Building dates this weekend, I'll write this entry about the death.
In many ways, death is a great engine for human activities, because, as mentioned Savater over Esau, "for fear of death, Esau chooses to live as if ye were dead and all give the same" (Savater, 2008) This refers to people in desperate states can do a lot of actions that normally would not.
However, in my opinion, not only in this type of situation, people perform actions influenced by the inevitable death, because, as we are aware that we are going to die, it seems that even death is one of the major purposes , I say this based on what Aristotle says: "Being as they are in great
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Building A Bath Concrete
would be summarized as: I can do X or Y. If I do X, I can do Y and vice versa. If I do not do any of these things I feel bad. Therefore, whatever I do I feel bad, even not making any. Monsoon
Laurencio, Luis Antonio
Talk, not fight
Without editorial, 2008
Laurencio, Luis Antonio
Talk, not fight
Without editorial, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Statin Drugs Side Effects For Runners
New generations each time I become more crazy ... More so when discussed in the past.
Fuck. I hate the stupid
ridiculous arguments that are constructed around the interpretation of a character. It's role, for the love of higher forces, whatever. If we stick to the personality and characteristics of the manga / anime are more than fucking. Fuck
Krauser ... Do not make up.
Damn. Why an invasion can never get to be decent?
Really bothers me ...
think we've been [Kurai and I] planned in detail as to annoy all sides, by meddling in it for hacturns rare, so Do not freak out "
always take into account the good advice of Kurai ... But that ... I do not know ._______.
disturbs me.
Anyway, I go to eat my food and chew sacred my bad mood to the other side ...
the end of the day, after a while I can yell at Pride XD
Kaisel
Scriven [Can not fight us | Join to the | MASSACRE!]
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Trinidad And Tobago Homes For Sale
ria of a specific object or real to undertake the search, the end of all things could be the move simply. But I have enough arguments to defend this thesis, therefore not worth continuing with it.
For Aristotle, if there is a universal order which is happiness, reason that he belongs to the eudemonists. He argues this by saying that all other purposes even lead to happiness, that although at different times of life one might think that the end is another universal.
According to this thinking, the reason I'm in school is:
I go to school to finish, so I will get my degree (I've been here for two purposes: to finish school and get my certificationer. So a poor say that happiness is money, someone with no friends to define as friendship, etc..
This however does not define happiness, but as it says in our book of ethics, this just reaffirms the need to define happiness.
One way to define, as we said in the ethics class is through the genus and species, and acts similarly to Aristotle, he says that the goods can be classified into: external, soul and body.
then states that happiness belongs to the goods of the soul, so that it gets the kind of the definition of happiness, which for now would like: Happiness is a kind of good soul ... it is at this time start looking for sex, that is, what differentiatesthe happiness of the remaining assets of the soul.
To continue, the author mentions that as an end, happiness requires actions, because without them can not reach happiness. Thus, people who are happy are those who, through their actions have achieved happiness but also will enjoy this, because in my opinion, someone who does not enjoy any actions that Aristotle describes as leading to the happiness (point where somehow I disagree, since it conflicts with the next thing you mention) can not be called happy. (Here's the reason I come into disagreement with Aristotle, and then the definition of happiness would be too narrow, because if someone does notenjoy some of the actions mentioned, then it could be called that person happy, but this does not take into account that people will not necessarily enjoy the same things.
Well, Aristotle says that virtuous actions, the man come to happiness, so his definition of happiness, which was left incomplete remains that happiness is some kind of activity of the soul according to virtue "( Aristotle, 2007).
Now the next problem posed by Aristotle is to know when someone might be called happy because as you can not know the future, then we can not know if anyone laughs at this point can be depressed the next day. At this point I think the idea of himwas to act. Then extrapolated this claim and included in this division to the virtues. Call
virtue connected with maximum rationality and intellectual, and other moral flame. The first says that it needs to be taught to emerge, however morality must be exercised with the custom to arise, "the virtues (...) the army first acquired them" (Aristotle, 2007). This means that if I want to become fair, for example, I do many actions just thinking about them, until finally come to get used to them, such as bathing, nobody tells me to do so now, I do out of habit and out of habit.
For the author, a sign that you get the habit is to not feel shame in disan excess, a mean and a lack, but which by definition belong to one thing. In this I disagree because, although it is wrong to steal because you harm another person, there are cases where the trial of persons is attenuated or even change, as when someone steals from hunger.
The next point that emerges from the existence of the poles is that he says it is impossible to perform the same division and was found at one end, this means that there is no average, the excess and deficiency of the excessive, or else defective. Here it seems that perhaps only half there, but I think that if you can classify the defects of excessive bad and equally as flawed. However, this involves very complicated, so itmore efficient to accept what Aristotle says.
Finally, the last aspect that is clear is that there is always a contrast between the extremes, and even that tends to affect more middle ground, making it more difficult to keep them. This is because, since the media is going to be always more than the default but less than the excess, then those who are at the extremes tend to send to the middle to the opposite end. He that speaks much tell that the speaker is quiet enough, and the quiet say the opposite.
To resolve this, Aristotle proposed that one, as this should be a habit, you must perform the actions many times, sometimes falling over, sometimes failing, but finally, following andmprove, become a friend of virtue.
Finally, to summarize, the people, according to Aristotle, always looking for happiness, for which they should perform virtuous actions. To achieve this, we must build the habit of doing, which involves learning by trial and error to find the average of all shares. Finally, one of these virtues is friendship, which, as a virtue, it must also be within the average, and must be practiced to achieve happiness, which in turn, will relate better to more people.
Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle
Porrua, 2007
Savater, Fernando
Ethics for Amador
Ariel, 2008
For Aristotle, if there is a universal order which is happiness, reason that he belongs to the eudemonists. He argues this by saying that all other purposes even lead to happiness, that although at different times of life one might think that the end is another universal.
According to this thinking, the reason I'm in school is:
I go to school to finish, so I will get my degree (I've been here for two purposes: to finish school and get my certificationer. So a poor say that happiness is money, someone with no friends to define as friendship, etc..
This however does not define happiness, but as it says in our book of ethics, this just reaffirms the need to define happiness.
One way to define, as we said in the ethics class is through the genus and species, and acts similarly to Aristotle, he says that the goods can be classified into: external, soul and body.
then states that happiness belongs to the goods of the soul, so that it gets the kind of the definition of happiness, which for now would like: Happiness is a kind of good soul ... it is at this time start looking for sex, that is, what differentiatesthe happiness of the remaining assets of the soul.
To continue, the author mentions that as an end, happiness requires actions, because without them can not reach happiness. Thus, people who are happy are those who, through their actions have achieved happiness but also will enjoy this, because in my opinion, someone who does not enjoy any actions that Aristotle describes as leading to the happiness (point where somehow I disagree, since it conflicts with the next thing you mention) can not be called happy. (Here's the reason I come into disagreement with Aristotle, and then the definition of happiness would be too narrow, because if someone does notenjoy some of the actions mentioned, then it could be called that person happy, but this does not take into account that people will not necessarily enjoy the same things.
Well, Aristotle says that virtuous actions, the man come to happiness, so his definition of happiness, which was left incomplete remains that happiness is some kind of activity of the soul according to virtue "( Aristotle, 2007).
Now the next problem posed by Aristotle is to know when someone might be called happy because as you can not know the future, then we can not know if anyone laughs at this point can be depressed the next day. At this point I think the idea of himwas to act. Then extrapolated this claim and included in this division to the virtues. Call
virtue connected with maximum rationality and intellectual, and other moral flame. The first says that it needs to be taught to emerge, however morality must be exercised with the custom to arise, "the virtues (...) the army first acquired them" (Aristotle, 2007). This means that if I want to become fair, for example, I do many actions just thinking about them, until finally come to get used to them, such as bathing, nobody tells me to do so now, I do out of habit and out of habit.
For the author, a sign that you get the habit is to not feel shame in disan excess, a mean and a lack, but which by definition belong to one thing. In this I disagree because, although it is wrong to steal because you harm another person, there are cases where the trial of persons is attenuated or even change, as when someone steals from hunger.
The next point that emerges from the existence of the poles is that he says it is impossible to perform the same division and was found at one end, this means that there is no average, the excess and deficiency of the excessive, or else defective. Here it seems that perhaps only half there, but I think that if you can classify the defects of excessive bad and equally as flawed. However, this involves very complicated, so itmore efficient to accept what Aristotle says.
Finally, the last aspect that is clear is that there is always a contrast between the extremes, and even that tends to affect more middle ground, making it more difficult to keep them. This is because, since the media is going to be always more than the default but less than the excess, then those who are at the extremes tend to send to the middle to the opposite end. He that speaks much tell that the speaker is quiet enough, and the quiet say the opposite.
To resolve this, Aristotle proposed that one, as this should be a habit, you must perform the actions many times, sometimes falling over, sometimes failing, but finally, following andmprove, become a friend of virtue.
Finally, to summarize, the people, according to Aristotle, always looking for happiness, for which they should perform virtuous actions. To achieve this, we must build the habit of doing, which involves learning by trial and error to find the average of all shares. Finally, one of these virtues is friendship, which, as a virtue, it must also be within the average, and must be practiced to achieve happiness, which in turn, will relate better to more people.
Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle
Porrua, 2007
Savater, Fernando
Ethics for Amador
Ariel, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Dark Brown, Almost Black, Stool
The movie begins during a trial in which, Lomax, a lawyer who has never lost a case, is on the verge of losing its first case.
As the process unfolds, he notes a couple of his client behaviors that make you suspect is really guilty, so consider dropping the case, this implies a moral decision, for he is the one deciding this, nobody require it.
However, the pressure that gives a reporter does decide to continue with the case, what actually wins, but staying with a feeling of remorse because it went against his morals because of social pressure, this implies that his action was social, waiting for the acceptance of his colleagues.
This also presents a clearfeel guilty about it. Finally
discloses that the owner of the firm is actually the devil who wants Lomax have sex with a woman who is with him and all the lawyers, devil's daughter, which will as a result the heir to the devil, who can dominate the earth or something.
Although Lomax seems to be bound to this, he feels that his duty is to avoid at all costs, so commits suicide with what seems to frustrate the plan of the devil. The film ends
implying that, or everything that happened was in the imagination of the lawyer, or the devil somehow managed to undo what happened, as it returns to where Lomax is deciding between giving to the case qhuman will, so that once discovered this, he would not have that feel committed to human beings, in fact it probably would benefit if he agreed to father the heir to the devil.
In fact, looking a little further the action of suicide is never the intention tube to be moral, for he was guided by what her mother knew of religion, which imposed certain religious rules, among which were but not in these words, the devil is evil, so he should not win. So in fact their action was intended to win the grace of God, which is a religious action.
From this it follows that the actions of the characters in the film, except the mother, is guided by social rules
As the process unfolds, he notes a couple of his client behaviors that make you suspect is really guilty, so consider dropping the case, this implies a moral decision, for he is the one deciding this, nobody require it.
However, the pressure that gives a reporter does decide to continue with the case, what actually wins, but staying with a feeling of remorse because it went against his morals because of social pressure, this implies that his action was social, waiting for the acceptance of his colleagues.
This also presents a clearfeel guilty about it. Finally
discloses that the owner of the firm is actually the devil who wants Lomax have sex with a woman who is with him and all the lawyers, devil's daughter, which will as a result the heir to the devil, who can dominate the earth or something.
Although Lomax seems to be bound to this, he feels that his duty is to avoid at all costs, so commits suicide with what seems to frustrate the plan of the devil. The film ends
implying that, or everything that happened was in the imagination of the lawyer, or the devil somehow managed to undo what happened, as it returns to where Lomax is deciding between giving to the case qhuman will, so that once discovered this, he would not have that feel committed to human beings, in fact it probably would benefit if he agreed to father the heir to the devil.
In fact, looking a little further the action of suicide is never the intention tube to be moral, for he was guided by what her mother knew of religion, which imposed certain religious rules, among which were but not in these words, the devil is evil, so he should not win. So in fact their action was intended to win the grace of God, which is a religious action.
From this it follows that the actions of the characters in the film, except the mother, is guided by social rules
Monday, October 13, 2008
Female Lymph Node Diagram In Arm Pit Person?
This entry will be a point that I noticed in the few definitions that I have heard of people: this is often some people to dismiss these definitions, taking a group of individuals who fall outside this definition and say that by not then the definition has to include some error.
This in my view has the problem that is not considered that because you are defining a term, probably will be some individuals and does not imply that the definition is wrong.
This probably happens because it is to define a person based on the classification of Homo sapiens, which if you include all living things belong to the category metazoa, the phylum chordata, class Mammis that we can live in society, so much of living in society is choice, and this further supported by the cases that exist on children that some events are outside of society.
However, this example serves to show a point that calls into question this line of thought because then enter society is not a decision we make, so it would be to analyze whether a person has to do to have decided or are deciding and property of a person. But this is more than enough for this entry. Aristotle Ethics
Nicomequea
Porrúa, 2007
Savater, Fernando
Ethics for Amador
Ariel, 2008
This in my view has the problem that is not considered that because you are defining a term, probably will be some individuals and does not imply that the definition is wrong.
This probably happens because it is to define a person based on the classification of Homo sapiens, which if you include all living things belong to the category metazoa, the phylum chordata, class Mammis that we can live in society, so much of living in society is choice, and this further supported by the cases that exist on children that some events are outside of society.
However, this example serves to show a point that calls into question this line of thought because then enter society is not a decision we make, so it would be to analyze whether a person has to do to have decided or are deciding and property of a person. But this is more than enough for this entry. Aristotle Ethics
Nicomequea
Porrúa, 2007
Savater, Fernando
Ethics for Amador
Ariel, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Lichen Planus More Condition_symptomsunderarms Judging Solomon
The last class we had this week we discussed about the movie Devil's Advocate, out came the problem of what was the way to judge whether an act was good or bad. Some suggested that the results, and other than by the intentions, my view was that the results, because sometimes, a move that at first appears bad, in the long run is good, or vice versa, so the trial about her change.
To illustrate this I quote the following story:
"A man came (...) to perform at the palace of the Prophet Solomon, his face pale and colorless lips. (...)
-Azrael, the angel of death, I was directed a look impressive, full of anger. Send the wind, please I beg youor take me to India to make but my body and my soul!
Solomon had, therefore, the wind to do what he asked the man. And the next day, the prophet asked Azrael:
- Why have you taken a look so disturbing that man (...)? (...)
Azrael said
"He misunderstood my eyes. Do not look in anger, but with astonishment. God, indeed, had ordered me to go and take his life in India, and I said: How could I, unless it had wings, move to India? "(Jalal Al-Din Rumi, Persian fable, XIII century .)
Following what we have seen in class, in this story the main action that could be assessed is that of Solomon to send men to India, his intention was that the man lived, his beliefuent / mini / salomon.htm
Seva City
To illustrate this I quote the following story:
"A man came (...) to perform at the palace of the Prophet Solomon, his face pale and colorless lips. (...)
-Azrael, the angel of death, I was directed a look impressive, full of anger. Send the wind, please I beg youor take me to India to make but my body and my soul!
Solomon had, therefore, the wind to do what he asked the man. And the next day, the prophet asked Azrael:
- Why have you taken a look so disturbing that man (...)? (...)
Azrael said
"He misunderstood my eyes. Do not look in anger, but with astonishment. God, indeed, had ordered me to go and take his life in India, and I said: How could I, unless it had wings, move to India? "(Jalal Al-Din Rumi, Persian fable, XIII century .)
Following what we have seen in class, in this story the main action that could be assessed is that of Solomon to send men to India, his intention was that the man lived, his beliefuent / mini / salomon.htm
Seva City
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)