Creative Ct 6840 Driver

universal and can be die for an idea?

I doubt that people would die for ideas ... die of something potentially achievable. Dire idea seems to say something that is blissful nell'iperuranio:)

I believe that when you have an idea, you and the idea are the same thing, so if your idea dies (unless you try to implement it) you're dead, too. Fortunately, not everyone has one fixed idea in mind :)))) This means that you give a relative weight to ideas. But sometimes you want to make certain ideas because the weight of the contradictions calls this act of "heroism", or better than generosity. Sometimes it is a matter of hope ... All of the ideas that they want to achieve, and the hope is the engine that drives life. Although not wanting to die for no idea is an idea :-)

Baci Chocolate Calgary

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard: Two complementary opposites or two? The

"in some remote corner of the universe, pour in the glitter of countless solar systems, there once was a monster, on which intelligent animals invented knowledge. Was the most presumptuous and minutes liar in the history of the world, however, was only a few breaths minuto.Dopo of our nature is coagulated, and the clever animals had to die!

"

This aphorism by Nietzsche seems to say that knowledge does not exist, that life is tragic, and that knowledge, his Socratic spirit, is a lie invented by people who wanted to hide the reality.

Nietzsche says, "there are no facts, only interpretations." For Nietzsche as the first Greek life is a tragedy in that it is subject to becoming. The first Greeks do not understand, they feel in their spirit, the influence of reality, and transform it through art.

Then come those who want to deny reality, and substitute the reality of knowledge. Nietzsche argues, saying that their knowledge is not knowledge of reality, ie facts, but it's just interpretation, that is defensive mechanism to hide the tragic element of human existence.


E 'vision, his, in part similar to that of the early Greeks. A vision aristocratic. What is missing in Nietzsche is perhaps the idea of \u200b\u200bprovidence in the greek sense of the word. There is something about him that makes him a little more Christian. Perhaps its individualism, its aristocracy that is not tied to a role as a Community in Greece, but has a function purely subjective, individual. In some ways looks more like a greek existentialist Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard and Nietzsche who is the tragic element but lacks the community element.

Should I Wax My Legs Before Vacation

I think and self-consciousness in Kant

"the manifold of representations can be given in intuition, which is purely sensible, that is nothing but receptivity."

"Nothing can represented as joint object, without first having carried out at the junction.

"the conjunction is the only one not to be given by the objects being producible soltantno by the subject, as an act of spontaneity."

The conjunction , Kant makes it clear, has nothing to do with the unit category. The unit is a category that belongs to the representation and apply to the subject. But how can we be aware of our representations (without being aware we can not know )? Thanks to their unification by the ego I think.
The "I think his intellect is that faculty which unifies the multiple representations empirical (obtained through the categories), and is the presupposition of all knowledge. This I think is a representative function of the intellect from different categories, because it acts on the representations themselves, unifying their own. To unify, however, there must be a conscious entity, capable of representing himself in the "I think, the conscience must be aware of the unifying ego I think (ie intellect) must be self-conscious, otherwise can not know. The knower as well as being machine acquaintance (thanks to its junction spontaneous ego I think), should also be aware of the knowledge, that is to be self-consciousness. Without self-consciousness can not be the work of the intellect, I think that is the ego, and there can be no knowledge. It 's like saying that I think is the machine and the existence of a self-consciousness is the fuel. And 'the machine that works, but it always assumes a self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is a cognitive tool, is something that goes to the dilation of universal knowledge of the intellect: it is the individual knower, rather than in idealistic becomes the absolute Subject fell in history.
Kant is expressed even more clearly when he says:

"For the many representations that are given some insight, they can not ALL TOGETHER to be My representations, if not all belong together to a single self-consciousness. "

So I think the activity of the ego assumes the subject aware of itself, otherwise it remains an empirical subject which can not know.

" In fact, the empirical consciousness, which accompanies different representations, is dispersed in itself and without reference to the identity of the subject. "

The empirical consciousness can not know why is the LINK, that is the summary of representations effettutata from I think.

much simpler: it knows through intuition (space and time) + representation (categories). The multiple representations is unified by the intellect, through I think. The intellect can only do this work because it requires a knowing subject (or self-conscious). This I think is an object that knows phenomena, self-awareness is a person who knows you know. Self-consciousness knows (= is in itself) I think the, I think the phenomena is in itself (intuitive and categorized) uniting to make them his own, and not someone else. But this action requires the existence of them their own self-consciousness.

the "" are kant.