ku e ke lexu ti daku qe kjo eshte teoria time ?Postuar mė parė nga Julius
ku e ke lexu ti daku qe kjo eshte teoria time ?
Shqiptari e ka care rrugen e historise me Palle ne dore!
Me pak fjale zenith donte te thoshte se naiviteti i femijeve eshte ēelesi per ne mbreterine e qiejve, pra te mendosh pa filtrat ideologjik qe dashur pa dashur mjegullojne realitetin e gjerave. Te jesh naiv te ben te jesh goxha budalla, por te lejon te shikosh realitetin ashtu siē eshte.
nuk e di nese mund ta quaj dualizem, por vetem ne kete menyre eliminojme shkakun e shkakut te shkakut te shkakut deri ne pafundesi.
Perderisa shkaku dhe pasoja jane e njejta gje , pra materia lind prej idese, por dhe ideja lind prej materies ketu gjejme nje cikel, nje rreth qe eshte i vetpermbajtur dhe nuk ka nevoje per shkakun e shkakut te shkakut ....
Me duket se e ke gabim xfiles. Une nuk po kerkoj me patjeter asgje, thjesht po ndjek
mendimin tend apo te tjetrit,sepse personalisht nuk jam shprehur, dmth po mbaj mesa eshte e mundur nje pozite komode asnjanesi.
Shqiptari e ka care rrugen e historise me Palle ne dore!
Po edhe ideja e idese si origjine e universit eshte shkencore, pasi bazohet ne zbulimet shkencore te atomit, quantum mechanics, special relativity etj, te shekullit te kaluar. Pra evolucion i inteligjences e vetedijes. Ideja Platonike kam pershtypjen se ishte dicka idealo-normative e nuk kishte shume te beje me shkencen.
Problemet qe ngrihen prej diskutimit mbi materien e idene kam pershtypjen se jane dukuri e intelektit, qe me c'kam lexuar paraqitet si nje sistem operativ i ndertuar apostafat per te konceptuar materien dhe vendin e njeriut ne natyre. Pra intelekti nuk eshte ndertuar te konceptoj idene, shpirtin, ose frymen, por per t'i sherbyer njeriut te konceptoj materien. Pra ndoshta intelekti e pengon konceptimin e idese si origjinator te universit, duke qene se nuk eshte i ndertuar per ate pune ne radhe te pare. (Nuk e mbaj mend se ku e kam lexuar kete, por nqs je i interesuar e gjej).
Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga artful dodger : 19-08-2008 mė 22:51
jam dakord me artful_dodger.
gjeometria sferikerethi,sfera,cikel i mbyllur,nje gjeometri jo euklidiane(ajo qe kemi mesuar ne shkolle) ....teper moderne,spjegon shume gjera.
kush kerkon lidhje i gjen,me duket se bie dakord me ty.
Ne fakt Platoni nuk flet per evolucion te inteligjences, por per ekzistencen e botes se ideve e cila ben te mundur boten materiale, pra cdo gje qe ne shohim prekim etj ekziston sepse ka prejardhjen nga bota e ideve. Faktikisht eshte goxha ndryshe.
Po pate ndonje fjale me teper se nga origjinon inteligjenca ne teorine joplatoniane te origjines se universit nga ideja, do ishte me shume interes...
Ka mundesi qe intelekti ta pengoje, por nga ana tjeter intelekti eshte i vetmi mjet i besueshem qe ka njeriu per te zbuluar idene.
p.s Xfiles re dakort me te gjithe o burre i dheut
Shqiptari e ka care rrugen e historise me Palle ne dore!
ke te drejte, por varet se si i shikon gjerat. Eshte ai problemi qe thashe me pare, mbase flasim te gjithe te njejten gje por nuk arrijme ta komunikojme siē duhet qe te tjeret te na kuptojne.p.s Xfiles re dakort me te gjithe o burre i dheut
Ja qe une nuk shoh asgje kontradiktore ne ato qe thone keta personat ketu, flasin per aspekte te ndryshme, por jo domosdoshmerisht kontradiktore.
Nqs te bie ne dore, shih historine e filozofise perendimore prej Russell, (Section 28, 714-722, Henri Bergson) sepse ktu e kam lexuar ate qe permenda. Nqs s'e gjen dot atehere e skanoj edhe e sjell.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0...ref=sib_rdr_dp
ktu ke vetem disa paragrafe, te cilat nuk i kam dalluar midis shkrimeve te dy shkrimtareve.
Intelligence and intellect, as it leaves the hands of nature, has for its chief object the inorganic solid, it can only form a clear idea of the discontinous and immobile; its concepts are outside each other like objects in space, and have the same stability. The intellect separates in space and fixes in time; it is not made to think evolution, but to represent becoming as a series of states. The intellect is characterised by a natural inability to understand life; geometry and logic which are its typical products, are strictly applicable to solid bodies, but elsewhere reason must be checked by common sense, which as Bergson tryly says is a very different thing. Solid bodies, it would seem, are something which the mind has created on purpose to apply intellect to them, much as it has created chess-bords in order to play chess on them. The genesis of intellect, and the genesis of material bodies, we are told, are correlative; both have been developed by reciprocal adaptation. An identical process must have cut out matter and the intellect, at the same time, from a stuff that contained both.
This conception of the simultaneous growth of matter and intellect is ingenious, and deserves to be understood. Broadly, I think, what is meant is this: intellect is the power of seeing things as separate from one another, and matter is that which is separated into distinct things. In reality there are no separate solid things, only an endless stream of becoming, in which nothing becomes and there is nothing that this nothing becomes. But becoming may be a movement up or down: when it is a movement up it is called life, when it is a movement down it is what, as misapprehended by the intellect, is called matter. I suppose the universe is shaped like a cone, with the Absolute at the vertex, for the movement up brings together, while the movement down separates them, or at least seems to do so. In order that the upward motion of mind may be able to thread its way through the downward motion of the falling bodies which hail upon it, it must be able to cut out paths between them; thus as intelligence was formed, outlines and paths appeared, and the primitive flux was cut up into separate bodies. The intellect may be compared to a carver, but it has the peculiarity of imagining that the chicken always was the separate pieces into which the carving knife divides it.
Regullat e Postimit
Pėrgjigju Duke Cituar
Krijoni Kontakt