The Experience and Perception of Time What is ‘the perception of time’? The very expression ‘the perception of time’ invites objection. Insofar as time is something different from events, we do not perceive time as such, but changes or events in time. Kinds of temporal experience There are a number of what Ernst Pöppel (1978) calls ‘elementary time experiences’, or fundamental aspects of our experience of time. Duration One of the earliest, and most famous, discussions of the nature and experience of time occurs in the autobiographical Confessions of St Augustine. Augustine's answer to this riddle is that what we are measuring, when we measure the duration of an event or interval of time, is in the memory. Whatever the process in question is, it seems likely that it is intimately connected with what William Friedman (1990) calls ‘time memory’: that is, memory of when some particular event occurred. The specious present The term ‘specious present’ was first introduced by the psychologist E.R. Here is one attempt to do so. Φ-β-κ
Courage Courage is the choice and willingness to confront agony, pain, danger, uncertainty or intimidation. Physical courage is courage in the face of physical pain, hardship, death or threat of death, while moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal or discouragement. In some traditions, fortitude holds approximately the same meaning. Theories of courage[edit] Western antiquity and the Middle Ages[edit] Ancient Greece[edit] An early Greek philosopher, Plato (c. 428 BCE – c. 348 BCE),[1] set the groundwork for how courage would be viewed to future philosophers. “…a man willing to remain at his post and to defend himself against the enemy without running away…” [2] “…a sort of endurance of the soul…”[3] “…knowledge of the grounds of fear and hope…” [4] While many definitions are given in Plato’s Laches, all are refuted, giving a reader a sense of Plato’s argument style. Ancient Rome[edit] Medieval philosophy[edit] According to Thomas Aquinas,[10]
Studies in Pessimism, by Arthur Schopenhauer Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim. It is absurd to look upon the enormous amount of pain that abounds everywhere in the world, and originates in needs and necessities inseparable from life itself, as serving no purpose at all and the result of mere chance. Each separate misfortune, as it comes, seems, no doubt, to be something exceptional; but misfortune in general is the rule. I know of no greater absurdity than that propounded by most systems of philosophy in declaring evil to be negative in its character. 1 Translator’s Note, cf. This explains the fact that we generally find pleasure to be not nearly so pleasant as we expected, and pain very much more painful. The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. Certain it is that work, worry, labor and trouble, form the lot of almost all men their whole life long. Life is a task to be done.
/tg/ - Traditional Games I jump the buggy, head butting it in the fucking face. It falls.Now the small ones are jumping all over me, stinging. They have this poison, yeah ? and i'm half drunk on vodka anyway. So i'm like "DIE FUCKERS", pummeling left and right until I hear them running away.
Tetrapharmakos The Tetrapharmakos (τετραφάρμακος) "four-part remedy" is a summary of the first four of the Κύριαι Δόξαι (Kuriai Doxai, the forty Epicurean Principal Doctrines given by Diogenes Laërtius in his Life of Epicurus) in Epicureanism, a recipe for leading the happiest possible life. They are recommendations to avoid anxiety or existential dread.[1] The four-part cure[edit] As expressed by Philodemos, and preserved in a Herculaneum Papyrus (1005, 5.9–14), the tetrapharmakos reads:[4] This is a summary of the first four of the forty Epicurean Principal Doctrines (Sovran Maxims) given by Diogenes Laërtius, which in the translation by Robert Drew Hicks (1925) read as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Don't fear god[edit] In Hellenistic religion, the gods were conceived as hypothetical beings in a perpetual state of bliss, indestructible entities that are completely invulnerable. Don't worry about death[edit] As D. What is good is easy to get[edit] What is terrible is easy to endure[edit] References and notes[edit]
Khan Academy Official Home of the Free Hugs Campaign - Inspired by Juan Mann - Home Zombies First published Mon Sep 8, 2003; substantive revision Thu Mar 17, 2011 Zombies in philosophy are imaginary creatures used to illuminate problems about consciousness and its relation to the physical world. Unlike those in films or witchraft, they are exactly like us in all physical respects but without conscious experiences: by definition there is ‘nothing it is like’ to be a zombie. Yet zombies behave just like us, and some even spend a lot of time discussing consciousness. Few people think zombies actually exist. 1. Descartes held that non-human animals are automata: their behavior is wholly explicable in terms of physical mechanisms. In the nineteenth century scientists began to think that physics was capable of explaining all physical events that were explicable at all. it ought to be quite credible that the constitution and course of nature would be otherwise just the same as it is if there were not and never had been any experiencing individuals. 2. 3. Zombies are conceivable. 4.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory Copyright © 1993-2002 [Last Update: January 22, 1993] hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Also: This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools).
Daily Wisdom If you tell yourself that you are happy, miserable or bored, you have already separated yourself from that particular sensation that is there inside you. U.G. Krishnamurti The Improbability of God The Improbability of God by Richard Dawkins from Free Inquiry, Volume 18, Number 3. Much of what people do is done in the name of God. Irishmen blow each other up in his name. Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and ayatollahs oppress women in his name. Celibate popes and priests mess up people's sex lives in his name. Why do people believe in God? So ran Paley's argument, and it is an argument that nearly all thoughtful and sensitive people discover for themselves at some stage in their childhood. What do all objects that look as if they must have had a designer have in common? This is not a circular argument, by the way. Of all the trillions of different ways of putting together the atoms of a telescope, only a minority would actually work in some useful way. We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated -- too statistically improbable -- to have come into being by sheer chance. Eyes and wings cannot spring into existence in a single step.