Leszek Kołakowski. Leszek Kołakowski (Polish: [ˈlɛʂɛk kɔwaˈkɔfskʲi]; 23 October 1927 – 17 July 2009) was a Polish philosopher and historian of ideas. He is best known for his critical analyses of Marxist thought, especially his three-volume history, Main Currents of Marxism (1976). In his later work, Kolakowski increasingly focused on religious questions. In his 1986 Jefferson Lecture, he asserted that "We learn history not in order to know how to behave or how to succeed, but to know who we are.”[1] Biography[edit] Kołakowski was born in Radom, Poland. Owing to the German occupation of Poland in World War II, he did not go to school but read books and took occasional private lessons, passing his school-leaving examinations as an external student in the underground school system.
In his youth, Kołakowski was a communist. Ewa Kuryluk, Between 5 and 50, a portrait of Leszek Kołakowski on his 50th birthday, 1978, 120 cm x 150 cm, acrylic on canvas. Kołakowski died in July 2009, aged 81, in Oxford, England. 55 Free Philosophy Courses. The Philosophy section of our big Free Courses collection just went through a major update, and it now lists more than 75 courses. Enough to give you a soup-to-nuts introduction to a timeless discipline. You can start with one of several introductory courses. Philosophy for Beginners – iTunes – Web Video – Marianne Talbot, OxfordCritical Reasoning for Beginners - iTunes Video – iTunes Audio – Web Video – OxfordA Romp through Ethics for Complete Beginners - iTunes Video –Web Video – OxfordIntroduction to Political Philosophy – YouTube – iTunes – Web Video - Steven B.
Smith, YaleThe Art of Living - Web Video – StanfordThe History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps - Multiple Formats– Peter Adamson, King’s College London Then, once you’ve found your footing, you can head off in some amazing directions. Explore our collection of 400 Free Courses to find topics in many other disciplines — History, Literature, Physics, Computer Science and beyond.
Argument from Physical Minds. The argument from physical minds (APM) is a strong but neglected argument in the case for atheism. Two versions of the argument have important implications for the philosophy of religion. The first is the mortalistic argument from physical minds, which runs as follows: If a nonphysical mind (rather than the brain) does our thinking, then altering the brain (say by lobotomy) should have no effect on one's ability to think. But, in fact, altering the brain does (often dramatically) affect one's ability to think. Therefore, thinking is probably not something done by a nonphysical mind, but rather something that the brain does. And since the brain is destroyed by death, thinking--or one's mind as a whole--is probably destroyed by death too. Since the mortalistic version concerns certain forms of immortality, articles on the mortalistic APM are included separately on the immortality page. The second version, the atheistic argument from physical minds, runs as follows: -- Keith Augustine Dr.
Did Plato Believe in Reincarnation? Home > Psychology and Religion > Platonism > This article Contents: 1. Initial Observations 2. Historical Considerations 3. 4. 5. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. Chariot myth ( . 246-254) Myth of Er ( . 614-621) Gorgias myth ( . 523E-527) Phaedo myth ( . 106E-115A) and (b) in several other places: (70C ff., 81C-E ) (41D ff., 90-91) (870D/E, 872E, 881A, 904 ff.) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Lactantius ( , 3.19) St. St. Tertullian ( 1.28 ff.) Origen ( 1.13, 1.32, 4.17, and 4.83) Eusebius ( 13.16 ff.) St. St.
Hankins (1990, p. 358) also notes comparable statements by Nemesius ( 2 [=PG 40:580]) and Aquinas ( . 19.1.1, solutio; 2.83, cap. 37). 16. 17. 18. Here he specifically refers to Platonic myths that describe reincarnation as allegorical. 19. 20. 21. Having considered historical aspects of the issue, we now examine specific arguments for and against the suggestion that Plato believed in reincarnation. 1. : Plato does describe reincarnation several times in his works. 3. . Reply 1. What Is Classical Liberalism? by Ralph Raico. By Ralph Raico by Ralph Raico Recently by Ralph Raico: Trotsky: The Ignorance and the Evil This article originally appeared in American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia, edited by Bruce Frohnen, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey O.
Nelson (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2006), pp. 498—502. "Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. Although its fundamental claims are universalist, liberalism must be understood first of all as a doctrine and movement that grew out of a distinctive culture and particular historical circumstances.
In the English constitutional struggles of the 17th century a number of individuals and groups displayed significant liberal traits. Liberalism's adherents were not always consistent. Darwin vs Morality: Part I. Trying to Find a Biological Basis for Morality There are certain kinds of arguments philosophers call ‘self-defeating’ because if you turn out to be right you are wrong and obviously if you turn out to be wrong you’re wrong. Trying to find biological foundations for morality is one of these kinds of arguments. A very clear example of a self-defeating argument would be to argue that rational argument is impossible.
If I am rationally convinced by your argument, then rational argument is possible, not impossible and the argument is disproven. If you cannot persuade me because rational argument is impossible, then likewise the argument fails. The problem of course is that you must rely on the very thing you are hoping to prove does not exist. One might wonder how any such arguments get propagated. Some years ago an acquaintance of mine sent me a newspaper article saying that Harvard researchers have discovered the biological foundations of morality. OK. Vedantam writes, The priority of the ready-to-hand | A Rigid Designator. In establishing the relationship between readiness-to-hand and presence-at-hand, we must first get clear on the meanings of these two terms. I will deal with a basic description of each in turn, but first I will make some preliminary remarks about these modes of being, generally.
In a certain sense, they are ways in which Dasein relates to entities within the world. It is clear that Heidegger believed that without Dasein, there would be no ready-to-hand nor present-at-hand. From this we can tell that the modes of being have something to do with our practices. However, Heidegger is not an idealist. Nor does he say that the things we deal with are simply given subjective coloring of one kind or the other. The modes of being are dependent upon no particular Dasein, but on the society of Dasein as a whole. Presence-at-hand is the term Heidegger uses for the traditional conception of how we know things within the world. Readiness-to-hand is the term for relating to entities by using them. Clemens Timpler. Clemens Timpler (1563, Stolpen – 28 February 1624, Steinfurt) was a German philosopher, physicist and theologian. Along with Jakob Degen (1511-1587), he is considered the most important Protestant metaphysician, establishing the Protestant Reformed Neuscholastik.
Life[edit] Timpler was born in Stolpen. In 1600 he joined Bartholomew Keckermann studying philosophy at Leipzig. In April 1595, he became professor of physics at the high school Arnoldinum in Steinfurt and taught there until his death. Texts[edit] Bibliography[edit] External links[edit] Philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9044/4/LLWultimate.pdf.
Philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8579/1/time2.pdf.