What do you think?
Rate this book
爻乇賴賲鈥屫ㄙ嗀� 賳讴賳: 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏й屰� 毓噩蹖亘 丕夭 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 亘夭乇诏 鬲丕乇蹖禺
趩乇丕 卮賵倬賳賴丕賵乇 賲蹖鈥屭佖� 噩賴丕賳 賲丕 亘丿鬲乇蹖賳 噩賴丕賳 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲責 賲丕噩乇丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 鬲賳丿蹖 讴賴 丿乇亘丕乇賴贁 夭賳丕賳 賳賵卮鬲 趩賴 亘賵丿責 讴丕乇賲丕 賵 賲讴丕賮丕鬲 毓賲賱 趩蹖爻鬲責 丿賻賳 亘乇丕賵賳 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 蹖丕 卮讴爻倬蹖乇責 賯賲丕乇 倬丕爻讴丕賱 亘乇 爻乇 賵噩賵丿 禺丿丕 趩賴 亘賵丿責 丌蹖丕 乇賳噩 倬丕蹖丕賳蹖 丿丕乇丿責 趩乇丕 丌讴賵卅蹖賳丕爻 禺賵丿丕乇囟丕蹖蹖 乇丕 丕夭 鬲噩丕賵夭 亘丿鬲乇 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀池� 賵 趩乇丕 賳蹖趩賴 丕夭 賲乇诏 禺丿丕 丨乇賮 賲蹖鈥屫藏� 亘丨孬 丿乇亘丕乇賴贁 丕蹖賳鈥屬囏� 賵 丿賴鈥屬囏� 賲賵囟賵毓 噩丕賱亘 丿蹖诏乇 乇丕 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 芦爻乇 賴賲鈥屫ㄙ嗀� 賳讴賳!禄 亘禺賵丕賳蹖丿貨 賲孬賱丕賸 亘丕 賲胤丕賱毓賴贁 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 讴卮賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屫� 讴賴 毓賲蹖賯鈥屫臂屬� 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕丿毓丕 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 賲丕丿賴 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿貙 丕爻亘 鬲讴鈥屫簇ж� 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿貙 賳賵夭丕丿賴丕 爻夭丕賵丕乇 丿賵夭禺鈥屫з嗀� 賵 匕賴賳 乇賵蹖 乇賮鬲丕乇 丕孬乇 賳丿丕乇丿.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
41 people are currently reading
313 people want to read
About the author
Gary Hayden
13听books42听followersIf you look at the ratings I give, here on 欧宝娱乐, you might think that I'm very easy to please, since many of them are five-star. But that's because I tend mostly to rate books I love and admire, rather than just anything that comes my way.
I love classic literature, particularly classic British literature, especially Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and Anthony Trollope.
As a writer, I'm influenced to some degree by every good book I've ever read - and quite possibly many of the not-so-good books too. But my biggest (conscious) influences are the philosophers Bertrand Russell and David Hume.
I love classic literature, particularly classic British literature, especially Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and Anthony Trollope.
As a writer, I'm influenced to some degree by every good book I've ever read - and quite possibly many of the not-so-good books too. But my biggest (conscious) influences are the philosophers Bertrand Russell and David Hume.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
February 11, 2023
毓賳賵丕賳 賵 夭蹖乇毓賳賵丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲賲讴賳賴 賯丿乇蹖 诏賲乇丕賴鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 亘丕卮賳丿
禺亘 丕蹖賳讴賴 賮賱丕爻賮賴 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏й� 毓噩蹖亘 夭蹖丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 趩蹖夭 噩丿蹖丿蹖 賳蹖爻鬲
丕賲丕 讴丕乇 噩丕賱亘蹖 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 讴鬲丕亘 讴乇丿賴 丕蹖賳賴 讴賴 毓賲賱丕 亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賮賱丕爻賮賴 乇賵 丿乇 賯丕賱亘 丕蹖賳 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 賵 丿乇 賮氐賱鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮 禺賱丕氐賴 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 夭亘丕賳 爻丕丿賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿丕丿賴
亘毓丿 賴賲 丿賱丕蹖賱 丕賵賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 亘乇丕蹖 丿賮丕毓 丕夭 亘丕賵乇卮 乇賵 丌賵乇丿賴 賵 賲禺鬲氐乇蹖 賴賲 亘賴 賳賯丿 丕賵賳 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴
賲賳 禺蹖賱蹖 夭蹖丕丿 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 賱匕鬲 亘乇丿賲 賵 亘賴 賴賲賴 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇賳丿 賲禺鬲氐乇蹖 丕夭 賮賱丕爻賮賴 亘蹖丕賲賵夭賳丿 賵賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 噩丕蹖诏夭蹖賳 乇賵 賴賲 爻賳诏蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁嗀� 鬲賵氐蹖賴 賲蹖讴賳賲
丕賱亘鬲賴 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 賮賱爻賮賴 乇賵 噩丿蹖 賲胤丕賱毓賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 賵丕賯毓丕 "爻乇賴賲鈥屫ㄙ嗀�" 亘蹖丕亘賳丿 賵 禺賵卮卮賵賳 賳蹖丕丿
賵 丕蹖賳讴賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 趩賳丿丕賳 噩丕賱亘 賳蹖爻鬲
禺亘 丕蹖賳讴賴 賮賱丕爻賮賴 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏й� 毓噩蹖亘 夭蹖丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 趩蹖夭 噩丿蹖丿蹖 賳蹖爻鬲
丕賲丕 讴丕乇 噩丕賱亘蹖 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 讴鬲丕亘 讴乇丿賴 丕蹖賳賴 讴賴 毓賲賱丕 亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賮賱丕爻賮賴 乇賵 丿乇 賯丕賱亘 丕蹖賳 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 賵 丿乇 賮氐賱鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮 禺賱丕氐賴 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 夭亘丕賳 爻丕丿賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿丕丿賴
亘毓丿 賴賲 丿賱丕蹖賱 丕賵賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 亘乇丕蹖 丿賮丕毓 丕夭 亘丕賵乇卮 乇賵 丌賵乇丿賴 賵 賲禺鬲氐乇蹖 賴賲 亘賴 賳賯丿 丕賵賳 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴
賲賳 禺蹖賱蹖 夭蹖丕丿 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 賱匕鬲 亘乇丿賲 賵 亘賴 賴賲賴 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇賳丿 賲禺鬲氐乇蹖 丕夭 賮賱丕爻賮賴 亘蹖丕賲賵夭賳丿 賵賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 噩丕蹖诏夭蹖賳 乇賵 賴賲 爻賳诏蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁嗀� 鬲賵氐蹖賴 賲蹖讴賳賲
丕賱亘鬲賴 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 賮賱爻賮賴 乇賵 噩丿蹖 賲胤丕賱毓賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 賵丕賯毓丕 "爻乇賴賲鈥屫ㄙ嗀�" 亘蹖丕亘賳丿 賵 禺賵卮卮賵賳 賳蹖丕丿
賵 丕蹖賳讴賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 趩賳丿丕賳 噩丕賱亘 賳蹖爻鬲
Read
March 29, 2024Philosophy! The Science of Sciences. The Key to Revelation and all that, folks. But as noble and important as It may be, it contains also funny, dark, weird or downright stupid moments. Let's check it out with this little book. So, let's embrace creativity and patience and keep an open mind towards unconventional ideas that the author, Gary Hayden has put together in this summary book.
(circa 460 BC) Socrates believed that by cultivating reason one could eliminate ignorance of Good and Evil and lead the individual to practice only the Good. It is not bad at all, but it is just nonsense because there is a huge gap between knowing what is correct and practising it.
(in 1710) Leibniz, a theist (belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god) said this is the best World possible. But if that were the case and this is the best world He could create, then He is Incompetent also.
(in 1818) Schopenhauer saw life as a pendulum swinging between pain and boredom and believed that Reality was the product of the blind Will that would be the basis of everything in a world that could in no way be worse than this one. Cheerful!
(in 1651) Thomas Hobbes was kind enough to bequeath us "Psychological Egoism". In short: All altruism has a selfish origin; We practice disinterested actions just to alleviate the pain of our conscience. Another one extremely positive and highly cheerful.
(circa 6th century BC) Parmenides is considered the first philosopher to use reason alone to define processes and concepts systematically. His method of exact argumentation and the recognition of the distinction between appearance and reality are still central in the history of philosophy. He left us a fundamental maxim: "What Is, is and what Is Not, is not"... What the hell...
(circa 500 BC) Heraclitus, an arrogant and unpopular guy, told us that nothing remains, everything is constantly changing. If I touch a rock for the first time, that will be the only time I will do it, because if I want to touch it a second time, I can't because it's no longer the same stone, it's "another one". Where did the first one go? Who replaced them?
(in 1603) Anselm of Canterbury developed the Ontological Argument to make life hell for all future philosophers. He intended to demonstrate that God exists by definition.
Even today there are people much more intelligent than me reading and re-reading the argument to try to make some sense of it.
(circa 300 BC) Plato gave us the Theory of Forms (or ideas), and with that invented Shadow Play, and imprisoned us in a cave, helpless spectators of the Shadow Puppets enacting the true Life; We are not living, just watching the Show.
(in 1689) John Locke became known as the "father" of British Empiricism. Because of his primary and secondary qualities of objects, our perception does not perceive (pun intended) anything and the orange colour is not orange. Daltonic?
(in 1929) Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan in his philosophical treatises introduces us to the dark side of Karma: All pleasure obtained or pain suffered is deserved. The lottery winner or the starving child only gets what they deserve. Cosmic consequences, people.
(circa 400 BC) Pythagoras believed that through numbers, the universe and all its secrets could be revealed and understood. Odd numbers are masculine and even numbers are feminine. They slit his throat because of the beans.
(in 1827) Jeremy Bentham, a hedonist whose Utilitarianism of the Greatest Happiness Principle led him to create a formula of Happiness Calculation, that allows us to claim that Dan Brown is better than Shakespeare. This led John S Milton to state that the theory is valid if it does not apply to an intelligent human being but rather to a pig. It's not bad, just silly.
(in 400) Augustine of Hippo: burn baby, burn! Babies were born sinful and deserve to go to Hell! Obsessed with the Original Sin, he believed it was a genetic disorder, or an inherited disease originating in the first man and woman. Therefore we are all contaminated and condemned. Happy times the medieval Age.
(1882) Friedrich Nietzsche a Stoic? The most emotional philosopher of all reinterprets the myth of the Eternal Return, whose origin is lost in the night of Time and whose concept appears in human thought, from Greek and Hindu temples to our time. May God rest in peace because God is dead, but taking into account the nature of human beings, for thousands of years there will be caves where He will show His shadow...
(in 1709) George Berkeley proposed a theory that he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others). To Berkeley, matter does not exist. Material objects are just a cluster of ideas in the mind; even our body and our gestures are a mere illusion, a set of ideas implanted in the mind. By whom? God, of course... After all, "Matrix" isn't from the 90s, it's from the 18th century.
(circa 300 BC) Plato. Oh no, him again...! He said that we don't learn anything, we just rediscover or remember All the knowledge we have stored in our mind, what we already know, because as the soul is immortal and eternal it has seen everything past, present and future and knows everything. If so, I just don't understand why doesn't that bastard "Memory" don't let me look less stupid.
(in 1654) Blaise Pascal says, Bet on God! I doubt this will allow us to win the lottery but Pascal demonstrated mathematically that betting that God exists is better than betting against it, even if we don't believe in Him the laws of probability tell us that it is smarter to believe. This is what you would call cheating the Game.
(in 1641) Descartes, a dualist philosopher? Let's talk about alien possession: the material body is occupied by an "ethereal entity" called Mind installed inside, in a "pine cone" between the two hemispheres of the brain to control the body. Gilbert Ryle called it "the Ghost in the Machine". Call the exorcists, please.
(in 1688) Nicolas Malebranche, the occasionalist: plagued us with the doctrine that states that God is the only true cause and origin of every action, mental or physical. My thoughts do not make my body move, they are "transmitted" to God and He (if he understands it that way) makes the body move. It's like a puppeteer at a fair theatre manipulating the puppets. And He better not let go of the threads...
(in 1714) Leibniz said: Everything in the universe is composed of simple, immaterial units called monads. A body is an aggregate of incorporeal entities. So how do they create solid bodies? They don't; space and time do not exist. Everything happens like in a computer game: It seems real but it isn't. Oops, my character lost his last life! I no longer have any monads left to finish the final dungeon.
(circa 200 BC) Epicurus asserted that philosophy's purpose is to attain as well as to help others reach happiness. Pleasure is the beginning and end of life; Even under extreme ache we must minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Hmmm! I believe more in Leonato (Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing): There never was a philosopher who stoically endured a toothache.
(in 1739) David Hume unleashed upon us his "Treatise of Human Nature".
Human beings constantly use inductive reasoning as an essential tool for survival, but this is not reliable because to work we have to be 100% certain that the future will be the same as the past. So we must go "back to the future" to be sure of anything. Is the law legal?
Let's not forget that according to Hume's Fork, a statement's meaning either is analytic or synthetic! Unless it's meat or fish...
(circa 5th BC) Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly known as the Buddha, tells us that according to his Second Noble Truth, life is suffering and suffering is caused by desire. We have to stop the Desire to achieve "Enlightenment", but I don't see the "Light" at the end of the tunnel that guides me to Nirvana. I think I was born in the wrong Universe. Damn the bloody cosmic Karma.
(circa 370 BC) Aristotle said that women needed to be subservient to men because they were unable to 鈥ontrol themselves physically and psychologically through the exercise of reason the way men can... Then he threw women a bone when he contended that both sexes had a soul capable of reason, however, women, being endowed with irrationality, weakness, passivity, and imperfection, were not capable of abstract reasoning and were bound to the domestic sphere.
Fortunately for him, he never met Indira Gandhi or Margaret Thatcher. Either he was sexually frustrated or didn't meet many women. Freud explains...
(in 1957) Ayn Rand defended the theory of Objectivism in direct opposition to Collectivism. The virtue of selfishness and the harm of altruism. She should have stopped "smoking" or eating "mushrooms". I wonder if she wouldn't be a cousin of the caterpillar Absolem...
(circa 1200) Myoan Eisai a Japanese Zen Buddhist priest, said that the key to ultimate enlightenment is... to stop thinking. If that works then I'm supposed to be already more "enlightened" than Buddha, but that can not be true because I still haven't learned to clap with just one hand.
(circa 1300) William of Ockham, the one famous for the "Ockham's Razor's" concept, said that God could never order anything bad because He is limited by His inherent goodness. Therefore He is not omnipotent. HERESY! immediately shouted John XXII! Light the bonfire...
(1905) Alexius Meinong tell us that Harry Potter doesn't exist. But we can only make a statement about something if that thing exists, so Harry Potter exists. Blame Meinong for his 鈥渟quare circles鈥� and 鈥渘egative existentials.
(1974) Thomas Nagel stated that luck, or the lack of it, shouldn't but does, affect what a person is morally responsible for! If you are at the "wrong place at the wrong time" it's your fault.
(in 1949) Gilbert Ryle in his " The Concept of Mind", order to behave yourself! Ryle was a behaviourist. He rejected the existence of the mind and stated that there is no "ghost inside the machine". It's true that when I hit my head, it sounds hollow.
(in 1689) John Lock was obsessed with Identity. Is the almost bald man I am today the same as the one with the Viking hair when I was young? If my consciousness could be transplanted into a pig's brain, would it become the person I am? I haven't eaten meat in a long time, but now I don't even want to see pork chops.
(in 1260) Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Contra Gentiles" pretended to explain the truth of the Catholic faith against the errors of the unbelievers. So we have a lecture about devoured missionaries and first and second-generation cannibals resurrected just to study the possibility of preserving identity.
In his "Summa Theologica" he identified six different sexual sins... What the... I only knew two!
(in 1936) A J Ayer with "Language, Truth and Logic" tells us that debates around ethical claims are not important...? According to Ayer, ethical statements are not verifiable, neither analytically nor empirically, and are therefore useless. Why to think at all, then?
(in 1847) Soren Kierkegaard the "Father of Existentialism" didn't believe in the Father of all things. However, he said his beliefs were misplaced but he would nevertheless remain faithful to them. He elevated faith to the level of absurdity with absolute paradox.
Philosophy is extremely important... or not... To return to David Hume and finish this, already long review that probably no one will read, ... profound statements about God the Soul, Absolute moral values, Identity and other nonsense, is nothing more than sophistry and illusions
Let everyone decide for themselves.
(circa 460 BC) Socrates believed that by cultivating reason one could eliminate ignorance of Good and Evil and lead the individual to practice only the Good. It is not bad at all, but it is just nonsense because there is a huge gap between knowing what is correct and practising it.
(in 1710) Leibniz, a theist (belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god) said this is the best World possible. But if that were the case and this is the best world He could create, then He is Incompetent also.
(in 1818) Schopenhauer saw life as a pendulum swinging between pain and boredom and believed that Reality was the product of the blind Will that would be the basis of everything in a world that could in no way be worse than this one. Cheerful!
(in 1651) Thomas Hobbes was kind enough to bequeath us "Psychological Egoism". In short: All altruism has a selfish origin; We practice disinterested actions just to alleviate the pain of our conscience. Another one extremely positive and highly cheerful.
(circa 6th century BC) Parmenides is considered the first philosopher to use reason alone to define processes and concepts systematically. His method of exact argumentation and the recognition of the distinction between appearance and reality are still central in the history of philosophy. He left us a fundamental maxim: "What Is, is and what Is Not, is not"... What the hell...
(circa 500 BC) Heraclitus, an arrogant and unpopular guy, told us that nothing remains, everything is constantly changing. If I touch a rock for the first time, that will be the only time I will do it, because if I want to touch it a second time, I can't because it's no longer the same stone, it's "another one". Where did the first one go? Who replaced them?
(in 1603) Anselm of Canterbury developed the Ontological Argument to make life hell for all future philosophers. He intended to demonstrate that God exists by definition.
Even today there are people much more intelligent than me reading and re-reading the argument to try to make some sense of it.
(circa 300 BC) Plato gave us the Theory of Forms (or ideas), and with that invented Shadow Play, and imprisoned us in a cave, helpless spectators of the Shadow Puppets enacting the true Life; We are not living, just watching the Show.
(in 1689) John Locke became known as the "father" of British Empiricism. Because of his primary and secondary qualities of objects, our perception does not perceive (pun intended) anything and the orange colour is not orange. Daltonic?
(in 1929) Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan in his philosophical treatises introduces us to the dark side of Karma: All pleasure obtained or pain suffered is deserved. The lottery winner or the starving child only gets what they deserve. Cosmic consequences, people.
(circa 400 BC) Pythagoras believed that through numbers, the universe and all its secrets could be revealed and understood. Odd numbers are masculine and even numbers are feminine. They slit his throat because of the beans.
(in 1827) Jeremy Bentham, a hedonist whose Utilitarianism of the Greatest Happiness Principle led him to create a formula of Happiness Calculation, that allows us to claim that Dan Brown is better than Shakespeare. This led John S Milton to state that the theory is valid if it does not apply to an intelligent human being but rather to a pig. It's not bad, just silly.
(in 400) Augustine of Hippo: burn baby, burn! Babies were born sinful and deserve to go to Hell! Obsessed with the Original Sin, he believed it was a genetic disorder, or an inherited disease originating in the first man and woman. Therefore we are all contaminated and condemned. Happy times the medieval Age.
(1882) Friedrich Nietzsche a Stoic? The most emotional philosopher of all reinterprets the myth of the Eternal Return, whose origin is lost in the night of Time and whose concept appears in human thought, from Greek and Hindu temples to our time. May God rest in peace because God is dead, but taking into account the nature of human beings, for thousands of years there will be caves where He will show His shadow...
(in 1709) George Berkeley proposed a theory that he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others). To Berkeley, matter does not exist. Material objects are just a cluster of ideas in the mind; even our body and our gestures are a mere illusion, a set of ideas implanted in the mind. By whom? God, of course... After all, "Matrix" isn't from the 90s, it's from the 18th century.
(circa 300 BC) Plato. Oh no, him again...! He said that we don't learn anything, we just rediscover or remember All the knowledge we have stored in our mind, what we already know, because as the soul is immortal and eternal it has seen everything past, present and future and knows everything. If so, I just don't understand why doesn't that bastard "Memory" don't let me look less stupid.
(in 1654) Blaise Pascal says, Bet on God! I doubt this will allow us to win the lottery but Pascal demonstrated mathematically that betting that God exists is better than betting against it, even if we don't believe in Him the laws of probability tell us that it is smarter to believe. This is what you would call cheating the Game.
(in 1641) Descartes, a dualist philosopher? Let's talk about alien possession: the material body is occupied by an "ethereal entity" called Mind installed inside, in a "pine cone" between the two hemispheres of the brain to control the body. Gilbert Ryle called it "the Ghost in the Machine". Call the exorcists, please.
(in 1688) Nicolas Malebranche, the occasionalist: plagued us with the doctrine that states that God is the only true cause and origin of every action, mental or physical. My thoughts do not make my body move, they are "transmitted" to God and He (if he understands it that way) makes the body move. It's like a puppeteer at a fair theatre manipulating the puppets. And He better not let go of the threads...
(in 1714) Leibniz said: Everything in the universe is composed of simple, immaterial units called monads. A body is an aggregate of incorporeal entities. So how do they create solid bodies? They don't; space and time do not exist. Everything happens like in a computer game: It seems real but it isn't. Oops, my character lost his last life! I no longer have any monads left to finish the final dungeon.
(circa 200 BC) Epicurus asserted that philosophy's purpose is to attain as well as to help others reach happiness. Pleasure is the beginning and end of life; Even under extreme ache we must minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Hmmm! I believe more in Leonato (Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing): There never was a philosopher who stoically endured a toothache.
(in 1739) David Hume unleashed upon us his "Treatise of Human Nature".
Human beings constantly use inductive reasoning as an essential tool for survival, but this is not reliable because to work we have to be 100% certain that the future will be the same as the past. So we must go "back to the future" to be sure of anything. Is the law legal?
Let's not forget that according to Hume's Fork, a statement's meaning either is analytic or synthetic! Unless it's meat or fish...
(circa 5th BC) Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly known as the Buddha, tells us that according to his Second Noble Truth, life is suffering and suffering is caused by desire. We have to stop the Desire to achieve "Enlightenment", but I don't see the "Light" at the end of the tunnel that guides me to Nirvana. I think I was born in the wrong Universe. Damn the bloody cosmic Karma.
(circa 370 BC) Aristotle said that women needed to be subservient to men because they were unable to 鈥ontrol themselves physically and psychologically through the exercise of reason the way men can... Then he threw women a bone when he contended that both sexes had a soul capable of reason, however, women, being endowed with irrationality, weakness, passivity, and imperfection, were not capable of abstract reasoning and were bound to the domestic sphere.
Fortunately for him, he never met Indira Gandhi or Margaret Thatcher. Either he was sexually frustrated or didn't meet many women. Freud explains...
(in 1957) Ayn Rand defended the theory of Objectivism in direct opposition to Collectivism. The virtue of selfishness and the harm of altruism. She should have stopped "smoking" or eating "mushrooms". I wonder if she wouldn't be a cousin of the caterpillar Absolem...
(circa 1200) Myoan Eisai a Japanese Zen Buddhist priest, said that the key to ultimate enlightenment is... to stop thinking. If that works then I'm supposed to be already more "enlightened" than Buddha, but that can not be true because I still haven't learned to clap with just one hand.
(circa 1300) William of Ockham, the one famous for the "Ockham's Razor's" concept, said that God could never order anything bad because He is limited by His inherent goodness. Therefore He is not omnipotent. HERESY! immediately shouted John XXII! Light the bonfire...
(1905) Alexius Meinong tell us that Harry Potter doesn't exist. But we can only make a statement about something if that thing exists, so Harry Potter exists. Blame Meinong for his 鈥渟quare circles鈥� and 鈥渘egative existentials.
(1974) Thomas Nagel stated that luck, or the lack of it, shouldn't but does, affect what a person is morally responsible for! If you are at the "wrong place at the wrong time" it's your fault.
(in 1949) Gilbert Ryle in his " The Concept of Mind", order to behave yourself! Ryle was a behaviourist. He rejected the existence of the mind and stated that there is no "ghost inside the machine". It's true that when I hit my head, it sounds hollow.
(in 1689) John Lock was obsessed with Identity. Is the almost bald man I am today the same as the one with the Viking hair when I was young? If my consciousness could be transplanted into a pig's brain, would it become the person I am? I haven't eaten meat in a long time, but now I don't even want to see pork chops.
(in 1260) Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Contra Gentiles" pretended to explain the truth of the Catholic faith against the errors of the unbelievers. So we have a lecture about devoured missionaries and first and second-generation cannibals resurrected just to study the possibility of preserving identity.
In his "Summa Theologica" he identified six different sexual sins... What the... I only knew two!
(in 1936) A J Ayer with "Language, Truth and Logic" tells us that debates around ethical claims are not important...? According to Ayer, ethical statements are not verifiable, neither analytically nor empirically, and are therefore useless. Why to think at all, then?
(in 1847) Soren Kierkegaard the "Father of Existentialism" didn't believe in the Father of all things. However, he said his beliefs were misplaced but he would nevertheless remain faithful to them. He elevated faith to the level of absurdity with absolute paradox.
Philosophy is extremely important... or not... To return to David Hume and finish this, already long review that probably no one will read, ... profound statements about God the Soul, Absolute moral values, Identity and other nonsense, is nothing more than sophistry and illusions
Let everyone decide for themselves.
August 14, 2016
A very enjoyable read for someone considering as an immature philosophy self-taught learner like me. As the book provides many thought-provoking ideas and creative way to read, not chapter-by-chapter but fundamental ideas where you can premise at any chapter in the book by jumping into any topic you're interested and it's not confusing at all. Even though some ideas I couldn't care less, it's easy to follow through the end.
Gary Hayden, if I might assume, cares for the reader. He excellently crafts this book with not comprehending to those topics, but also well-constructed research. His language is so attainable not in a condescending way (as a bias one, like I've said about being so primitive in this field). I'm so impressed that he even counters each of the idea with critism, and questions lead to any other ideas similar yet different ground working. Only that each chapter is too short, or sometimes very brief to catch up with greater ideas, or even some of these aren't "strange" or crazy enough as they might sound, but promoted for entertainment to the readership.
Gary Hayden, if I might assume, cares for the reader. He excellently crafts this book with not comprehending to those topics, but also well-constructed research. His language is so attainable not in a condescending way (as a bias one, like I've said about being so primitive in this field). I'm so impressed that he even counters each of the idea with critism, and questions lead to any other ideas similar yet different ground working. Only that each chapter is too short, or sometimes very brief to catch up with greater ideas, or even some of these aren't "strange" or crazy enough as they might sound, but promoted for entertainment to the readership.
June 9, 2020
I read this book 2 years ago, when I knew absolutely nothing about philosophical theories and was too occupied with my academic reading to study a new discipline from scratch. It boils down some of the most complex ideas, and explains them using contemporary scenarios. Definitely not for someone well versed with philo, but an excellent starting point for beginners.
March 27, 2023
A good compilation of philosophical musings. Most of them are struggling with the problem of 鈥渃onsciousness鈥� confusing it with ideas about creation, mind, reason, observation. Some of the ideas of 鈥渕onism鈥� and 鈥渄ualism鈥� are still open to arguments. Put some science / pseudoscience into the mix of lazy ruminations about the unknowable and it becomes a potent mix of strange ideas. Hopefully millennials will philosophise shit in a world where there is no leisure time for coming up with stuff like Monads. Good fun read though.
March 6, 2012
This is another book vaguely like the books of philosophy puzzles I was reading, with a very similar structure and tone. It's very simple to understand; it often didn't go beyond my GCSE and A Level Religious Studies classes, and none of it went beyond what I studied in my first year, when I took the first year of a philosophy degree.
On the one hand, it's frustratingly simple and repetitive for someone who knows a good bit about philosophy already, but on the other hand, that would recommend it to beginners. It's well laid out, too; you can skip through it for the stuff you're interested in, letting one idea lead onto another. There's a touch of humour in the whole treatment of it, which might help.
On the one hand, it's frustratingly simple and repetitive for someone who knows a good bit about philosophy already, but on the other hand, that would recommend it to beginners. It's well laid out, too; you can skip through it for the stuff you're interested in, letting one idea lead onto another. There's a touch of humour in the whole treatment of it, which might help.
August 8, 2013
Good as an 'introduction to philosophy' ....probably not for someone with a PHD in philosophy....more for someone who's interested in it...and thinks a lot...but less in a way of studying it....and more just generally enjoying it as a topic....I personally loved reading it, and I think that it was probably one of the best and most enjoyable philosophical book I've ever read...unlike most of them it's set out with each idea spread out so it's easy to read, understand and flip through....it's also written in a really personal and chatty tone, which I liked, because it made me feel as if I was having a discussion with a friend...rather than reading a book...
February 23, 2020
禺蹖賱蹖 賱匕鬲 亘乇丿賲 丕夭卮. 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏й屰� 丕夭 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 賲胤乇丨 卮丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 讴賴 賯胤毓丕 丿乇 丿賵乇丕賳鈥屬囏й屰� 丕夭 夭賳丿诏蹖賲賵賳 亘賴 匕賴賳 賲丕 乇爻蹖丿賴. 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖賳 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕 乇賵 賲蹖诏賴貙 賵 賲蹖诏賴 賲賳卮丕卮 丕夭 趩賴 賮蹖賱爻賵賮蹖 亘賵丿賴 賵 趩乇丕 诏賮鬲賴. 禺蹖賱蹖 禺賱丕氐賴鈥屬堌ж� 亘丕 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 讴賱蹖 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕 賴賲 丌卮賳丕 賲蹖鈥屫篡屫�. 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 讴賴 夭蹖丕丿 丕賴賱 禺賵賳丿賳 賮賱爻賮賴 (亘禺氐賵氐 賮賱爻賮賴 讴賱丕爻蹖讴) 賳蹖爻鬲賲貙 讴鬲丕亘 賲賮蹖丿蹖 亘賵丿.
August 13, 2022
* 3,5猸� *
脡 bom, mas vamos com calma ahahaha. Eu gostei da forma como o autor aborda temas que eu j谩 conhecia, mas sou sincera 茅 necess谩rio um bom estudo e conhecimento filos贸fico anterior para puder entender alguns t贸picos. Agora se tem conte煤do que nos fazem parar de ler para pensarmos nas ideias estranhas destes fil贸sofos bastante conhecidos, faz, e muito. Parei de ler in煤meras vezes, da铆 a demora, mas valeu a pena ter um debate comigo mesmo sobre temas como, o pensamento, sexo, deus, raz茫o e entre outros. Aconselho a leitura aos que s茫o curiosos e gostam de filosofia!鈽猴笍
脡 bom, mas vamos com calma ahahaha. Eu gostei da forma como o autor aborda temas que eu j谩 conhecia, mas sou sincera 茅 necess谩rio um bom estudo e conhecimento filos贸fico anterior para puder entender alguns t贸picos. Agora se tem conte煤do que nos fazem parar de ler para pensarmos nas ideias estranhas destes fil贸sofos bastante conhecidos, faz, e muito. Parei de ler in煤meras vezes, da铆 a demora, mas valeu a pena ter um debate comigo mesmo sobre temas como, o pensamento, sexo, deus, raz茫o e entre outros. Aconselho a leitura aos que s茫o curiosos e gostam de filosofia!鈽猴笍
September 13, 2018
A Brief Odyssey of Philosophical Oddities
Focusing mainly on ontology (the theories of what can be known) with side trips to ethics and aesthetics, this is an enjoyable but light excursion through some of the more interesting ideas of classical philosophy with additional touches of humour. What readers may find surprising is how often these ideas were inspired by the need to support religious doctrine. For example John Locke argued for the duality of mind and body in order to defend the thesis of the immortality of the soul and Liebniz鈥檚 conjecture that this is the best of all possible worlds depends on his belief of an omniscient and all powerful God who鈥檚 infinite goodness would permit nothing less.
Targeted at a popular audience the book could also work as a 鈥淐liff鈥檚 notes鈥� for college students as it provides a rough cognitive map of the major contributors to the field. Most of the 43 vignettes centre around an individual such as Plato, Hobbes or Popper rather than a school of thought, though four center on eastern religious/philosophic ideas.
The structure of the chapters are self similar. Hayden places his subjects in the context of their era, summarizes one or two key ideas which may seem strange in the present day and then adds one or two subsequent arguments for or against. At the end of each chapter there are one or more arrows pointing to related chapters, somewhat in the style of a 鈥渃reate your own adventure book鈥� indicating an alternate order of reading. It is worthwhile to draw a graph using these references to gain an appreciation of the overall relationship between the topics. There is also a brief Appendix at the end suggesting additional reading. IMV it could have been extended a bit (say 50 chapters) by straying into philosophical topics such as existentialism, deconstructionism or political philosophy. And whereas the tag team of Socrates deserve 3 chapters, the two chapters on Berkely could have been combined and Popper鈥檚 鈥淲orld 3鈥� fit more into the theme of oddities than his more mainstream theories of scientific proof. Rated 3.7/5.
Focusing mainly on ontology (the theories of what can be known) with side trips to ethics and aesthetics, this is an enjoyable but light excursion through some of the more interesting ideas of classical philosophy with additional touches of humour. What readers may find surprising is how often these ideas were inspired by the need to support religious doctrine. For example John Locke argued for the duality of mind and body in order to defend the thesis of the immortality of the soul and Liebniz鈥檚 conjecture that this is the best of all possible worlds depends on his belief of an omniscient and all powerful God who鈥檚 infinite goodness would permit nothing less.
Targeted at a popular audience the book could also work as a 鈥淐liff鈥檚 notes鈥� for college students as it provides a rough cognitive map of the major contributors to the field. Most of the 43 vignettes centre around an individual such as Plato, Hobbes or Popper rather than a school of thought, though four center on eastern religious/philosophic ideas.
The structure of the chapters are self similar. Hayden places his subjects in the context of their era, summarizes one or two key ideas which may seem strange in the present day and then adds one or two subsequent arguments for or against. At the end of each chapter there are one or more arrows pointing to related chapters, somewhat in the style of a 鈥渃reate your own adventure book鈥� indicating an alternate order of reading. It is worthwhile to draw a graph using these references to gain an appreciation of the overall relationship between the topics. There is also a brief Appendix at the end suggesting additional reading. IMV it could have been extended a bit (say 50 chapters) by straying into philosophical topics such as existentialism, deconstructionism or political philosophy. And whereas the tag team of Socrates deserve 3 chapters, the two chapters on Berkely could have been combined and Popper鈥檚 鈥淲orld 3鈥� fit more into the theme of oddities than his more mainstream theories of scientific proof. Rated 3.7/5.
September 28, 2024
Did it take me almost nine years to read this book? Yes indeed it did. There鈥檚 not a reason it took that long. I easily could have read it in a day. But, no, it took me nine years. What can I say, I picked it up, I put it down for six months. I picked it up again. When I read it right before bed, I often had wild dreams. But it is a nice little bedtime read, otherwise. Just provocative enough to distract, thought provoking enough that you would probably tire yourself out going through the concepts.
I hope to some day pick it up again and read it in a weekend. It鈥檚 gotta be a wildly different experience than taking it piece by piece as you live and grow over such an extended period of time.
More of an indie bookstore purchase than a library loan 馃槀
I hope to some day pick it up again and read it in a weekend. It鈥檚 gotta be a wildly different experience than taking it piece by piece as you live and grow over such an extended period of time.
More of an indie bookstore purchase than a library loan 馃槀
January 10, 2018
This is a fun, easy to access reminder and introduction to some more familiar and outlandish philosophical arguments. Not only did it remind me of why I used to love the work of Socrates, but it was written well to get peek behind the surface of ideas by a whole host of philosopher like Liebniz, Nietzsche and St. Augustine. I like how the author is keen to show how diametrically opposing arguments e.g. we live in the best of all possible worlds vs. we live in the worst of all possible worlds can be equally valid. It's not the most in depth, but definitely nice conversation starter, if you're the right company!
August 12, 2024
Felsefe dolu bir yolculu臒a haz谋r m谋s谋n谋z? Gary Hayden鈥檌n @omegayayinlari鈥檔dan 莽谋kan 鈥淏眉y眉k Filozoflar谋n Tuhaf Fikirleri鈥� kitab谋yla bu yolculuk 莽ok e臒lenceli!
Kitapta, 眉nl眉 filozoflar谋n s谋ra d谋艧谋 fikirlerini k谋sa anekdotlarla bulacaks谋n谋z. Hem lise 枚臒rencileri i莽in harika bir kaynak, hem de felsefeye yeni ba艧layanlar i莽in ilgi 莽ekici bir ba艧lang谋莽 kitab谋!
Ben de derslerde kullanabilece臒im ilgin莽 b枚l眉mleri belirledim. Evet, h芒l芒 ke艧fetmeye devam ediyorum. Geli艧imin sonu yok, de臒il mi?
Siz de felsefeyle ilgileniyor, yeni ba艧l谋yorsan谋z ya da farkl谋 fikirler ar谋yorsan谋z, bu kitab谋 ka莽谋rmay谋n!
Kitapta, 眉nl眉 filozoflar谋n s谋ra d谋艧谋 fikirlerini k谋sa anekdotlarla bulacaks谋n谋z. Hem lise 枚臒rencileri i莽in harika bir kaynak, hem de felsefeye yeni ba艧layanlar i莽in ilgi 莽ekici bir ba艧lang谋莽 kitab谋!
Ben de derslerde kullanabilece臒im ilgin莽 b枚l眉mleri belirledim. Evet, h芒l芒 ke艧fetmeye devam ediyorum. Geli艧imin sonu yok, de臒il mi?
Siz de felsefeyle ilgileniyor, yeni ba艧l谋yorsan谋z ya da farkl谋 fikirler ar谋yorsan谋z, bu kitab谋 ka莽谋rmay谋n!
December 23, 2024
Gary Hayden's book is very informative. Unfortunately, he fails to present and construct subjects well. This book was designed to explain complex arguments easily to non-academics; however, it fails to do so.
Structure is one of the main pillars of any book on humanities. The fault here is that the same subjects were discussed in different chapters.
If chapters had been edited by subjects or thinkers per se, they would have been more comprehensive and approachable.
All the same, the book does justice to big ideas; unfortunately, it fails to justify its own purpose.
Structure is one of the main pillars of any book on humanities. The fault here is that the same subjects were discussed in different chapters.
If chapters had been edited by subjects or thinkers per se, they would have been more comprehensive and approachable.
All the same, the book does justice to big ideas; unfortunately, it fails to justify its own purpose.
December 9, 2017
This book compiled 75 ideas from various philosophers and sages throughout the history of philosophy. Each idea is a few pages and follows a general structure: description of a seemingly absurd idea, identification of the seemingly absurd with a thinker, and then some analysis.
The content is accessible and suited to a general audience. It鈥檚 a decent read for a young person or somebody new to the field.
The content is accessible and suited to a general audience. It鈥檚 a decent read for a young person or somebody new to the field.
May 19, 2020
Like others, I struggle how to explain this book. It does introduce a lot of philosophic theories, which is always good, but it often skims those theories in an effort to be brief. The result is that a lot of the things seem 'crazier' than they really are.
If you've NEVER read anything in philosophy, read this. Any harm done can be undone later, with deeper reading.
If you're in school for philosophy or have graduated...skip it.
If you've NEVER read anything in philosophy, read this. Any harm done can be undone later, with deeper reading.
If you're in school for philosophy or have graduated...skip it.
January 15, 2025
讴鬲丕亘 爻乇诏乇賲 讴賳賳丿賴 丕蹖 亘賵丿. 丕賵丕蹖賱 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丕賲 賳爻亘鬲 亘丕 丌禺乇丕蹖 噩匕丕亘 鬲乇 亘賵丿. 鄞鄢 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 賮賱爻賮蹖 丕夭 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 賴丕蹖 賲禺鬲賱賮 乇賵 賲蹖诏賴 賵 亘丨孬 賴丕蹖 倬蹖乇丕賲賵賳 丕賵賳 賳馗乇蹖賴 賴賲 賳賵卮鬲賴 賲蹖卮賴. 蹖賴 賳馗乇蹖賴 賴丕 賵丕賯毓丕 噩丕賱亘 亘賵丿 賵 蹖賴 趩蹖夭丕蹖蹖 賴賲 讴丕賲賱丕 倬賵趩 讴賴 丨鬲丕 丕乇夭卮 禺賵賳丿賳賲 賳丿丕卮鬲. 丕爻丕賲蹖 夭蹖丕丿蹖 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 賴爻鬲 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖卮賴 亘丕 丌丿賲 賴丕蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 丌卮賳丕 卮蹖丿. 丌禺乇 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲 賲賳丕亘毓蹖 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖卮賴 亘乇丕蹖 讴爻丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇賳 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 賲亘丨孬 賴丕乇賵 丿賯蹖賯 鬲乇 賵 噩丕賲毓 鬲乇 亘禺賵賳賳.
賲乇丕賯亘 賴賲 亘丕卮蹖賲 讴賳丕乇 賴賲 亘賲賵賳蹖賲.
賲乇丕賯亘 賴賲 亘丕卮蹖賲 讴賳丕乇 賴賲 亘賲賵賳蹖賲.
January 10, 2025
You Kant make it up is a great book that looks at many philosophical questions from the everyday to those more interesting questions. It looks at many philosophers from throughout the centuries and is great for those who are new to philosophy or have a great interest in it. Each of the chapters in the book link back to others and is a great read.
June 19, 2017
A fun read. Bite sized philosophy in every-day speak.
May 12, 2018
Weirdest is what made them philosophers.
June 26, 2018
It was a great introduction to philosophy for me. It鈥檚 an easy read, & has definitely piqued my interest in reading more.
November 22, 2018
Lighthearted and infinitely readable. Easy to dip into. Gives some great nuggets of insight!
June 20, 2019
About philosophy... 馃憣 馃憤
October 15, 2020
丕賱賳賮毓賷丞 賵 乇兀賷賴丕 亘丕賱賲鬲毓丞 賵 丕賱噩賵丿丞!
.
.
毓賳丿賲丕 賷爻兀賱賳賷 兀丨丿賴賲 賲丕 賴賵 賮賷賱賲賷 丕賱賲賮囟賱 貙 兀噩賷亘 丿賵賳 鬲乇丿丿 貙 胤賮賱 丕賱賰丕乇丕鬲賷賴 (丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱). 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賲乇丨賱丞 貙 鬲鬲賴賲賳賷 夭賵噩鬲賷 亘丕賱睾卮 . 廿賳賴丕 賲賯鬲賳毓丞 兀賳賳賷 兀賲鬲賱賰 鬲賮囟賷賱賸丕 爻乇賷賸丕 賱賮賷賱賲 賯丕卅賲丞 卮賳丿賱乇 貙 兀賵 睾丕賳丿賷 兀賵 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳 賰賷賳.
賲丕 丕賱匕賷 賷噩毓賱賴丕 鬲毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賳賷 兀賮囟賱 丨賯賸丕 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳 賰賷賳責 賱爻鬲 賲鬲兀賰丿賸丕 鬲賲丕賲賸丕. 賱賰賳 丕賱兀賲乇 賱賴 毓賱丕賯丞 亘賰賵賳賴 "兀賮囟賱" 賲賳 The Karate Kid 貙 亘賳賮爻 丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷賰賵賳 亘賴丕 Puccini "兀賮囟賱" 賲賳 Pussycat Dolls 貙 賵卮賰爻亘賷乇 "兀賮囟賱" 賲賳 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳 . 廿賳賴丕 鬲賳爻亘 廿賱賷 貙 毓賱賶 賲丕 兀毓鬲賯丿 貙 匕賵賯賸丕 兀賮囟賱 賲賲丕 兀賲賱賰.
賱賰賳 賴賱 Puccini 兀賮囟賱 丨賯賸丕 賲賳 Pussycat Dolls責 賴賱 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賲鬲賮賵賯 丨賯賸丕 毓賱賶 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳責 賵賴賱 賴賵 匕賵賯 爻賷卅 丨賯賸丕 兀賳 鬲賮囟賱 "賮鬲賶 丕賱賰丕乇丕鬲賷賴" 毓賱賶 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳 賰賷賳責 賱賷爻 賵賮賯賸丕 賱賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷 (噩賷乇賷賲賷 亘賷賳孬丕賲) 貙 丕賱兀賲乇 賱賷爻 賰匕賱賰. 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賴 貙 賰賱 丕賱賰賱丕賲 毓賳 丕賱匕賵賯 丕賱噩賷丿 賵丕賱爻賷亍 賰丕賳 賲噩乇丿 賴乇丕亍.
賵賱丿 噩賷乇賷賲賷 亘賷賳孬丕賲 毓丕賲 1748 賮賷 毓丕卅賱丞 賲夭丿賴乇丞 賲賳 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱賲鬲賵爻胤丞. 毓賳丿賲丕 賰丕賳 胤賮賱丕賸 貙 賰丕賳 禺噩賵賱賸丕 賵毓氐亘賷賸丕 亘卮賰賱 賲丐賱賲 賵賱賰賳賴 賷賲鬲賱賰 匕賰丕亍賸 乇丕卅毓賸丕. 亘丿兀 丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱賱丕鬲賷賳賷丞 賮賷 爻賳 丕賱乇丕亘毓丞 貙 賵丿禺賱 噩丕賲毓丞 兀賰爻賮賵乇丿 賮賷 爻賳 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞 毓卮乇丞.
亘毓丿 丕賱鬲禺乇噩 丿乇爻 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳. 鬲兀賴賱 賱賰賳賴 賱賲 賷賲丕乇爻. 賵亘丿賱丕賸 賲賳 匕賱賰 貙 賰乇爻 胤丕賯鬲賴 丕賱賰亘賷乇丞 賵賲賵賴亘鬲賴 賱賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 丨賵賱 丕賱廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳賷. 賮賷 毓丕賲 1789 賳卮乇 賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷 (賲賯丿賲丞 賮賷 賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賵丕賱鬲卮乇賷毓).
賰丕賳 亘賳孬丕賲 賲鬲毓氐亘賸丕. 賱賯丿 爻丕賵賶 亘賷賳 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 賵丕賱賱匕丞 貙 賵丕毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱爻毓賷丿丞 賴賷 亘亘爻丕胤丞 丨賷丕丞 鬲鬲賮賵賯 賮賷賴丕 丕賱賱匕丞 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賱賲. 賯丕丿鬲賴 賲亘丕丿卅 賲匕賴亘 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 廿賱賶 氐賷丕睾丞 毓賯賷丿丞 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 鬲毓乇賮 亘丕爻賲 (丕賱賳賮毓賷丞) 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳氐 毓賱賶 兀賳 丕賱卮賷亍 "噩賷丿" 賮賯胤 亘賯丿乇 賲丕 賷夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 兀賵 賷賯賱賱 賲賳 丕賱兀賱賲.
丕賱爻賲丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 賱賳賮毓賷丞 亘賳孬丕賲 賴賷 "賲亘丿兀 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 丕賱兀毓馗賲" 貙 賵丕賱匕賷 亘賲賵噩亘賴 賷賰賵賳 丕賱廿噩乇丕亍 丕賱氐丨賷丨 兀禺賱丕賯賷丕賸 賮賷 兀賷 賲賵賯賮 賴賵 丕賱匕賷 賷噩賱亘 兀賰亘乇 賯丿乇 賲賳 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 賱兀賰亘乇 毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱賳丕爻. 賴匕丕 丕賱賲亘丿兀 兀爻丕爻賷 賱噩賲賷毓 兀賮賰丕乇 亘賳孬丕賲 丨賵賱 丕賱廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳賷 賵丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷.
賲賳 丕賱氐毓亘 賱賱睾丕賷丞 貙 亘丕賱胤亘毓 貙 丕賱丨賰賲 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱匕賷 賯丿 鬲丨丿孬賴 鬲氐乇賮丕鬲 丕賱賮乇丿 毓賱賶 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賱賱賲噩鬲賲毓. 兀丿乇賰 亘賳孬丕賲 匕賱賰 貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 鬲賵氐賱 廿賱賶 丨爻丕亘 鬲賮丕囟賱 噩賷丿: 胤乇賷賯丞 賱丨爻丕亘 賲賯丿丕乇 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 賵丕賱兀賱賲 丕賱賱匕賷賳 賲賳 丕賱賲丨鬲賲賱 兀賳 鬲爻亘亘賴賲 丕賱兀賮毓丕賱. 丨爻丕亘 丕賱鬲賮丕囟賱 賵丕賱鬲賰丕賲賱 賲毓賯丿 賱賱睾丕賷丞 賵賷爻鬲睾乇賯 賵賯鬲賸丕 胤賵賷賱丕賸 賱丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴 賲賳 賯亘賱 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿.
賰丕賳鬲 賮賰乇丞 亘賳孬丕賲 兀賳 丕賱賯丕丿丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷賷賳 爻賷爻鬲禺丿賲賵賳賴丕 賱賲爻丕毓丿鬲賴賲 賮賷 氐賷丕睾丞 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲夭賷丿 賲賳 廿爻毓丕丿 丕賱爻賰丕賳.
賮賰賷賮 賷乇鬲亘胤 賰賱 賴匕丕 亘賲爻兀賱丞 丕賱匕賵賯 丕賱爻賱賷賲 賵丕賱爻賷卅責
鬲丨丿孬 亘賳孬丕賲 亘卮賰賱 賱丕匕毓 毓賳 兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱匕賷賳 賷卮噩亘賵賳 賵爻丕卅賱 丕賱鬲乇賮賷賴 丕賱卮毓亘賷丞 貨 丕賱匕賷賳 賷賮爻丿賵賳 賲鬲毓丞 丕賱兀亘乇賷丕亍 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 乇亘胤賴賲 亘賭 "賮賰乇丞 丕賱匕賵賯 丕賱爻賷卅" 貨 賵丕賱賱匕賷賳 賷毓鬲亘乇賵賳 兀賳賮爻賴賲 "賲丨爻賳賷賳 賱賱噩賳爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷" 賱賰賳賴賲 賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賲噩乇丿 "賲賲鬲賳毓賷賳 毓賳 爻毓丕丿鬲賴賲".
賵賮賯丕 賱賴 貙 毓賳丿賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 丕賱兀賲乇 亘丨爻丕亘 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 貙 賱丕 鬲賵噩丿 賲賱匕丕鬲 毓丕賱賷丞 丕賱噩賵丿丞 兀賵 賲賳禺賮囟丞 丕賱噩賵丿丞. 鬲毓丿 丕賱賲賱匕丕鬲 丕賱卮丿賷丿丞 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 丕賱賲毓鬲丿賱丞 貨 鬲毓丿 丕賱賲賱匕丕鬲 丕賱賲胤賵賱丞 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 丕賱賲賱匕丕鬲 賯氐賷乇丞 丕賱毓賲乇 貨 賵賲丕 廿賱賶 匕賱賰 賵賴賱賲 噩乇丕. 賱賰賳 賴匕丕 賰賱賴 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱丿乇噩丞 賵賱賷爻 丕賱噩賵丿丞. 賱丕 鬲賵噩丿 賲鬲毓丞 鬲鬲賮賵賯 賮賷 噩賵賴乇賴丕 毓賱賶 兀賷 賲鬲毓丞 兀禺乇賶.
賵賮賯賸丕 賱賴匕丕 丕賱丨爻丕亘 貙 賮廿賳 丕賱賲毓賷丕乇 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賱賱丨賰賲 毓賱賶 賯賷賲丞 乇賵丕賷丞 兀賵 賲爻乇丨賷丞 兀賵 賯胤毓丞 賲賵爻賷賯賷丞 兀賵 賴賵丕賷丞 賴賵 賲賯丿丕乇 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳鬲噩賴丕. 賰鬲亘 亘賳孬丕賲: (賯賷賲丞 賰賱 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賮賳賵賳 賵丕賱毓賱賵賲 - 兀鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 賰賱 賲賳 丕賱鬲爻賱賷丞 賵丕賱賮囟賵賱 - 鬲鬲賳丕爻亘 鬲賲丕賲賸丕 賲毓 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳鬲噩賴丕) . 賱賯丿 兀毓賱賳 亘卮賰賱 賲卮賴賵乇 兀賳 丿亘賵爻 丕賱丿賮毓 (丕賱賱毓亘丞) 貙 賷丨賲賱 賯賷賲丞 亘賯丿乇 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賶 賵丕賱卮毓乇.
賲丕 賴賵 丕賱兀賮囟賱 - 丕賱匕賷 賷噩賱亘 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 - 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳 兀賲 卮賰爻亘賷乇責 丨爻賳賸丕 貙 亘賯丿乇 賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 丕賱兀賲乇 亘丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 貙 賮賴賷 賲爻兀賱丞 匕賵賯. 兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱匕賷賳 賷爻鬲賲鬲毓賵賳 亘丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱禺賮賷賮丞 貙 賵丕賱賲丐丕賲乇丕鬲 丕賱爻乇賷毓丞 賵丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲賯賱亘丕鬲 賵丕賱丕賳毓胤丕賮丕鬲 貙 爻賷丨氐賱賵賳 毓賱賶 賲鬲毓鬲賴賲 賲賳 卮賷賮乇丞 丿丕賮賳卮賷 貨 亘賷賳賲丕 兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱匕賷賳 賱丿賷賴賲 賲賷賱 賱賱卮毓乇 賵丕賱亘氐賷乇丞 丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 爻賷噩丿賵賳 兀賳賮爻賴賲 賲賮鬲賵賳賷賳 亘賴丕賲賱鬲.
賵賱賰賳 賲丕 丕賱匕賷 賷噩賱亘 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲責 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳 . 廿賱賷賰賲 丕賱爻亘亘 貙 賰賱 賲賳 賷賯乇兀 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳 鬲賯乇賷亘賸丕 賷賮毓賱 匕賱賰 賮賯胤 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱丕爻鬲賲鬲丕毓 貙 賵丕賱匕賷 賷氐賱 廿賱賶 賲賱丕賷賷賳 賲賳 賵丨丿丕鬲 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 亘丨爻亘 丨噩賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘. 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱兀孬賳丕亍 貙 賷購毓丕賳賷 賲賳 賷賯乇兀 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賵賷鬲丨賲賱賴 賰孬賷乇賸丕 亘賯丿乇 賲丕 賷爻鬲賲鬲毓 亘賴 . 賷賯丿賲 丕賱卮丕毓乇 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賱賲 賲毓 丕賱賲鬲毓丞.
賱匕賱賰 貙 丨爻亘 乇賵丕賷丞 亘賳孬丕賲 貙 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇.
賱賷爻 丕賱兀賲乇 賰匕賱賰 貙 賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱 噩賵賳 爻鬲賷賵丕乇鬲 賲賷賱 . 乇亘賲丕 賰丕賳 兀賯賵賶 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 賱賲胤丕賱亘丞 亘賳孬丕賲 貙 噩丕亍 賲賳 鬲賱賲賷匕賴 丕賱爻丕亘賯 貙 噩賵賳 爻鬲賷賵丕乇鬲 賲賷賱 (1806-1873).
賰丕賳 賵丕賱丿 賲賷賱 氐丿賷賯賸丕 賱亘賷賳孬丕賲 賵 賲毓噩亘丕 亘賴 貙 賵乇亘賻賾賶 丕亘賳賴 賱賷賰賵賳 丨丕賲賱 卮毓賱丞 丕賱賳賮毓賷丞. 鬲毓賱賲 噩賵賳 爻鬲賷賵丕乇鬲 丿乇賵爻賴 噩賷丿賸丕. 兀氐亘丨 賲賳 兀卮丿 丕賱賲丿丕賮毓賷賳 毓賳 賲亘丕丿卅 亘賳孬丕賲. 賱賰賳 賮賷 爻賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 禺囟毓 "賱兀夭賲丞 賮賷 鬲丕乇賷禺賴 丕賱毓賯賱賷". 鬲賵賯賮 毓賳 丕賱鬲賲鬲毓 亘兀賷 賲鬲毓丞 賲賳 丿乇丕爻鬲賴. 鬲乇賰鬲賴 乇賮賯丞 丕賱兀氐丿賯丕亍 亘丕乇丿賸丕 賵睾賷乇 賲亘丕賱 貨 賵丨鬲賶 胤賲賵丨賴 賮賷 兀賳 賷氐亘丨 賲氐賱丨賸丕 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷賸丕 毓馗賷賲賸丕 賱賲 賷毓丿 賷丨賮夭賴.
丕爻鬲賲乇 丕賱丕賰鬲卅丕亘 爻鬲丞 兀卮賴乇. 禺賱丕賱 匕賱賰 丕賱賵賯鬲 貙 賱賲 鬲爻丕毓丿 賲亘丕丿卅 亘賳孬丕賲 賰孬賷乇賸丕 賮賷 賲賵丕爻丕鬲賴 . 賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓 貙 賰丕賳 丕賱卮毓乇 - 卮毓乇 賵賷賱賷丕賲 賵乇丿夭賵乇孬 - 賴賵 丕賱匕賷 賯丿賲 兀禺賷乇賸丕 "丕賱丿賵丕亍 賱丨丕賱鬲賴 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞" .
賴匕賴 丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 睾賷乇鬲 賵噩賴丕鬲 賳馗乇 賲賷賱 鬲賲丕賲賸丕. 兀賯賳毓鬲賴 兀賳 亘毓囟 丕賱賲賱匕丕鬲 兀賰孬乇 賯賷賲丞 賲賳 睾賷乇賴丕. 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賱兀賷 賯丿乇 賲賳 賱毓亘丞 丕賱丿亘丕亘賷爻 兀賳 賷賳賯匕賴 賲賳 丕賱丕賰鬲卅丕亘 賰賲丕 賮毓賱 卮毓乇 賵乇丿夭賵乇孬. 賱賯丿 兀禺胤兀 亘賷賳孬丕賲. 賰丕賳 賴賳丕賰 賲丕 賴賵 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲噩乇丿 丕賱賰賲賷丞 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賱賲鬲毓丞 .
賰丕賳鬲 丕賱噩賵丿丞 賲賴賲丞 兀賷囟賸丕.
賵亘賳丕亍賸 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 貙 賮賯丿 賮氐賱 丕賱賲賱匕丕鬲 廿賱賶 賲賱匕丕鬲 "兀丿賳賶" 賵 "兀毓賱賶". 賷賲賰賳 賱賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賵丕賱亘卮乇 毓賱賶 丨丿 爻賵丕亍 丕賱丕爻鬲賲鬲丕毓 亘丕賱兀氐賳丕賮 丕賱爻賮賱賷丞 貙 賲孬賱 丕賱兀賰賱 賵丕賱卮乇亘 賵丕賱噩賳爻. 賱賰賳 丕賱賯賷賲 丕賱毓賱賷丕 貙 賲孬賱 丕賱氐丿丕賯丞 賵丕賱卮乇賮 賵丕賱賮賳 賵丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賶 賵丕賱卮毓乇 貙 鬲毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 賯丿乇丕鬲賳丕 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 丕賱賲鬲賲賷夭丞. 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳賯囟賷賴丕 賮賷 丕賱爻毓賷 賵乇丕亍 賲賱匕丕鬲 丕賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱兀丿賳賶 丨氐乇賷賸丕 賴賷 貙 賮賷 鬲賯丿賷乇 賲賷賱 貙 丨賷丕丞 鬲丕賮賴丞 . 廿賳賰 賲丐賴賱 賱鬲賰賵賳 爻毓賷丿賸丕 廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 禺賳夭賷乇賸丕 貙 賱賰賳 丕賱兀賲乇 賷氐亘丨 兀氐毓亘 亘賰孬賷乇 廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 卮禺氐賸丕.
賷亘丿賵 兀賳 賲賷賱 賰丕賳 爻賷氐賳賮 卮賰爻亘賷乇 亘丿乇噩丞 兀毓賱賶 賲賳 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳!
.
Gary Hayden
You kant Make It Up
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
.
.
毓賳丿賲丕 賷爻兀賱賳賷 兀丨丿賴賲 賲丕 賴賵 賮賷賱賲賷 丕賱賲賮囟賱 貙 兀噩賷亘 丿賵賳 鬲乇丿丿 貙 胤賮賱 丕賱賰丕乇丕鬲賷賴 (丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱). 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賲乇丨賱丞 貙 鬲鬲賴賲賳賷 夭賵噩鬲賷 亘丕賱睾卮 . 廿賳賴丕 賲賯鬲賳毓丞 兀賳賳賷 兀賲鬲賱賰 鬲賮囟賷賱賸丕 爻乇賷賸丕 賱賮賷賱賲 賯丕卅賲丞 卮賳丿賱乇 貙 兀賵 睾丕賳丿賷 兀賵 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳 賰賷賳.
賲丕 丕賱匕賷 賷噩毓賱賴丕 鬲毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賳賷 兀賮囟賱 丨賯賸丕 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳 賰賷賳責 賱爻鬲 賲鬲兀賰丿賸丕 鬲賲丕賲賸丕. 賱賰賳 丕賱兀賲乇 賱賴 毓賱丕賯丞 亘賰賵賳賴 "兀賮囟賱" 賲賳 The Karate Kid 貙 亘賳賮爻 丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷賰賵賳 亘賴丕 Puccini "兀賮囟賱" 賲賳 Pussycat Dolls 貙 賵卮賰爻亘賷乇 "兀賮囟賱" 賲賳 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳 . 廿賳賴丕 鬲賳爻亘 廿賱賷 貙 毓賱賶 賲丕 兀毓鬲賯丿 貙 匕賵賯賸丕 兀賮囟賱 賲賲丕 兀賲賱賰.
賱賰賳 賴賱 Puccini 兀賮囟賱 丨賯賸丕 賲賳 Pussycat Dolls責 賴賱 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賲鬲賮賵賯 丨賯賸丕 毓賱賶 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳責 賵賴賱 賴賵 匕賵賯 爻賷卅 丨賯賸丕 兀賳 鬲賮囟賱 "賮鬲賶 丕賱賰丕乇丕鬲賷賴" 毓賱賶 丕賱賲賵丕胤賳 賰賷賳責 賱賷爻 賵賮賯賸丕 賱賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷 (噩賷乇賷賲賷 亘賷賳孬丕賲) 貙 丕賱兀賲乇 賱賷爻 賰匕賱賰. 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賴 貙 賰賱 丕賱賰賱丕賲 毓賳 丕賱匕賵賯 丕賱噩賷丿 賵丕賱爻賷亍 賰丕賳 賲噩乇丿 賴乇丕亍.
賵賱丿 噩賷乇賷賲賷 亘賷賳孬丕賲 毓丕賲 1748 賮賷 毓丕卅賱丞 賲夭丿賴乇丞 賲賳 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱賲鬲賵爻胤丞. 毓賳丿賲丕 賰丕賳 胤賮賱丕賸 貙 賰丕賳 禺噩賵賱賸丕 賵毓氐亘賷賸丕 亘卮賰賱 賲丐賱賲 賵賱賰賳賴 賷賲鬲賱賰 匕賰丕亍賸 乇丕卅毓賸丕. 亘丿兀 丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱賱丕鬲賷賳賷丞 賮賷 爻賳 丕賱乇丕亘毓丞 貙 賵丿禺賱 噩丕賲毓丞 兀賰爻賮賵乇丿 賮賷 爻賳 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞 毓卮乇丞.
亘毓丿 丕賱鬲禺乇噩 丿乇爻 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳. 鬲兀賴賱 賱賰賳賴 賱賲 賷賲丕乇爻. 賵亘丿賱丕賸 賲賳 匕賱賰 貙 賰乇爻 胤丕賯鬲賴 丕賱賰亘賷乇丞 賵賲賵賴亘鬲賴 賱賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 丨賵賱 丕賱廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳賷. 賮賷 毓丕賲 1789 賳卮乇 賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷 (賲賯丿賲丞 賮賷 賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賵丕賱鬲卮乇賷毓).
賰丕賳 亘賳孬丕賲 賲鬲毓氐亘賸丕. 賱賯丿 爻丕賵賶 亘賷賳 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 賵丕賱賱匕丞 貙 賵丕毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱爻毓賷丿丞 賴賷 亘亘爻丕胤丞 丨賷丕丞 鬲鬲賮賵賯 賮賷賴丕 丕賱賱匕丞 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賱賲. 賯丕丿鬲賴 賲亘丕丿卅 賲匕賴亘 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 廿賱賶 氐賷丕睾丞 毓賯賷丿丞 兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 鬲毓乇賮 亘丕爻賲 (丕賱賳賮毓賷丞) 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳氐 毓賱賶 兀賳 丕賱卮賷亍 "噩賷丿" 賮賯胤 亘賯丿乇 賲丕 賷夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 兀賵 賷賯賱賱 賲賳 丕賱兀賱賲.
丕賱爻賲丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 賱賳賮毓賷丞 亘賳孬丕賲 賴賷 "賲亘丿兀 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 丕賱兀毓馗賲" 貙 賵丕賱匕賷 亘賲賵噩亘賴 賷賰賵賳 丕賱廿噩乇丕亍 丕賱氐丨賷丨 兀禺賱丕賯賷丕賸 賮賷 兀賷 賲賵賯賮 賴賵 丕賱匕賷 賷噩賱亘 兀賰亘乇 賯丿乇 賲賳 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 賱兀賰亘乇 毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱賳丕爻. 賴匕丕 丕賱賲亘丿兀 兀爻丕爻賷 賱噩賲賷毓 兀賮賰丕乇 亘賳孬丕賲 丨賵賱 丕賱廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳賷 賵丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷.
賲賳 丕賱氐毓亘 賱賱睾丕賷丞 貙 亘丕賱胤亘毓 貙 丕賱丨賰賲 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱匕賷 賯丿 鬲丨丿孬賴 鬲氐乇賮丕鬲 丕賱賮乇丿 毓賱賶 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賱賱賲噩鬲賲毓. 兀丿乇賰 亘賳孬丕賲 匕賱賰 貙 賵亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 鬲賵氐賱 廿賱賶 丨爻丕亘 鬲賮丕囟賱 噩賷丿: 胤乇賷賯丞 賱丨爻丕亘 賲賯丿丕乇 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 賵丕賱兀賱賲 丕賱賱匕賷賳 賲賳 丕賱賲丨鬲賲賱 兀賳 鬲爻亘亘賴賲 丕賱兀賮毓丕賱. 丨爻丕亘 丕賱鬲賮丕囟賱 賵丕賱鬲賰丕賲賱 賲毓賯丿 賱賱睾丕賷丞 賵賷爻鬲睾乇賯 賵賯鬲賸丕 胤賵賷賱丕賸 賱丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲賴 賲賳 賯亘賱 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿.
賰丕賳鬲 賮賰乇丞 亘賳孬丕賲 兀賳 丕賱賯丕丿丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷賷賳 爻賷爻鬲禺丿賲賵賳賴丕 賱賲爻丕毓丿鬲賴賲 賮賷 氐賷丕睾丞 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲夭賷丿 賲賳 廿爻毓丕丿 丕賱爻賰丕賳.
賮賰賷賮 賷乇鬲亘胤 賰賱 賴匕丕 亘賲爻兀賱丞 丕賱匕賵賯 丕賱爻賱賷賲 賵丕賱爻賷卅責
鬲丨丿孬 亘賳孬丕賲 亘卮賰賱 賱丕匕毓 毓賳 兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱匕賷賳 賷卮噩亘賵賳 賵爻丕卅賱 丕賱鬲乇賮賷賴 丕賱卮毓亘賷丞 貨 丕賱匕賷賳 賷賮爻丿賵賳 賲鬲毓丞 丕賱兀亘乇賷丕亍 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 乇亘胤賴賲 亘賭 "賮賰乇丞 丕賱匕賵賯 丕賱爻賷卅" 貨 賵丕賱賱匕賷賳 賷毓鬲亘乇賵賳 兀賳賮爻賴賲 "賲丨爻賳賷賳 賱賱噩賳爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷" 賱賰賳賴賲 賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賲噩乇丿 "賲賲鬲賳毓賷賳 毓賳 爻毓丕丿鬲賴賲".
賵賮賯丕 賱賴 貙 毓賳丿賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 丕賱兀賲乇 亘丨爻丕亘 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 貙 賱丕 鬲賵噩丿 賲賱匕丕鬲 毓丕賱賷丞 丕賱噩賵丿丞 兀賵 賲賳禺賮囟丞 丕賱噩賵丿丞. 鬲毓丿 丕賱賲賱匕丕鬲 丕賱卮丿賷丿丞 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 丕賱賲毓鬲丿賱丞 貨 鬲毓丿 丕賱賲賱匕丕鬲 丕賱賲胤賵賱丞 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 丕賱賲賱匕丕鬲 賯氐賷乇丞 丕賱毓賲乇 貨 賵賲丕 廿賱賶 匕賱賰 賵賴賱賲 噩乇丕. 賱賰賳 賴匕丕 賰賱賴 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱丿乇噩丞 賵賱賷爻 丕賱噩賵丿丞. 賱丕 鬲賵噩丿 賲鬲毓丞 鬲鬲賮賵賯 賮賷 噩賵賴乇賴丕 毓賱賶 兀賷 賲鬲毓丞 兀禺乇賶.
賵賮賯賸丕 賱賴匕丕 丕賱丨爻丕亘 貙 賮廿賳 丕賱賲毓賷丕乇 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賱賱丨賰賲 毓賱賶 賯賷賲丞 乇賵丕賷丞 兀賵 賲爻乇丨賷丞 兀賵 賯胤毓丞 賲賵爻賷賯賷丞 兀賵 賴賵丕賷丞 賴賵 賲賯丿丕乇 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳鬲噩賴丕. 賰鬲亘 亘賳孬丕賲: (賯賷賲丞 賰賱 賲賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賮賳賵賳 賵丕賱毓賱賵賲 - 兀鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 賰賱 賲賳 丕賱鬲爻賱賷丞 賵丕賱賮囟賵賱 - 鬲鬲賳丕爻亘 鬲賲丕賲賸丕 賲毓 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳鬲噩賴丕) . 賱賯丿 兀毓賱賳 亘卮賰賱 賲卮賴賵乇 兀賳 丿亘賵爻 丕賱丿賮毓 (丕賱賱毓亘丞) 貙 賷丨賲賱 賯賷賲丞 亘賯丿乇 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賶 賵丕賱卮毓乇.
賲丕 賴賵 丕賱兀賮囟賱 - 丕賱匕賷 賷噩賱亘 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 - 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳 兀賲 卮賰爻亘賷乇責 丨爻賳賸丕 貙 亘賯丿乇 賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 丕賱兀賲乇 亘丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 貙 賮賴賷 賲爻兀賱丞 匕賵賯. 兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱匕賷賳 賷爻鬲賲鬲毓賵賳 亘丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱禺賮賷賮丞 貙 賵丕賱賲丐丕賲乇丕鬲 丕賱爻乇賷毓丞 賵丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲賯賱亘丕鬲 賵丕賱丕賳毓胤丕賮丕鬲 貙 爻賷丨氐賱賵賳 毓賱賶 賲鬲毓鬲賴賲 賲賳 卮賷賮乇丞 丿丕賮賳卮賷 貨 亘賷賳賲丕 兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱匕賷賳 賱丿賷賴賲 賲賷賱 賱賱卮毓乇 賵丕賱亘氐賷乇丞 丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 爻賷噩丿賵賳 兀賳賮爻賴賲 賲賮鬲賵賳賷賳 亘賴丕賲賱鬲.
賵賱賰賳 賲丕 丕賱匕賷 賷噩賱亘 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲責 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳 . 廿賱賷賰賲 丕賱爻亘亘 貙 賰賱 賲賳 賷賯乇兀 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳 鬲賯乇賷亘賸丕 賷賮毓賱 匕賱賰 賮賯胤 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱丕爻鬲賲鬲丕毓 貙 賵丕賱匕賷 賷氐賱 廿賱賶 賲賱丕賷賷賳 賲賳 賵丨丿丕鬲 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 亘丨爻亘 丨噩賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘. 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱兀孬賳丕亍 貙 賷購毓丕賳賷 賲賳 賷賯乇兀 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賵賷鬲丨賲賱賴 賰孬賷乇賸丕 亘賯丿乇 賲丕 賷爻鬲賲鬲毓 亘賴 . 賷賯丿賲 丕賱卮丕毓乇 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賱賲 賲毓 丕賱賲鬲毓丞.
賱匕賱賰 貙 丨爻亘 乇賵丕賷丞 亘賳孬丕賲 貙 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇.
賱賷爻 丕賱兀賲乇 賰匕賱賰 貙 賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱 噩賵賳 爻鬲賷賵丕乇鬲 賲賷賱 . 乇亘賲丕 賰丕賳 兀賯賵賶 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 賱賲胤丕賱亘丞 亘賳孬丕賲 貙 噩丕亍 賲賳 鬲賱賲賷匕賴 丕賱爻丕亘賯 貙 噩賵賳 爻鬲賷賵丕乇鬲 賲賷賱 (1806-1873).
賰丕賳 賵丕賱丿 賲賷賱 氐丿賷賯賸丕 賱亘賷賳孬丕賲 賵 賲毓噩亘丕 亘賴 貙 賵乇亘賻賾賶 丕亘賳賴 賱賷賰賵賳 丨丕賲賱 卮毓賱丞 丕賱賳賮毓賷丞. 鬲毓賱賲 噩賵賳 爻鬲賷賵丕乇鬲 丿乇賵爻賴 噩賷丿賸丕. 兀氐亘丨 賲賳 兀卮丿 丕賱賲丿丕賮毓賷賳 毓賳 賲亘丕丿卅 亘賳孬丕賲. 賱賰賳 賮賷 爻賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 禺囟毓 "賱兀夭賲丞 賮賷 鬲丕乇賷禺賴 丕賱毓賯賱賷". 鬲賵賯賮 毓賳 丕賱鬲賲鬲毓 亘兀賷 賲鬲毓丞 賲賳 丿乇丕爻鬲賴. 鬲乇賰鬲賴 乇賮賯丞 丕賱兀氐丿賯丕亍 亘丕乇丿賸丕 賵睾賷乇 賲亘丕賱 貨 賵丨鬲賶 胤賲賵丨賴 賮賷 兀賳 賷氐亘丨 賲氐賱丨賸丕 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷賸丕 毓馗賷賲賸丕 賱賲 賷毓丿 賷丨賮夭賴.
丕爻鬲賲乇 丕賱丕賰鬲卅丕亘 爻鬲丞 兀卮賴乇. 禺賱丕賱 匕賱賰 丕賱賵賯鬲 貙 賱賲 鬲爻丕毓丿 賲亘丕丿卅 亘賳孬丕賲 賰孬賷乇賸丕 賮賷 賲賵丕爻丕鬲賴 . 賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓 貙 賰丕賳 丕賱卮毓乇 - 卮毓乇 賵賷賱賷丕賲 賵乇丿夭賵乇孬 - 賴賵 丕賱匕賷 賯丿賲 兀禺賷乇賸丕 "丕賱丿賵丕亍 賱丨丕賱鬲賴 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞" .
賴匕賴 丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 睾賷乇鬲 賵噩賴丕鬲 賳馗乇 賲賷賱 鬲賲丕賲賸丕. 兀賯賳毓鬲賴 兀賳 亘毓囟 丕賱賲賱匕丕鬲 兀賰孬乇 賯賷賲丞 賲賳 睾賷乇賴丕. 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賱兀賷 賯丿乇 賲賳 賱毓亘丞 丕賱丿亘丕亘賷爻 兀賳 賷賳賯匕賴 賲賳 丕賱丕賰鬲卅丕亘 賰賲丕 賮毓賱 卮毓乇 賵乇丿夭賵乇孬. 賱賯丿 兀禺胤兀 亘賷賳孬丕賲. 賰丕賳 賴賳丕賰 賲丕 賴賵 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲噩乇丿 丕賱賰賲賷丞 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賱賲鬲毓丞 .
賰丕賳鬲 丕賱噩賵丿丞 賲賴賲丞 兀賷囟賸丕.
賵亘賳丕亍賸 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 貙 賮賯丿 賮氐賱 丕賱賲賱匕丕鬲 廿賱賶 賲賱匕丕鬲 "兀丿賳賶" 賵 "兀毓賱賶". 賷賲賰賳 賱賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賵丕賱亘卮乇 毓賱賶 丨丿 爻賵丕亍 丕賱丕爻鬲賲鬲丕毓 亘丕賱兀氐賳丕賮 丕賱爻賮賱賷丞 貙 賲孬賱 丕賱兀賰賱 賵丕賱卮乇亘 賵丕賱噩賳爻. 賱賰賳 丕賱賯賷賲 丕賱毓賱賷丕 貙 賲孬賱 丕賱氐丿丕賯丞 賵丕賱卮乇賮 賵丕賱賮賳 賵丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賶 賵丕賱卮毓乇 貙 鬲毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 賯丿乇丕鬲賳丕 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 丕賱賲鬲賲賷夭丞. 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳賯囟賷賴丕 賮賷 丕賱爻毓賷 賵乇丕亍 賲賱匕丕鬲 丕賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱兀丿賳賶 丨氐乇賷賸丕 賴賷 貙 賮賷 鬲賯丿賷乇 賲賷賱 貙 丨賷丕丞 鬲丕賮賴丞 . 廿賳賰 賲丐賴賱 賱鬲賰賵賳 爻毓賷丿賸丕 廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 禺賳夭賷乇賸丕 貙 賱賰賳 丕賱兀賲乇 賷氐亘丨 兀氐毓亘 亘賰孬賷乇 廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 卮禺氐賸丕.
賷亘丿賵 兀賳 賲賷賱 賰丕賳 爻賷氐賳賮 卮賰爻亘賷乇 亘丿乇噩丞 兀毓賱賶 賲賳 丿丕賳 亘乇丕賵賳!
.
Gary Hayden
You kant Make It Up
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
March 14, 2023
3.5 stars, a fun little book!
Read
June 30, 2016I can't really comment on this book since I wrote it.
I will, however, share this bookseller review from Niel Kenmuir at the UK's Waterstones books, because I think it sums up precisely what I wanted to achieve in writing it.
You Kant Make It Up!
Strange Ideas from History鈥檚 Great Philosophers, by Gary Hayden
What we have here is a kind of history of philosophy, potted and served with a big side of fruity relish. Hayden鈥檚 great little book focuses on the bizarre results which occur when you take your brain to the edges of profound thought. It鈥檚 a simple hook. After all, philosophers have said some utterly baffling stuff over the course of history. Take Bishop Berkely for example, he didn鈥檛 believe in matter! The sofa I鈥檓 sitting on as I type this up? It鈥檚 not made of matter, it鈥檚 just in my mind. Or how would you react if someone told you that Harry Potter was real? Well, that鈥檚 what Alexius Meinong would have said - if you can think about it, there must be something that your thought refers to. Like I said, pretty outlandish stuff.
This is an interesting way of introducing people to the nature and problems of philosophy. Shock them by showing them some outlandish conclusion, something that ordinarily only a mad man would say, and then show them the actual reasoning that led to the conclusion in the first place. After all, if you can understand why - and maybe I鈥檓 not choosing the best example here - St. Augustine though that, say babies deserve to go to Hell, then all of a sudden that sense of outlandishness can disappear. 鈥楬ang on, you mean he had a reason for thinking that after all? So he did!鈥� And if you still think that his conclusion wrong, well, now it is up to you to show why. Augustine gave his reasons, he showed you why he thinks babies should go to Hell. Can you provide a better counter argument? Of course, some of the positions presented are just plain ridiculous, and couldn鈥檛 be sensibly upheld in today鈥檚 liberated age. Could you agree with Schopenhauer鈥檚 claim that women are just 鈥榞rown-up children鈥� for example? From personal experience it seems to me that this would be a more fitting description of men!
This is the great idea behind Hayden鈥檚 book. It doesn鈥檛 offer up philosophy as something to be mocked or as a series of baffling stupid ideas, but as something that is the result of being challenged, be it by religious ideas of the times, or questions regarding ethical behaviour, or indeed some grander questions that can help put your life in perspective (check out the couple of chapters on Nietzsche).
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone with an interest in life鈥檚 more perplexing questions. It鈥檚 a great little introduction to philosophy鈥檚 general problems, incredibly accessible and very easy to read. It鈥檚 useful for the more experienced reader of philosophy too - I personally found it beneficial as a little reminder course on the history of philosophy. I鈥檓 not always in agreement with some of Hayden鈥檚 criticisms, but that鈥檚 the nature of philosophy, it鈥檚 provocative, and in using some of the most provocative ideas in philosophy鈥檚 wonderful history, Hayden has a great hook to draw you in. And hopefully he鈥檒l show you that some of them aren鈥檛 so strange after all.
I will, however, share this bookseller review from Niel Kenmuir at the UK's Waterstones books, because I think it sums up precisely what I wanted to achieve in writing it.
You Kant Make It Up!
Strange Ideas from History鈥檚 Great Philosophers, by Gary Hayden
What we have here is a kind of history of philosophy, potted and served with a big side of fruity relish. Hayden鈥檚 great little book focuses on the bizarre results which occur when you take your brain to the edges of profound thought. It鈥檚 a simple hook. After all, philosophers have said some utterly baffling stuff over the course of history. Take Bishop Berkely for example, he didn鈥檛 believe in matter! The sofa I鈥檓 sitting on as I type this up? It鈥檚 not made of matter, it鈥檚 just in my mind. Or how would you react if someone told you that Harry Potter was real? Well, that鈥檚 what Alexius Meinong would have said - if you can think about it, there must be something that your thought refers to. Like I said, pretty outlandish stuff.
This is an interesting way of introducing people to the nature and problems of philosophy. Shock them by showing them some outlandish conclusion, something that ordinarily only a mad man would say, and then show them the actual reasoning that led to the conclusion in the first place. After all, if you can understand why - and maybe I鈥檓 not choosing the best example here - St. Augustine though that, say babies deserve to go to Hell, then all of a sudden that sense of outlandishness can disappear. 鈥楬ang on, you mean he had a reason for thinking that after all? So he did!鈥� And if you still think that his conclusion wrong, well, now it is up to you to show why. Augustine gave his reasons, he showed you why he thinks babies should go to Hell. Can you provide a better counter argument? Of course, some of the positions presented are just plain ridiculous, and couldn鈥檛 be sensibly upheld in today鈥檚 liberated age. Could you agree with Schopenhauer鈥檚 claim that women are just 鈥榞rown-up children鈥� for example? From personal experience it seems to me that this would be a more fitting description of men!
This is the great idea behind Hayden鈥檚 book. It doesn鈥檛 offer up philosophy as something to be mocked or as a series of baffling stupid ideas, but as something that is the result of being challenged, be it by religious ideas of the times, or questions regarding ethical behaviour, or indeed some grander questions that can help put your life in perspective (check out the couple of chapters on Nietzsche).
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone with an interest in life鈥檚 more perplexing questions. It鈥檚 a great little introduction to philosophy鈥檚 general problems, incredibly accessible and very easy to read. It鈥檚 useful for the more experienced reader of philosophy too - I personally found it beneficial as a little reminder course on the history of philosophy. I鈥檓 not always in agreement with some of Hayden鈥檚 criticisms, but that鈥檚 the nature of philosophy, it鈥檚 provocative, and in using some of the most provocative ideas in philosophy鈥檚 wonderful history, Hayden has a great hook to draw you in. And hopefully he鈥檒l show you that some of them aren鈥檛 so strange after all.
February 19, 2012
This book introduces 43 ideas from various philosopher's from history for you to cogitate and mull over.
Hayden runs a pretty similar format for each idea, he introduces it in a way that makes it easy to relate to and then provides arguments for and against to allow you to make up your own mind.
At least that is the theory but some of the ideas are introduced using phrases such as "this is a bizarre claim", "right up there with the weirdest" and "this sounds absurd". This is clearly going to prejudice any idea that might be introduced thus and I've dropped this down a star because of that. The presentation of even difficult ideas is well done and contemporary examples are used throughout (eg Harry Potter and Dan Brown), Hayden also writes with a touch of humour. On the kindle each chapter ends with links to related ideas so you can jump around or dip into it easily with the handy index at the back.
After all the ideas are presented there is a section on suggested further reading if you want to find out more. As a primer to some of the ideas from western and eastern philosophy this book is a great start but just try and not judge the ideas until you have heard the arguments for and against.
Hayden runs a pretty similar format for each idea, he introduces it in a way that makes it easy to relate to and then provides arguments for and against to allow you to make up your own mind.
At least that is the theory but some of the ideas are introduced using phrases such as "this is a bizarre claim", "right up there with the weirdest" and "this sounds absurd". This is clearly going to prejudice any idea that might be introduced thus and I've dropped this down a star because of that. The presentation of even difficult ideas is well done and contemporary examples are used throughout (eg Harry Potter and Dan Brown), Hayden also writes with a touch of humour. On the kindle each chapter ends with links to related ideas so you can jump around or dip into it easily with the handy index at the back.
After all the ideas are presented there is a section on suggested further reading if you want to find out more. As a primer to some of the ideas from western and eastern philosophy this book is a great start but just try and not judge the ideas until you have heard the arguments for and against.
December 17, 2011
This is one of the cleverest ways of introducing people to thinking philosophically I have come across. Using very readable prose, Gary Hayden lures the reader into this world by taking a strange, odd, shocking or outrageous idea from various philosophers. He summarises the idea, then briefly discusses it. Arguments both pro and con are provided. Ultimately the reader learns that, odd though the ideas might be, there are good 'justifications' for each of them! There is a total of 43 ideas explored in 211 pages (so there's not a lot of detail to get lost in), and each of the 43 chapters has cross references to other related ideas within the book. The last section of the book provides a Further Reading guide for most of the entries, for those wanting to know more.
For someone wanting a 'brush up' on some of the most intriguing ideas in philosophy, this is a delight to read. For someone unfamiliar with the territory, this book will make you think in ways you never thought possible鈥� Win, win, either way!
For someone wanting a 'brush up' on some of the most intriguing ideas in philosophy, this is a delight to read. For someone unfamiliar with the territory, this book will make you think in ways you never thought possible鈥� Win, win, either way!
March 2, 2015
B眉y眉k Filozoflar谋n Tuhaf Fikirleri, b枚ylesi tuhaf fikirleri anlatarak sizi 艧a艧谋rt谋rken, felsefeyi ve filozoflar谋 kaba hatlar谋yla tan谋tmay谋 ama莽l谋yor.
Thomas Aquinas mast眉rbasyon yapman谋n 谋rza ge莽mekten daha k枚t眉 oldu臒unu d眉艧眉n眉r.
Ren茅 Descartes鈥檃 g枚re t眉m deneyimlerimiz belki de bir d眉艧ten ibarettir. Ba艧ka deyi艧le, b眉t眉n ya艧ad谋klar谋m谋z, t谋pk谋
Matrix filmindeki gibi, kavanozdaki bir beyne bir bilgisayar program谋 taraf谋ndan verilen elektrik ak谋m谋n谋n sonu莽lar谋ndan ba艧ka bir 艧ey de臒ildir!
Blaise Pascal鈥檃 g枚re Tanr谋鈥檡a inanmak inanmamaktan daha avantajl谋d谋r. 脟眉nk眉 inanmazsan谋z ve Tanr谋 varsa 莽ok 艧ey kaybeder, e臒er Tanr谋 yoksa 莽ok az 艧ey kazan谋rs谋n谋z; ama inan谋rsan谋z ve Tanr谋 varsa 莽ok 艧ey kazan谋r, e臒er yoksa hi莽bir 艧ey yitirmezsiniz.
George Berkeley鈥檈 g枚re her 艧ey d眉艧眉nceden ibarettir, onlar da zaten Tanr谋鈥檔谋n d眉艧眉nceleridir. Ben Tanr谋鈥檡谋 d眉艧眉n眉yorsam bunu d眉艧眉nmemi isteyen Tanr谋鈥檇谋r. Peki bana Tanr谋鈥檔谋n olmad谋臒谋n谋 d眉艧眉nd眉ren de Tanr谋 m谋d谋r?!
Thomas Aquinas mast眉rbasyon yapman谋n 谋rza ge莽mekten daha k枚t眉 oldu臒unu d眉艧眉n眉r.
Ren茅 Descartes鈥檃 g枚re t眉m deneyimlerimiz belki de bir d眉艧ten ibarettir. Ba艧ka deyi艧le, b眉t眉n ya艧ad谋klar谋m谋z, t谋pk谋
Matrix filmindeki gibi, kavanozdaki bir beyne bir bilgisayar program谋 taraf谋ndan verilen elektrik ak谋m谋n谋n sonu莽lar谋ndan ba艧ka bir 艧ey de臒ildir!
Blaise Pascal鈥檃 g枚re Tanr谋鈥檡a inanmak inanmamaktan daha avantajl谋d谋r. 脟眉nk眉 inanmazsan谋z ve Tanr谋 varsa 莽ok 艧ey kaybeder, e臒er Tanr谋 yoksa 莽ok az 艧ey kazan谋rs谋n谋z; ama inan谋rsan谋z ve Tanr谋 varsa 莽ok 艧ey kazan谋r, e臒er yoksa hi莽bir 艧ey yitirmezsiniz.
George Berkeley鈥檈 g枚re her 艧ey d眉艧眉nceden ibarettir, onlar da zaten Tanr谋鈥檔谋n d眉艧眉nceleridir. Ben Tanr谋鈥檡谋 d眉艧眉n眉yorsam bunu d眉艧眉nmemi isteyen Tanr谋鈥檇谋r. Peki bana Tanr谋鈥檔谋n olmad谋臒谋n谋 d眉艧眉nd眉ren de Tanr谋 m谋d谋r?!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.