are the boundaries between politeness and hypocrisy?

between politeness and hypocrisy, the difference would be in the sincerity, or rather the absence or presence of the second degree. Politeness is without calculation or background : as they say, is what you can not refuse, it is the least we . The hypocrisy would be in the field of politeness, an assignment, something that meets a calculation of interest.

could then say that we are too polite to be honest as suggested by the proverb.

4 - A world without politeness is it desirable?

We recall the story of Schopenhauer's Porcupines (read here to ) politeness is what we found best to support each other. Ultimately, a world without manners is

has - a fusion community, made of porcupine quills without and I, according to Kant, with respect for humanity, the duty to love men - at least all those who gave voice their humanity (the others having all the same right, as we said at the close).

b - a world without friction because all the rough edges have been erased. Suffice to say we have robots or clones. It would be a company that has been through conflict imaginable, turning its rough blocks of individuals perfectly smooth pebbles. But as Bergson says, it will take many wars to achieve this.

Miami Day Care Prices

Notebooks invisible, screen exposed to the mezzanine of the Circle (Québec, QC)

info: www.le-cercle.ca

How Does The Wwe Travel

2c1ppw The crew at "La Bomba" Event Response in situ at the beach of Lake Simon (Portneuf, QC.)

Most Reliable Pc's 2010

Can we disobey the laws? The future

The advantage of this issue is being raised from a very distant past - with Antigone, for example - and ask ourselves today, where web laws will turn into delinquents countless downloaders of the Net.

The downside was that we like being trapped by failure to respond affirmatively to a law which could be disobeyed with impunity would no longer be one.

The law in effect, unlike the rule, admits of no exception, and no can not be above the law, except to be within the realm of nature, that is to say the balance of power: the "law" of the jungle.

Then: Antigone Creon is a rebel that would be right to punish, whatever the Gods?

Obviously not: for Antigone claims to be a law - the law of God - who wants his brother's funeral, and that law is above the law of the city defended by Creon.

-> 1 st idea: there is a hierarchy of laws: laws must be consistent them, and when two statutes are in conflict, one that is greater legitimacy than outweighs the lower. We can disobey it if it is the condition to obey that.

remains to be seen how the upper and lower what is?

remains particularly whether there are cases where all laws are on the same plane, thus implying that one can not disobey the law by claiming a greater legitimacy.

-> 2 nd idea : All legislators claim to be unique, and when this is not the case, they take the system of higher laws as a preamble to their constitution. So are all plans that do not lay with the laws of God, so do we do with the Declaration of Human Rights .

As these laws are well defined and codified, there is normally no problem.

... Except that the problem is still: in the interpretation of the facts, and therefore the application of the law.

-> 3 rd idea: we can try to prove you do not disobey the laws, despite appearances.

downloaders See the Net: they do not shout "Down with private property! . They simply say that their practices do not despoil the artists as they would in any case not purchased their registration with the price. They only correct an injustice - as Robin Hood, they just steal the robbers.

Activemovie Window Powerdvd

Night 1: VEZELISE; Chopin Meets the roller girls.

frescoes in the basement of the Circle (Québec, QC) as part of the Biennial international art event in Quebec City, 4th edition (2008). Materials used: Paint Sharpie pens. Credit: Yan Turcotte

Request To Disconnect Phone

NWO

Request To Disconnect Phone

NWO

Is White Flour Okay In Dog Treats

The leak in the ideas

Art Exhibition with artist Christine St-Maur presented in the great gallery of multidisciplinary art center's Eye (Quebec City, QC) in 2006. Photo: Ivan Binet

Period Due But Only Discharge

Story Residence

Invites Wording For 35th

Bridal Chamber


sketches undertaken for the realization of the fresco.

Eastern Shore Haunted Houses

Fresco made in pen and spray made in the course of an event of exhibition " in situ inside an abandoned building. The event entitled "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was curated by Eugenie Cliche and Josée Landry-Sirois in 2004 and brought together a community of artists such as Cooke-Sasseville, Chantal Séguin, Catherine Plaisance and the duo Christian Messier / François Simard ...