background preloader


Eschatology i/ˌɛskəˈtɒlədʒi/ is a part of theology concerned with the final events of history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity. This concept is commonly referred to as the "end of the world" or "end time". The word arises from the Greek ἔσχατος eschatos meaning "last" and -logy meaning "the study of", first used in English around 1550.[1] The Oxford English Dictionary defines eschatology as "The department of theological science concerned with ‘the four last things: death, judgment, heaven and hell’. In the context of mysticism, the phrase refers metaphorically to the end of ordinary reality and reunion with the Divine. History is often divided into "ages" (aeons), which are time periods each with certain commonalities. Most modern eschatology and apocalypticism, both religious and secular, involve the violent disruption or destruction of the world; whereas Christian and Jewish eschatologies view the end times as the consummation or perfection of God's creation of the world. Related:  THEOLOGY/WORLD RELIGIONS/SYMBOLS

AGNOSTICISME Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. L’agnosticisme est une position philosophique considérant la vérité de certaines propositions concernant notamment l'existence de Dieu ou des dieux comme inconnaissable[1],[2] : à la différence des croyants, considérant probable ou certaine l'existence de telles divinités, ou des athées l'estimant impossible, les agnostiques refusent de trancher[3]. Si le degré de scepticisme varie selon les individus, les agnostiques s'accordent pour dire qu'il n'existe pas de preuve définitive en faveur de l'existence ou de l'inexistence du divin, et affirment l'impossibilité de se prononcer. Termes proches[modifier | modifier le code] Les termes suivants sont proches, mais néanmoins distincts, de l'agnosticisme : Étymologie[modifier | modifier le code] Positions philosophiques[modifier | modifier le code] « Peut-être qu'il sera possible, un jour, de savoir si Dieu existe ou non. Cette phrase précédente est l'ADP, ou Agnosticisme Définitif de Principe.

Semiotics Semiotics frequently is seen as having important anthropological dimensions; for example, Umberto Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon may be studied as communication.[2] Some semioticians focus on the logical dimensions of the science, however. They examine areas belonging also to the life sciences – such as how organisms make predictions about, and adapt to, their semiotic niche in the world (see semiosis). In general, semiotic theories take signs or sign systems as their object of study: the communication of information in living organisms is covered in biosemiotics (including zoosemiotics). Syntactics is the branch of semiotics that deals with the formal properties of signs and symbols.[3] More precisely, syntactics deals with the "rules that govern how words are combined to form phrases and sentences".[4] Terminology[edit] Ferdinand de Saussure, however, founded his semiotics, which he called semiology, in the social sciences: History[edit] Formulations[edit] Branches[edit] Notes

Personal identity What does it take for individuals to persist from moment to moment—or in other words, for the same individual to exist at different moments? Generally, it is the unique numerical identity of persons through time.[3][4] That is to say, the necessary and sufficient conditions under which a person at one time and a person at another time can be said to be the same person, persisting through time.[note 5] In the modern philosophy of mind, this concept of personal identity is sometimes referred to as the diachronic problem[note 6] of personal identity.[5] The synchronic problem[note 7] is grounded in the question of what features or traits characterize a given person at one time. Identity is an issue for both continental philosophy and analytic philosophy. Personal identity theories[edit] Continuity of substance[edit] Bodily substance[edit] Mental substance[edit] Continuity of consciousness[edit] Locke's conception[edit] Or again: PERSON, as I take it, is the name for this self.

The Labyrinth Semantic change Examples[edit] Awful—Originally meant "inspiring wonder (or fear)". Used originally as a shortening for "full of awe", in contemporary usage the word usually has negative meaning.Demagogue—Originally meant "a popular leader". It is from the Greek dēmagōgós "leader of the people", from dēmos "people" + agōgós "leading, guiding". (George Chauncey, in his book Gay New York, would put this shift as early as the late 19th century among a certain "in crowd" knowledgeable of gay night life.) Types of semantic change[edit] A number of classification schemes have been suggested for semantic change. However, the categorization of Blank (1998) has gained increasing acceptance:[2] Blank considers it problematic, though, to include amelioration and pejoration of meaning as well as strengthening and weakening of meaning. Forces triggering semantic change[edit] Blank[3] has tried to create a complete list of motivations for semantic change. Practical studies[edit] Theoretical studies[edit] See also[edit]

Object (philosophy) The pragmatist Charles S. Peirce defines the broad notion of an object as anything that we can think or talk about.[1] In a general sense it is any entity: the pyramids, Alpha Centauri, the number seven, a disbelief in predestination or the fear of cats. In a strict sense it refers to any definite being. A related notion is objecthood. Objecthood is the state of being an object. One approach to defining it is in terms of objects' properties and relations. The notion of an object must address two problems: the change problem and the problem of substance. An attribute of an object is called a property if it can be experienced (e.g. its color, size, weight, smell, taste, and location). Because substances are only experienced through their properties a substance itself is never directly experienced. Some philosophies[which?] Bertrand Russell updated the classical terminology with one more term, the fact;[5] "Everything that there is in the world I call a fact." Russell, Bertrand (1948).

Astrology & the Chakras In this article I would like to explore the exciting possibility of bridging two of history's greatest psychological systems -- astrology and the chakras. Conventionally, these two systems have been seen as having little or nothing to do with each other, the former primarily concerning the outer world, or macrocosm, and the latter involving the inner world, or microcosm. In fact, as we shall soon see, these two systems are but two sides of the same coin, each one complementing the other and thus enhancing our understanding of both. The basic system of correspondences I will be using here is drawn from teachers I have studied with in the Kriya Yoga lineage.1 The general system of "chakric horoscopes" and their guidelines for interpretation are my own, developed over more than a decade of working with these basic correspondences. What Are the Chakras? In Sanskrit, the word chakra (sometimes spelled "cakra") literally means "wheel". Chakra 1, at the base of the spine, is called Muladhara.

Euphemism A euphemism is a generally innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant.[1] Some euphemisms are intended to amuse; while others use bland, inoffensive, and often misleading terms for things the user wishes to dissimulate or downplay. Euphemisms are used for dissimulation, to refer to taboo topics (such as disability, sex, excretion, and death) in a polite way, and to mask profanity.[2] The opposite of euphemism roughly equates to dysphemism. Euphemisms may be used to avoid words considered rude, while still conveying their meaning; words may be replaced by similar-sounding words, gentler words, or placeholders. Some euphemisms have become accepted in certain societies for uncomfortable information; for example, in many English speaking countries, a doctor is likely to say "the patient passed away" rather than "the patient died". Etymology[edit] Formation[edit] Phonetic modification[edit] Figures of speech[edit] Rhetoric[edit]

Bundle theory According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more: thus neither can there be an object without properties nor can one even conceive of such an object; for example, bundle theory claims that thinking of an apple compels one also to think of its color, its shape, the fact that it is a kind of fruit, its cells, its taste, or at least one other of its properties. Thus, the theory asserts that the apple is no more than the collection of its properties. In particular, there is no substance in which the properties inhere. Arguments for the bundle theory[edit] The difficulty in conceiving of or describing an object without also conceiving of or describing its properties is a common justification for bundle theory, especially among current philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition. Whether a relation of an object is one of its properties may complicate such an argument. Objections to the bundle theory[edit] Compresence objection[edit] See also[edit] References[edit]

Tutelary deity A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture or occupation. Both tutelary and tutelar can be used as either a noun or an adjective. Near East and Mediterranean[edit] Ancient Greece[edit] Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion: You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me …. The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Ancient Rome[edit] Lararium depicting tutelary deities of the house: the ancestral Genius (center) flanked by two Lares, with a guardian serpent below Asia[edit] Kuladevis include: Thai provincial capitals have tutelary city pillars and palladiums. Americas[edit] Native American religion, (see also Animism, Shamanism) has extensive and varied systems of zoomorphic tutelaries, (also known as power animals). Africa[edit] See also[edit]

What is Semiotics? by Eugene Gorny When people find out that I am a specialist in semiotics and that I even give lectures in this subject at the University, they always say, "tell me, what is semiotics?" In the course of time, it became clear to me that this is the normal reaction of normal people to the word "semiotics" itself. Every time as I tried to answer the question and to explain the point of the business I do, I have found that it is not easy at all. Three definitions Perhaps, the most widespread, canonical definition of semiotics is the definition by subject: "Semiotics is a science of signs and/or sign systems". Long ago St. On the other hand, something which is usually perceived as a sign, can in some occasions be perceived (and used) as a simple thing. In brief, there exist a great number of conditions that determine where and when we consider or do not consider a certain thing as a sign (and vice versa). Therefore, semiotics is a means of considering anything as signs and sign systems.