english


Nadotázky:

english



Podotázky:

Védanta - upanišady (-800)
Tento človek je pri narodení a získaní tela spojený so zlami. Ak odchádza, pri umieraní, necháva zla za chrbtom. / Verily, this person, by being born and obtaining body, is joined with evils. When he departs, on dying, he leaves evils behind.
Rovnako ako matka chránila svojím životom svojho vlastného syna, svojho jediného syna, tak by si človek mal kultivovať otvorenú myseľ voči všetkým bytostiam a milujúcu láskavosť voči celému svetu. / Just as a mother would protect with her life her own son, her only son, so one should cultivate an unbounded mind towards all beings, and loving-kindness towards all the world

Guatama Buddha (-563)

Gorgias z Leontín (-485)
Gorgias argues that persuasive words have power (dunamis) that is equivalent to that of the gods and as strong as physical force. In the Encomium, Gorgias likens the effect of speech on the soul to the effect of drugs on the body: "Just as different drugs draw forth different humors from the body – some putting a stop to disease, others to life – so too with words: some cause pain, others joy, some strike fear, some stir the audience to boldness, some benumb and bewitch the soul with evil persuasion
natural kind terms express the essence of the objects they name and words are appropriate to their referents insofar as they describe what their referents are.

Platon (pov. Aristokles) (-427)
True philosophers regard the body as an obstacle to the search for knowledge and meaning in life. The need to look after the body presents numerous distractions in the quest for knowledge. As such, a true philosopher's main goal is to be free of the body and its entanglements, to pursue knowledge. Death is the ultimate separation of the soul and body. Body is a prison for the soul and death is the means of freedom for the soul. In the life of a true philosopher, death does not occur when bodily functions cease. Rather, the true philosopher is already dead before they die or before bodily functions cease.

Platon (pov. Aristokles) (-427)

Aristoteles (-384)
Všetky platené zamestnania znehodnocujú a pohlcujú myseľ. / All paid jobs degrade and absorb the mind.

Aristoteles (-384)
Hence, of necessity, life must be coincident with the maintenance of heat, and what we call death is its destruction.However, it is to be noticed that there are two ways in which fire ceases to exist; it may go out either by exhaustion or by extinction. That which is self-caused we call exhaustion, that due to its opposites extinction. [The former is that due to old age, the latter to violence.]
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Epikuros (-341)

Marcus Tullius Cicero (-106)
Každý, kto pracuje za peniaze, predáva samého seba a stavia sa tak do postavenia otroka. (Whoever gives his labor for money sells himself and put himself in the rank of slaves.)
Upierajme zrak na Ježiša, pôvodcu a završovateľa našej viery. Miesto radosti, ktorá sa mu ponúkala, pretrpel muky na kríži, pohrdol potupou a teraz sedí po pravici Božieho trónu....v gréčtine a angličtine....Having our eyes fixed on Jesus, the guide and end of our faith, who went through the pains of the cross, not caring for the shame, because of the joy which was before him, and who has now taken his place at the right hand of God's seat of power.

apoštol Pavol (5)

Agrippa the Skeptic (50)
5 argumentov (trópov), ktoré sa týkajú nepoznateľnosti sveta:
*Dissent – Neistota pravidiel spoločného života a názorov filozofov The uncertainty of the rules of common life, and of the opinions of philosophers.
*Progress ad infinitum – All proof requires some further proof, and so on to infinity.
*Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
*Assumption – The truth asserted is merely a hypothesis.
*Circularity – The truth asserted involves a vicious circle.
A just city should favor justice and the just, hate tyranny and injustice, and give them both their just deserts.

Abu Nasr Muhammad al-Farabi (870)

Avicenna - Ibn Sina (980)
One of us (i.e. a human being) should be imagined as having been created in a single stroke; created perfect and complete but with his vision obscured so that he cannot perceive external entities; created falling through air or a void, in such a manner that he is not struck by the firmness of the air in any way that compels him to feel it, and with his limbs separated so that they do not come in contact with or touch each other. Then contemplate the following: can he be assured of the existence of himself? He does not have any doubt in that his self exists, without thereby asserting that he has any exterior limbs, nor any internal organs, neither heart nor brain, nor any one of the exterior things at all; but rather he can affirm the existence of himself, without thereby asserting there that this self has any extension in space. Even if it were possible for him in that state to imagine a hand or any other limb, he would not imagine it as being a part of his self, nor as a condition for the existence of that self; for as you know that which is asserted is different from that which is not asserted, and that which is inferred is different from that which is not inferred. Therefore the self, the existence of which has been asserted, is a unique characteristic, in as much that it is not as such the same as the body or the limbs, which have not been ascertained. Thus that which is ascertained (i.e. the self), does have a way of being sure of the existence of the soul as something other than the body, even something non-bodily; this he knows, this he should understand intuitively, if it is that he is ignorant off it and needs to be beaten with a stick [to realize it].

Avicenna - Ibn Sina (980)
Those who deny the first principle (In classical logic, the law of (non-)contradiction,It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time) should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped.
For Hegel history shows stoicism is replaced by scepticism and cynicism. Here again the complete disbelief in society, rather than the reasoned and calculated disbelief of the stoic, eventually leads to a dissolution of oneself. The comedy of the cynic that is directed against society, eventually begins to turn against the comedian. The idea of goodness is seen as completely foreign to mankind.(ad kynizmus, stoicizmus, skepticizmus)

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770)

Robert Owen (1771)
Man is the creature of circumstances.
Another fundamental aspect of his theory is that judgments are always existential. This so-called existential claim implies that when someone is judging that S is P he/she is judging that some S that is P exists.

Franz Brentano (1838)

Gottlob Frege (1848)
Quine (1943) and Church (1951) rehabilitated Frege’s distinction of sense and reference. Non-designating words such as ‘Pegasus’ cannot be meaningless: it is precisely the meaning of ‘Pegasus’ that allows speakers to establish that the word lacks reference. Moreover, as Frege (1892) had argued, true factual identities such as 'Morning Star = Evening Star' do not state synonymies; if they did, any competent speaker of the language would be aware of their truth.
Science is what we know, philosophy is what we dont know.

Bertrand Russell (1872)
Love is wise, hatred is foolish.

Bertrand Russell (1872)

Rudolf Carnap (1891)
Carnap (1947) proposed a new formulation of the sense/reference dichotomy, which was translated into the distinction between intension and extension. The notion of intension was intended to be an explicatum of Frege’s “obscure” notion of sense: two expressions have the same intension if and only if they have the same extension in every possible world or, in Carnap’s terminology, in every state description (i.e., in every maximal consistent set of atomic sentences and negations of atomic sentences). Thus, ‘round’ and ‘spherical’ have the same intension (i.e., they express the same function from possible worlds to extensions) because they apply to the same objects in every possible world. Carnap later suggested that intensions could be regarded as the content of lexical semantic competence: to know the meaning of a word is to know its intension, the general conditions which an object must fulfill in order to be denoted by [that] word
Prestali sme veriť, že veľké príbehy sú vhodné na vyjadrenie situácie, ktorá zahŕňa nás všetkých. Nikto sa nezhodne na tom, čo sa naozaj udialo, a každý má svoju vlastnú perspektívu a príbeh.Stali sme sa vnímavými na rozdielnosť, rozmanitosť, nekompatibilitu našich cieľov, viery a túžob a preto je posmoderná doba charakterizovaná prebytkom údajov o malých príbehoch . /..we have ceased to believe that narratives of this kind are adequate to represent and contain us all. He points out that no one seemed to agree on what, if anything, was real and everyone had their own perspective and story. We have become alert to difference, diversity, the incompatibility of our aspirations, beliefs and desires, and for that reason postmodernity is characterised by an abundance of micronarratives.data

Jean Francois Lyotard (1924)

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
it is one of the only principles about which one can be certain, and at the same time one can not see at all what it offers to us. It is certain, but it is empty. This famous principle is the principle of identity. The principle of identity has a classical formula, A is A. That is certain. If I say blue is blue or God [is] God, I am not saying with this that God exists, in a sense I am in certainty....Let us nonetheless try to say what results from this principle of identity. It is presented in the form of a reciprocal proposition. A is A means: subject A, verb to be, A attribute or predicate. There is a reciprocity of subject and predicate.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
The vulgar formulation of the principle of identity: the thing is what the thing is, the identity of the thing and of its essence. The scholarly formulation of the principle of identity: every analytical proposition is true.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
The vulgar formulation of the principle of identity: the thing is what the thing is, the identity of the thing and of its essence. The scholarly formulation of the principle of identity: every analytical proposition is true.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
EVERYTHING MUST SURELY HAVE A REASON. The principle of sufficient reason can be expressed as follows: whatever happens to a subject, be it determinations of space and time, of relation, event, whatever happens to a subject, what happens, that is what one says of it with truth, everything that is said of a subject must be contained in the notion of the subject.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
For in the end, the causality principle stretches to infinity, that's it's very characteristic. And this is a very special infinite since, in fact, it stretches to the indefinite .

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
But what determines this point of view? Leibniz : understand, each of us expresses the totality of the world, only he expresses it in an obscure and confused way. Obscurely and confused means what in Leibniz's vocabulary? That means that the totality of the world is really in the individual, but in the form of minute perception. Minute perceptions. Is it by chance that Leibniz is one of the inventors of differential calculus? These are infinitely tiny perceptions, in other words, unconscious perceptions. Later we will see why this is linked to differential calculus, but notice that the minute perceptions of the unconscious are like differentials of consciousness, it's minute perceptions without consciousness.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
Leibniz has a metaphor that he likes: you are near the sea and you listen to waves. You listen to the sea and you hear the sound of a wave. I hear the sound of a wave, that is, I have an apperception: I distinguish a wave. And Leibniz says: you would not hear the wave if you did not have a minute unconscious perception of the sound of each drop of water that slides over and through another, and that makes up the object of minute perceptions. So this is how our conscious perceptions bathe in a flow of unconscious minute perceptions. What I express clearly and distinctly, Leibniz tells us, is what relates to my body.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
Given two individuals, you have two cases: either their zones do not communicate in the least, and create no symbols with one another -- there aren't merely direct communications

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
What difference is there between sufficient reason and cause? We understand very well. Cause is never sufficient. One must say that the causality principle poses a necessary cause, but never a sufficient one. We must distinguish between necessary cause and sufficient reason. What distinguishes them evidently is that the cause of a thing is always something else. The cause of A is B, the cause of B is C, etc..... An indefinite series of causes. Sufficient reason is not at all something other than the thing.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
Thus, every analytical proposition is true.Leibniz's stroke of pre-philosophical genius is to say: Let's consider reciprocity! ....Leibniz emerges and says: every true proposition is analytical.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
truths of essence refer to two cases: the pure and simple identity in which we demonstrate the identity of the predicate and the subject, and the discovery of an inclusion of the type /every number divisible by 12 is divisible by 6/

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
It’s that the singular point is the point in the neighborhood of which the differential relation dy/dx changes its sign . For example: vertex, relative vertex of a curve before it descends, so you will say that the differential relation changes its sign. It changes its sign at this spot, but to what extent? To the extent that it becomes equal; in the neighborhood of this point, it becomes equal to zero or to infinity. It’s the theme of the minimum and of the maximum that you again find there.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
our a-perceptions, our conscious perceptions are always global. What we perceive is always a whole. What we grasp through conscious perception is relative totalities. And it is really necessary that parts exist since there is a whole. That’s a line of reasoning that Leibniz constantly follows: there has to be something simple if there is something composite

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
If you say that a particular event is encompassed in the notion of Caesar, /crossing the Rubicon/ is encompassed in the notion of Caesar.... In fact, crossing the Rubicon has a cause, this cause itself has multiple causes, from cause to cause, into cause from cause and into cause from cause of cause. It's the whole series of the world that passes there, at least the antecedent series. And moreover, crossing the Rubicon has effects. If I limit myself to the largest ones: commencement of a Roman empire. The Roman empire in its turn has effects, we follow directly from the Roman empire. From cause to cause and effect to effect, you cannot say a particular event is encompassed in the notion of a particular subject without saying that, henceforth, the entire world is encompassed in the notion of a particular subject.....Thus you see that Leibniz cannot fall back on the proposition since every true proposition is analytical, the world is thus contained in a single and same subject which would be a universal subject.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
What interests him at the level of truths of existence is not identity of the predicate and the subject, it's rather that one passes from one predicate to another, from one to another, and again on from one to another, etc.... from the point of view of an infinite analysis, that is, from the maximum of continuity.In other words, it's identity that governs truths of essence, but it's continuity that governs truths of existence. And what is a world? A world is defined by its continuity. What separates two incompossible worlds? It's the fact that there is discontinuity between the two worlds. What defines a compossible world? It's the compossibility of which it is capable. What defines the best of worlds? It's the most continuous world. The criterion of God's choice will be continuity. Of all the worlds incompossible with each other and possible in themselves, God will cause to pass into existence the one that realizes the maximum of continuity.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
Descartes remained stuck on figures and movement. Leibniz will translate: it’s the same thing to say that nature proceeds in a curvilinear manner, or to say that beyond figures and movement, there is something that is the domain of forces. And on the very level of the laws of movement, Leibniz is going to change everything, thanks precisely to differential calculus. He will say that what is conserved is not MV, not mass and velocity, but MV2. The only difference in the formula is the extension of V to the second power. This is made possible by differential calculus because differential calculus allows the comparison of powers and of rejects . Descartes did not have the technical means to say MV2. >From the point of view of the language of geometry and of arithmetic and algebra, MV2 is pure and simple non-sense.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
We hunt for any reference to the idea of infinity; we hunt for any reference to the idea of limit, we hunt for any reference to the idea of tendency toward the limit. Who does that? An interpretation and a rather strange status of calculus will be given because it stops operating with ordinary quantities, and its interpretation will be purely ordinal. Henceforth, that becomes a mode of exploring the finite, the finite as such. It’s a great mathematician, Weierstrass, who did that, but it came rather late. So, he creates an axiomatic of calculus, but at what price? He transformed it completely. Today, when we do differential calculus, there is no reference to the notions of infinity, of limit and of tendency toward the limit. There is a static interpretation. There is no longer any dynamism in differential calculus, but a static and ordinal interpretation of calculus. One must read Vuillemin’s book, La philosophie de l’algebre [Paris: PUF, 1960, 1962].

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
There is an essay by Poincar? on differential equations. I am reading a part of it on kinds of singular points in a curve referring to a function or to a differential equation. He tells us that there are four kinds of singular points: first, crests , which are points through which two curves defined by the equation pass, and only two. Here, the differential equation is such that, in the neighborhood of this point, the equation is going to define and going to cause two curves and only two to pass. The second type of singularity: knots, in which an infinity of curves defined by the equation come to intersect. The third type of singularity: foci , around which these curves turn while drawing closer to them in the form of a spiral. Finally, the fourth type of singularity: centers, around which curves appear in the form of a closed circle.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
conscious perception is always one of a whole, this perception of a whole assuming not only infinitely minute parts, but assuming that these infinitely small parts are perceived. Hence the formula: conscious perception is made of minute perceptions, and I say that, in this case, /is made of/ is the same as /to be composed of./ Leibniz expresses himself in this way quite often. I select a text: /Otherwise we would not sense the whole at all/. . . if there were none of these minute perceptions, we would have no consciousness at all.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
Perception of light or of color that we perceive, that is, conscious perception ? is composed of a quantity of minute perceptions that we do not perceive, and a noise that we do not perceive, and a noise that we do perceive but to which we give no attention becomes a-perceptible, i.e. passes into the state of conscious perception, through a minute addition or augmentation/zväčšenie

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
For the idea that there is something clear and distinct, since Descartes, was an idea that circulated all over. Leibniz slides in his little /distinct/ , the most distinct thoughts. Understand /the distinct,/ /the remarkable,/ /the singular./ So what does that mean? We pass from minute unconscious perception to global conscious perception through a minute addition. So obviously, this is not just any minute addition.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
Force is not a movement, it is the reason for movement. Hence the complete renewal of the physics of forces, and also of geometry, of kinematics [la cinématique]. Everything passes through this, merely by the squaring of velocity. MV2 is a formula of forces, not a formula of movement. You see that this is essential.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
according to Leibniz, the soul has two fundamental faculties: conscious apperception which is therefore composed of minute unconscious perceptions, and what he calls /appetition/, appetite, desire. And we are composed of desires and perceptions. Moreover, appetition is conscious appetite. If global perceptions are made up of an infinity of minute perceptions, appetitions or gross appetites are made up of an infinity of minute appetitions. /I am hungry,/ it’s really a global outcome, what he called a global sensation. He uses his concepts: global hunger and minute specific hungers. He said that hunger as a global phenomenon is a statistical effect. Of what is hunger composed as a global substance? Of thousands of minute hungers: salt hunger, protein substance hunger, grease hunger, mineral salts hunger, etc. . . . When I say, /I’m hungry,/ I am literally undertaking, says Turro, the integral or the integration of these thousands of minute specific hungers..... The carnivore does not eat proteins, it eats something it saw, without seeing the proteins. The problem of instinct on the simplest level is: how does one explain that animals eat more or less anything that suits them? In fact, animals eat during a meal the quantity of fat, of salt, of proteins necessary for the balance of their internal milieu. And their internal milieu is what? It’s the milieu of all the minute perceptions and minute appetitions.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
From the start, we have dragged along the idea that with minute elements, it’s a manner of speaking because what is differential are not elements, not dx in relation to an x, because dx in relation to an x is nothing. What is differential is not a dy in relation to a y because dy in relation to a y is nothing.What is differential is dy/dx, this is the relation......You understand that on this level, we can no longer speak exactly of minute perceptions. We will speak of the differential relation between physical excitation and the physical state by assimilating it frankly to dy/dx, it matters little. And perception becomes conscious when the differential relation corresponds to a singularity, that is, changes its sign.

Gilles Deleuze (1925)
Leibniz is one of the great founders of game theory. He was impassioned by mathematical game problems, he must have been quite a games player himself.Why is it that world which passed into existence? Leibniz explains what is, for him, the creation of worlds by God, and we see well how this is a theory of games: God, in his understanding , conceives an infinity of possible worlds, only these possible worlds are not compossible with each other, and necessarily so since it's God who chooses the best.(ad Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz)
Nie je to prekvapujúce, že väzenia pripomínajú fabriky, školy, internáty, nemocnice a všetko pripomína väzenia? / Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?

Michel Foucault (1926)

Niekto (2019)
Its dimensions are given as 300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in width and 30 cubits in height (450 × 75 × 45 ft or 137 × 22.9 × 13.7 m).

Niekto (2019)
Happiness is in looking at the glass and seeing the truth of the glass. Seeing the half full side and being grateful for it, seeing the half empty side and saying, can I do anything about it? And if not, can I accept it? Truly, happiness is not about what the world gives you, how much water is in this glass. Happiness is what you think about what the world gives you.Happiness is equal to or greater than the difference between the way you see the events of your life and your expectation of how life should behave. So if liefe meets your expectations, you are happy. We mix two states, one of them is happiness and the other is fun. Happiness is that peaceful, contentment feeling of -I like the world as it is right now. Fun is th modern worlds replacement of happiness. When I am unable to reach that state of happiness, what I do is I go out on the weekend and I go to a party and - boom,boom,boom, booom- and my brain stops thinking. As long as it stops thinking, I think I feel happy..because I suspended my unhappy thoughts.

Niekto (2019)
After all, in the absence of external energy input, random thermal motion tends to destroy order. This tendency is codified in the second law of thermodynamics, which dictates that everything ages and decays: Buildings and roads crumble; ships and rails rust; mountains wash into the sea. Lifeless structures are helpless against the ravages of thermal motion. But life is different: Protein machines constantly heal and renew their cells. In this sense, life pits biology against physics in mortal combat.

Niekto (2019)
The philosophical questions are conceptual, not factual questions. Philosophical questions are typically about conceptual issues; they are often questions about our concepts and the relation between our concepts and the world they represent. Every question implies a statement and every statement implies a question.

Niekto (2019)
Information is often approached from three perspectives: information as reality (e.g. as patterns of physical signals, which are neither true nor false), also known as ecological information; information about reality (semantic information, which is alethically qualifiable and an ingredient in the constitution of knowledge); and information for reality (instruction, like genetic information, algorithms and recipes)..

Niekto (2019)
Modern biological theories of aging in humans fall into two main categories: programmed and damage or error theories.

Niekto (2019)
The foundation of the Kuenz business philosophy is a continuous face to face dialogue with our customers. We believe that thoroughly understanding the specific requirements and needs of our customers enables us to provide the right products and services.

Niekto (2019)
Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration

Niekto (2019)
Information technology (IT) is the application of computers and internet to store, retrieve, transmit, and manipulate data

Niekto (2019)
Clovek je zviera, ktore tepelne upravuje svoje potraviny.Preparing food with heat or fire is an activity unique to humans, and scientists believe the advent of cooking played an important role in human evolution.[1] Some anthropologists believe that cooking fires first developed around 250,000 years ago, although there is evidence for the controlled use of fire by Homo erectus beginning 400,000 years ago

Niekto (2019)
The programmed theory has three sub-categories: 1) Programmed Longevity. Aging is the result of a sequential switching on and off of certain genes, with senescence being defined as the time when age-associated deficits are manifested. Dr. Davidovic et al discuss the role of genetic instability in aging and dynamics of the aging process (1). 2) Endocrine Theory. Biological clocks act through hormones to control the pace of aging. Recent studies confirm that aging is hormonally regulated and that the evolutionarily conserved insulin/IGF-1 signaling (IIS) pathway plays a key role in the hormonal regulation of aging. Dr. van Heemst discusses the potential mechanism underlying IIS and aging process(2). 3) Immunological Theory. The immune system is programmed to decline over time, which leads to an increased vulnerability to infectious disease and thus aging and death. It is well documented that the effectiveness of the immune system peaks at puberty and gradually declines thereafter with advance in age.

Niekto (2019)
The damage or error theory include 1) Wear and tear theory. Cells and tissues have vital parts that wear out resulting in aging. Like components of an aging car, parts of the body eventually wear out from repeated use, killing them and then the body. So the wear and tear theory of aging was first introduced by Dr. August Weismann, a German biologist, in 1882, it sounds perfectly reasonable to many people even today, because this is what happens to most familiar things around them. 2) Rate of living theory. The greater an organism’s rate of oxygen basal metabolism, the shorter its life span (5). The rate-of-living theory of aging while helpful is not completely adequate in explaining the maximum life span (6).Dr. Rollo proposes a modified version of Pearl’s rate of living theory emphasizing the hard-wired antagonism of growth (TOR) and stress resistance (FOXO) (7). 3) Cross-linking theory. The cross-linking theory of aging was proposed by Johan Bjorksten in 1942 (8). According to this theory, an accumulation of cross-linked proteins damages cells and tissues, slowing down bodily processes resulting in aging. Recent studies show that cross-linking reactions are involved in the age related changes in the studied proteins (9). 4) Free radicals theory. This theory, which was first introduced by Dr. Gerschman in 1954, but was developed by Dr. Denham Harman (10, 11), proposes that superoxide and other free radicals cause damage to the macromolecular components of the cell, giving rise to accumulated damage causing cells, and eventually organs, to stop functioning. 5) Somatic DNA damage theory. DNA damages occur continuously in cells of living organisms. While most of these damages are repaired, some accumulate, as the DNA Polymerases and other repair mechanisms cannot correct defects as fast as they are apparently produced. In particular, there is evidence for DNA damage accumulation in non-dividing cells of mammals. Genetic mutations occur and accumulate with increasing age, causing cells to deteriorate and malfunction. In particular, damage to mitochondrial DNA might lead to mitochondrial dysfunction. Therefore, aging results from damage to the genetic integrity of the body’s cells.

Niekto (2019)
A philosophy asserting the primacy of observation in assessing the truth of statements of fact and holding that metaphysical and subjective arguments not based on observable data are meaningless. Also called logical empiricism..(ad novopozitivizmus)

Niekto (2019)
1. (Philosophy) a philosophical theory that holds to be meaningful only those propositions that can be analysed by the tools of logic into elementary propositions that are either tautological or are empirically verifiable. It therefore rejects metaphysics, theology, and sometimes ethics as meaningless..(ad novopozitivizmus)

Niekto (2019)
unearned fullfilment gives you a big burst of pleasure but its only momentarily. it lasts for a short period of time and then disapears and after you feel bad cos its gone. earned fullfilment last forever , its not as intesn as the unearned stuff but the difference is its everlasting instead of momentary

Niekto (2019)
Leibniz, who was corresponding with Jesuits in China, wrote the first European commentary on the I Ching in 1703, arguing that it proved the universality of binary numbers and theism, since the broken lines, the 0 or nothingness, cannot become solid lines, the 1 or oneness, without the intervention of God (ad Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz)

Niekto (2019)
Distributive justice :
What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, some combination of these things?
Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of a single society, nations?
What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need, based on property rights and non-aggression?

Niekto (2019)
But perhaps even more important than specific political and moral commitments is a general conviction, almost religiously held in some quarters, that scientism (conceived as a too-narrowly-scientific view of the world) needs to be actively resisted, and that the arts and humanities — including philosophy — should play a central role here.

Niekto (2019)
Political and moral and other broadly ideological commitments are also in play, of course, and a broad-based, normatively-oriented version of philosophy is inevitably attractive to those who seek to influence the values and behaviors of others./Mark English

Niekto (2019)
Given that — whatever happens to philosophy departments — meta-questions relating to the sciences and other disciplines will continue to be addressed by practitioners of those disciplines, why does it matter so much to some that philosophy should survive as an independent discipline?It may be that many of philosophy’s defenders are motivated by a belief in the need for a synoptic view./Mark English

Niekto (2019)
The Great Chain of Being. The top of the chain represents perfection in the highest degree. Most believers in the chain call this God.The chain in its entirety represents all degrees of perfection from the highest and fullest to the lowest and least; it is complete. Hence the universe would not be complete if the chain did not extend all the way to the bottom or if it had gaps in it.The universe is more perfect (in the sense that it is more complete) if all degrees of perfection are represented in it than if only the highest is represented. This explains why a perfect God would create an imperfect world. It was not a mistake or an imperfection; on the contrary. The most perfect (complete) universe must contain every kind of imperfect thing. Hence imperfect things are not evidence of the imperfection of creation. / http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/re/chain.htm

Niekto (2019)
I personally have found myself in the position of trying to justify the discipline to skeptical students . My usual line was to try to get them to see philosophy more in terms of the history of ideas, emphasizing the importance of knowing something about the way our cultures and our science have developed over time. /Mark English

Niekto (2019)
Dreams are successions of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations that occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep.

Niekto (2019)
Deirdre Barrett describes dreaming as simply /thinking in different biochemical state/ and believes people continue to work on all the same problems—personal and objective—in that state.[68] Her research finds that anything—math, musical composition, business dilemmas—may get solved during dreaming.In a related theory, which Mark Blechner terms /Oneiric Darwinism,/ dreams are seen as creating new ideas through the generation of random thought mutations.

Niekto (2019)
Professor Charito Sulatar and Dr. David Quigley, from the University of Warwick, who helped develop a recent study with colleagues from Sheffield University, point out that in fact a key chicken protein, ovocleidin-17, which helps in the formation of the egg's hard shell, actually comes both before and after the egg shell.

Niekto (2019)
An event E causally depends on C if, and only if, (i) if C had occurred, then E would have occurred, and (ii) if C had not occurred, then E would not have occurred.

Niekto (2019)
Prirodzenosť ľudí je taká, že takmer neomylne vylučujú zo svojej spoločnosti tých, ktorí najviac potrebujú ich prijatie. (angl.: this is the nature of people, they unerringly select as their victim the one most needs their warmth.)

Niekto (2019)
The basal forebrain, near the front and bottom of the brain, also promotes sleep and wakefulness, while part of the midbrain acts as an arousal system. Release of adenosine (a chemical by-product of cellular energy consumption) from cells in the basal forebrain and probably other regions supports your sleep drive. Caffeine counteracts sleepiness by blocking the actions of adenosine.

Niekto (2019)
There are three basic types of questions that research projects can address: Descriptive.When a study is designed primarily to describe what is going on or what exists. Public opinion polls that seek only to describe the proportion of people who hold various opinions are primarily descriptive in nature. For instance, if we want to know what percent of the population would vote for a Democratic or a Republican in the next presidential election, we are simply interested in describing something...... Relational.When a study is designed to look at the relationships between two or more variables. A public opinion poll that compares what proportion of males and females say they would vote for a Democratic or a Republican candidate in the next presidential election is essentially studying the relationship between gender and voting preference..... Causal.When a study is designed to determine whether one or more variables (e.g., a program or treatment variable) causes or affects e or more outcome variables. If we did a public opinion poll to try to determine whether a recent political advertising campaign changed voter preferences, we would essentially be studying whether the campaign (cause) changed the proportion of voters who would vote Democratic or Republican (effect).The three question types can be viewed as cumulative. That is, a relational study assumes that you can first describe (by measuring or observing) each of the variables you are trying to relate. And, a causal study assumes that you can describe both the cause and effect variables and that you can show that they are related to each other. Causal studies are probably the most demanding of the three. .


Okomentuj:








    Čo je pravda?
       Čo je to poznanie?
          Čo je omyl/Ako sa môžeme mýlit?
             Na ktorej strane je pravda?
               |_ Na ktorej strane je pravda...?
               |_ Stvorenie či evolúcia?
                Ktorá cirkev je pravá?
                  |_ Katolícka či protestanská cirkev?
                  |_ Islam či kresťanstvo?
                   Judaizmus či kresťanstvo?
                     |_ Prečo židia zavrhli Ježiša?
               |_ Ktorá filozofia je pravdivá?
                Je biblia pravdivá?
                  |_ Čo nebrať z Biblie doslovne?
                  |_ Mohli sa do archy zmestiť všetky živočíšne druhy?
                Budhizmus áno či nie?
                  |_ Budhizmus alebo kresťanstvo ?
                Náboženstvo áno či nie?
                  |_ Kresťanstvo áno či nie ?
            |_ Ako sa prestať mýliť?
          Ako môžu slová vystihovať realitu?
            |_ Čo je fakt?
            |_ Čo je informácia?
             Čo je to otázka?
               |_ Aké sú základné otázky?
             Čo sú univezálie?
               |_ Čo je to číslo?
               |_ Čo sú transcendetálie?
               |_ Čo sú kategórie?
            |_ Existuje nejaká ustálená, jasne a presne vytýčená definícia slov?
            |_ Čo je humor?
            |_ Ako programovacie jazyky opisujú realitu?
            |_ Ako môžu slová nevyjadrovať realitu?
          Čo je myslenie?
            |_ Dokáže stroj myslieť?
          Aké sú zjednocujúce princípy všetkého poznania?
            |_ Čo je prvá pravda?
          Aký je vzťah poznania a vôle?
            |_ Ako vôbec viem, čo kedy robiť?
          Aké sú druhy poznania?
            |_ Nie je všetko poznanie iba viera?
             Čo je to filozofia?
                Čo je metafyzika?
                  |_ Čo je ontológia?
               |_ Čo je to morálka?
               |_ Aký je vzťah filozofie a vedy?
               |_ Aká je vaša životná filozofia?
             Čo je veda?
                Ako sa líši veda od nevedy?
                  |_ Kedy je ezoterika škodlivá?
                Aký je vzťah vedy a náboženstva?
                  |_ Môžeme merať modlitbu?
               |_ Čo je logika?
                Čo je to technika?
                  |_ Ovláda nás technika, alebo my ovládame techniku?
            |_ Ako poznať seba samého?
             Čo je náboženstvo?
               |_ Čo je to najvyššia pravda?
               |_ Aký je vzťah filozofie a náboženstva?
            |_ Ako sa učiť?
            |_ Ako poznať Boha?
            |_ Ako poznať druhého človeka?
       Čo je skutočnosť?
          Čo je to existujúce?
             Čo existuje?
               |_ Existuje Boh?
               |_ Existuje duša?
               |_ Existujú mimozemšťania?
               |_ Existuje posmrtný život?
               |_ Existuje zlo?
                Existujú univerzálie?
                   Existuje číslo?
                     |_ Existujú čísla?
               |_ Existuje vákuum, ticho alebo tma?
               |_ Existuje priestor?
               |_ Existujú anjeli, duchovné bytosti, Lucifer?
               |_ Existuje spravodlivosť?
               |_ Existujem?
             Kedy existuje? Čo to znamená existovať v čase?
                Čo je to čas?
                  |_ Čo sú to dejiny?
                Čo existovalo?
                   Čo bolo skôr?
                     |_ Môže z ničoho vzniknúť niečo?
                      Existuje niečo večné a nemenné?
                        |_ Ako môže z nemenného vzniknúť premenlivé?
                     |_ Čo bolo skôr, sliepka alebo vajce?
                     |_ Čo robil boh predtým než stvoril svet?
                     |_ Sú veci tvorené na základe ideí?
                  |_ Mal som minulé životy?
                Čo bude existovat?
                  |_ Stráca sa informácia vo vesmíre?
                  |_ Čo budeme robiť? (chtiac či nechtiac)
                  |_ Aká bude spoločnosť?
             Kde existuje? Čo to znamená existovať v priestore ?
               |_ Čo je to priestor?
               |_ Kde je Boh?
            |_ Kolko je jestvujúcien?
             Ako existuje/Čo je kvalita ?
                Čo by malo existovat?
                   Čo je to dobro?
                     |_ Čo je sloboda?
                      Čo je to zlo?
                         Čo je to utrpenie?
                           |_ Trpí niekto viac a niekto menej?
                           |_ Čo je stres?
                         Je smrť zlá?
                           |_ Sú vegetariáni dobrí a ostatní ľudia zlí?
                           |_ Zabíjať mravcov vo vlastnom byte je dobré alebo zlé?
                        |_ Čo je hriech?
                         Ako vzniká nenávisť?
                           |_ Ako prestať nenávidieť?
                        |_ Čo je (ne)normálne?
                        |_ Čo je hlúposť?
                         Čo je choroba?
                           |_ Čo je duševná choroba?
                           |_ Ako sa uzdraviť a zostať zdravý?
                      Čo je láska?
                        |_ Ako vzniká láska?
                        |_ Čo je priateľstvo?
                        |_ Ako milovať?
                        |_ Aké sú druhy lásky?
                        |_ Čo nie je láska?
                      Sú ľudia dobrí alebo zlí?
                        |_ Je ego dobré alebo zlé?
                     |_ Homosexualita je dobrá či zlá?
                     |_ Čo je lepšie...?
                     |_ Čo je čistota?
                     |_ Čo je spravodlivost?
                      Čo je šťastie?
                         Čo potrebuje človek k tomu, aby bol šťastný?
                           |_ Čo treba človeku vedieť, aby bol šťastný?
                      Čo je múdrosť?
                        |_ Čo je racionalita?
                      Čo je krása?
                         Čo je to umenie?
                           |_ Čo je to literatúra?
                           |_ Aký je vzťah filozofie a umenia?
                      Čo je to moc?
                        |_ Ako získať a udržať moc v štáte?
                     |_ Čo je slasť?
                     |_ Je majetok dobrý alebo zlý?
                     |_ Je život dobrý alebo zlý?
                     |_ Je veda dobrá alebo zlá?
                     |_ Čo sú to hodnoty?
                     |_ Čo sú cnosti?
                   Aká by mala byť spolocnosť? / Kto by mal vládnuť?
                     |_ Rusko či Amerika?
                     |_ Kapitalizmus či socializmus?
                     |_ EU - áno či nie?
                     |_ Ako vychovávať deti?
                     |_ Prijímať či neprijímať utečencov?
                     |_ Treba zrušiť politické strany?
                     |_ Ako skutočne umožniť ľuďom, ktorí tvoria ľud, vyjadriť niekedy názor na veľké problémy verejného života?
                     |_ Ako zabrániť, aby v období keď ľud odpovedá, nekolovala medzi ním nijaká kolektívna vášeň?
                     |_ Ako zmeniť spoločnosť?
                     |_ Ako zachrániť demokraciu?
                      Potrebujeme štát?
                        |_ Platiť či neplatiť dane?
                   Ako žit?
                     |_ Čo robit?
                     |_ Tažba uránu v Košiciach - áno či nie?
                      Potraty áno či nie?
                        |_ Je oplodnené vajíčko rovnocenné človeku?
                      Čo jesť?
                        |_ Zeleninu z Lidlu , alebo zo záhradky?
                        |_ Čo navariť na obed?
                     |_ Antikoncepcia - áno či nie?
                     |_ Prerušovaný styk - áno či nie?
                     |_ Ako nerobiť a zarobiť?
                     |_ V čom podnikať?
                     |_ Povinné očkovanie - áno či nie?
                      Prečo ne/študovat filozofiu?
                        |_ Načo sú dobrí filozofi?
                     |_ Ako odstrániť korupciu?
                     |_ Pozerať či nepozerať televízor?
                     |_ Piť či nepiť?
                      Ako filozofovať?
                        |_ Ako môže počítač pomôcť pri filozofovaní?
                        |_ Ako (ne)diskutovať ?
                     |_ Mať či nemať deti?
                     |_ Čo robiť, keď nás urážajú?
                      Pracovať či nepracovať?
                        |_ Mali by za nás pracovať stroje?
                        |_ Čo je práca?
                     |_ Byť či nebyť?
                     |_ Čo kupovať?
                      Ako sa rozhodovať ?
                        |_ Ako má softvérový autopilot riešiť situácie?
                     |_ Ako meditovať?
                     |_ Ako sa modliť?
                      Ako (ne)sexovať?
                        |_ Robiť si to?
                        |_ Prečo má spoločnosť hlboký odpor voči incestu?
                      Ženiť sa (vydávať sa)?
                        |_ Rozvádzať sa či nie?
                     |_ Čo čítať?
                     |_ Očkovať sa či radšej nie?
                     |_ Čo si obliecť?
                     |_ Čo je šport?
                     |_ Akým by som chcel byť človekom?
                     |_ Bojovať či nebojovať?
                     |_ Ako žiť ekologicky?
                      Ako ukončiť vojnu (všetky vojny)?
                        |_ Ako vybudovať dôveru medzi národmi?
                     |_ Čo nerobiť?
                     |_ Ako krotiť vášne?
                     |_ Čo mám robiť, aby som bol spasený ?
                     |_ Ako prekonať odlúčenosť, opustiť väzenie svojej samoty?
                V akom vzťahu s....existuje ?
                  |_ Aký je vzťah medzi časťami a celkom?
                Majú veci vlastnosti nezávislé na našom vnímaní?
                  |_ Sú veci farebné?
                Čo je podstata a čo akcident?
                  |_ Kto som?
                   Čo je človek?
                      Sme slobodní?
                        |_ Ide dokopy Božia vševedúcnosť a ľudská slobodná vôľa?
                        |_ Kedy konáme slobodne a kedy nie?
                        |_ Sú slobodní ľudia, ktorí sa podrobujú pandemickým opatreniam?
                     |_ Čo je to sen?
                     |_ Čo je duša?
                      Čo je život?
                        |_ Čo je smrť?
                        |_ Čo je to narodenie?
                      Čo je vedomie?
                         Čo je prvotné? Hmota alebo vedomie?
                            Predchádza myšlienka jej zhmotnenie - realitu?
                              |_ Je to všetko o pozitívnom myslení?
                        |_ Čo je to svedomie?
                     |_ V čom je kresťan iný od nekresťana?
                      Môže sa človek zmeniť?
                        |_ Ako zmeniť myslenie?
                      Aká je spoločnosť /Čo ju drží pohromade?/ Čo spôsobuje jej zmeny?
                        |_ Prečo je chudoba?
                         Čo je vlastníctvo a ako vzniká?
                           |_ Ako by malo byť rozdelené bohatstvo Zeme?
                      Ako žijeme?
                         Čo robíme?
                           |_ Čo kupujeme?
                            Čo jeme (a pijeme)?
                              |_ Čo jedia budhisti?
                            Ako sa rozhodujeme?
                              |_ Ako si vyberáme partnerov ?
                     |_ Aký je vzťah tela a mysle?
                     |_ Sú vlastnosti človeka dané génmi, alebo výchovou?
                      Aký je človek?
                        |_
                   Čo ma robí mnou?
                      Som slovák či európan?
                        |_ Kto sú Slováci?
                      Čo je to mužnosť? Čo je to ženskosť?
                        |_ Koľko pohlaví existuje?
                        |_ Čo je manželstvo?
                     |_ Čo je to národ?
                     |_ Čo je civilizácia?
                   Čo nie som?
                      Čo je to Boh? (Aký je Boh?)
                        |_ Je Boh stále činný, alebo aj odpočíva?
                        |_ Aká je božia vôľa?
                        |_ Je boh ľudský výmysel?
                        |_ Načo prosiť Boha, keď on aj tak vie čo potrebujeme?
                        |_ Prečo by sme mali podriaďovať vôľu, ktorú máme od Boha, nejakej ďalšej Božej vôli?
                        |_ Ak má človek slobodnú vôľu, vie Boh dopredu ako sa človek rozhodne?
                         Skutočne ma Boh miluje?
                           |_ Ak je Boh miluje, prečo existuje peklo?
                         Kto je Ježiš?
                           |_ V čom bola Ježišova smrť taká výnimočná?
                        |_ Akým jazykom hovorí Boh?
                         Je Boh dobrý?
                            Ak je Boh dobrý, prečo existuje zlo?
                              |_ Nepopiera stvorenie evolúciou dobrotivosť božiu?
                              |_ Prečo boh-rozsievac hádže niektoré semená na cestu,do tŕnia...?
                              |_ Ak zlo prichádza od diabla, prečo to diabol robí?
                              |_ Stvoril Boh vírusy a baktérie?
                         Je Boh všemocný?
                            Ak je Boh všemocný, prečo... ?
                              |_ Nevie Boh človeku niekedy pomôcť?
                         Čo je modlitba?
                           |_ Funguje modlitba?
                        |_ Prečo Boha nemožno vidieť?
                     |_ Čo je svet?
             Čo je činnosť?
                Čo je trpnosť?
                   Čo je to kauzalita?
                      Prečo ... existuje? Aká bola príčina ?
                        |_ Prečo je vôbec niečo a nie skôr nič?
                        |_ Je pravda, že náhoda neexistuje?
                        |_ Z čoho všetko vzniklo?
                        |_ Prečo sme tu? Ako sme sa sem dostali?
                         Odkiaľ prichádza zlo?
                           |_ Ako vzniká nesloboda?
                            Prečo existuje utrpenie?
                              |_ Prečo niekto musi trpiet viac a niekto menej?
                               Prečo sú choroby?
                                 |_ Prečo sa kazia zuby?
                              |_ Prečo ja?
                            Prečo musíme zomrieť?
                              |_ Prečo umierajú mladí ludia?
                           |_ Keď už musí byť zmena, prečo to nie je vždy zmena k lepsiemu?
                           |_ Prečo starneme?
                            Prečo sú vojny?
                               Prečo vznikla vojna na Ukrajine v r. 2014 (2022)?
                                 |_ Kto vyhraje vojnu na Ukrajine?
                                 |_ Kto by mal vyhrať vojnu na Ukrajine?
                        |_ Je spasenie iba z božej milosti, alebo aj podľa zásluh?
                        |_ Prečo je nezhoda medzi tým čo je a tým čo by malo byť?
                        |_ Prečo musím?
                        |_ Prečo sa nemodlí za všetko naraz?
                         Prečo niečo robíme? Čo zapríčinilo, že to robíme?
                            Prečo chceme to, čo chceme?
                              |_ Čo chceme?
                      Prečo ... existuje? Aký je cieľ toho ?
                        |_ Aký má život zmysel?
                        |_ Prečo sme tu? (cieľ)
                        |_ Prečo niečo robiť a nie skôr nič?
                        |_ Prečo niečo robíme? Aký je cieľ toho nášho konania?
          Čo je možnosť? Je vsetko možné?
             Čo je to zázrak?
               |_ Možu sa diať zázraky?