Podcast appearances and mentions of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

At age 13, Dr. John Demartini left home after being told by the “experts” around him that his life would never amount to much. People claimed his physical and learning challenges were too much to overcome…Nearly six decades later, John is living the life none of those “experts” could've ever imagined, as a world-renown teacher who helps his students come to a greater understanding of human behavior and maximizing their potential.John shares his amazing journey from his early days as teenage surfer without a home, then explains why he gave up the self-help movement — it's a moral trap — and reveals the importance of asking the right questions of ourselves and others this week on Spirit Gym.Find out more about John and his work on his website and on social media via Facebook, Instagram, Linkedin and YouTube. Listen to his podcast, The Demartini Show, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen to them.Also, John invites Spirit Gym listeners to take advantage of some free gifts:· Download his 7 Steps to Expand to the Next Level of Empowerment workbook.· Watch John's inspiring presentation, Awakening Your Astronomical Vision.· Complete the Demartini Value Determination Process, a 13-step process that helps you determine your highest values or priorities in life.· Take his master classes, Increase Your Deserve Level and Finally Get What You Want and Discover The Hidden Order and Its Power to Transform Your Life.Timestamps5:34 John leaves home at age 13 to hitchhike cross-country and surf.8:31 John's life-changing encounter with Paul Bragg.19:59 From learning-challenged to speaking to University of Houston students daily.35:20 “Everything that's going on our life is on the way to help us be our most magnificent self.”46:00 Lean into your uniqueness and authenticity with help from your teachers.53:29 The Demartini method.1:01:45 Holy curiosity.1:13:32 “I really believe all of the randomness that we have is missing information.”1:22:29 “The Master lives in a world of transformation, not the illusion of gain, loss, pleasure, pain or polarities.”1:27:39 John's research leads him to give up the self-help movement.1:39:32 “Quality questions are ones that make us aware of what we're unconscious of when we're interpreting things in this polarized way.”1:41:47 What is depression?1:54:56 True science and true religion mirror each other, but with different languages.2:03:25 John's definition of evil: An incomplete awareness of a mental construct.2:12:59 Good and evil: The only labels we impose on things that are exaggerations rather than synthesis.2:15:41 The soulmate question.2:31:05 “The first thing I tell my students: Whatever you perceive in me, let's find it in you.”ResourcesEssentials of Emotional Intelligence by Dr. John DemartiniSpecial Relativity and Classical Field Theory: The Theoretical Minimum by Leonard Susskind and Art FriedmanThe Principles of Quantum Mechanics by P.A.M. DuracThe C.T. Bauer College of Business at the University of HoustonDr. John Demartini's heated conversation with Aubrey Marcus on YouTubeThe Science of Mind: The Complete 1926 edition by Ernest HolmesThe Law of Eristic Escalation explained by Dr. John DemartiniThe Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent PealeThe work of Jack LaLanne, Buddy Miles, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Claude Shannon, Frank Tipler, Stephen Wolfram, Vera Rubin, Sri Aurobindo, Stephen Hawking, Edward Edinger and EpictetusThe Schrödinger equationRudolf Clausius and the second law of thermodynamicsThe Boltzmann equationHeraclitis and the LogosWhat is Life? by Erwin SchrodingerGeocentrismThe RigvedaCosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind by Richard BuckeGate control theory by Ronald Melzack and Patrick WallThe Secret (film) on YouTubeThe Trans-Planckian problemPaul's podcast conversation with Sean O'LaoireFind more resources for this episode on our website.Music Credit: Meet Your Heroes (444Hz), Composed, mixed, mastered and produced by Michael RB Schwartz of Brave Bear MusicThanks to our awesome sponsors:PaleovalleyBIOptimizers US and BIOptimizers UK PAUL15Organifi CHEK20Wild PasturesPique LifeSpirit GymCHEK InstituteWe may earn commissions from qualifying purchases using affiliate links.

Czasami przychodzą takie wiadomości, po których człowiek nie wie, jak ma audycję zacząć. START 00:00:00 Nieznany Świat - omówienie numeru majowego 00:12:26 Słowne interludium 00:27:32 Korepetycje filozoficzne - Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 00:32:31 Marek Tomasik - Usta malinowe, usta boczusiowe 00:48:56 Słowne interludium 01:06:55 Filmotekarium - Krzyk 7 01:07:27 Słowne intrerludium 01:25:42 MAUPA - Akhara Jussuf Mustafa - Pamiętnik jasnowidza 01:32:26 Słowne interludium 01:49:20 Z archiwum ABW 01:51:38 Słowo na dobranoc 03:01:36 Dla MAUPA-owiczów - pełen audiobook z "Pamiętnikiem jasnowidza" Mustafy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW31m-qaY30 MP3: https://www.paranormalium.pl/3774,sluchaj

Described by Voltaire as “perhaps a man of the most universal learning in Europe,” Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) is often portrayed as a rationalist and philosopher who was wholly detached from the worldly concerns of his fellow men. Leibniz in His World: The Making of a Savant (Princeton UP, 2026) provides a groundbreaking reassessment of Leibniz, telling the story of his trials and tribulations as an aspiring scientist and courtier navigating the learned and courtly circles of early modern Europe and the Republic of Letters.Drawing on extensive correspondence by Leibniz and many leading figures of the age, Audrey Borowski paints a nuanced portrait of Leibniz in the 1670s, during his “Paris sojourn” as a young diplomat and in Germany at the court of Duke Johann Friedrich of Hanover. She challenges the image of Leibniz as an isolated genius, revealing instead a man of multiple identities whose thought was shaped by a deep engagement with the social and intellectual milieus of his time. Borowski shows us Leibniz as he was known to his contemporaries, enabling us to rediscover him as an enigmatic young man who was complex and all too human.An exhilarating work of scholarship, Leibniz in His World demonstrates how this uncommon intellect, torn between his ideals and the necessity to work for absolutist states, struggled to make a name for himself during his formative years. Audrey Borowski is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow and Isaac Newton Trust Fellow at the University of Cambridge working on the philosophy of AI. She received her PhD from the University of Oxford and is a regular contributor to The Times Literary Supplement and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Described by Voltaire as “perhaps a man of the most universal learning in Europe,” Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) is often portrayed as a rationalist and philosopher who was wholly detached from the worldly concerns of his fellow men. Leibniz in His World: The Making of a Savant (Princeton UP, 2026) provides a groundbreaking reassessment of Leibniz, telling the story of his trials and tribulations as an aspiring scientist and courtier navigating the learned and courtly circles of early modern Europe and the Republic of Letters.Drawing on extensive correspondence by Leibniz and many leading figures of the age, Audrey Borowski paints a nuanced portrait of Leibniz in the 1670s, during his “Paris sojourn” as a young diplomat and in Germany at the court of Duke Johann Friedrich of Hanover. She challenges the image of Leibniz as an isolated genius, revealing instead a man of multiple identities whose thought was shaped by a deep engagement with the social and intellectual milieus of his time. Borowski shows us Leibniz as he was known to his contemporaries, enabling us to rediscover him as an enigmatic young man who was complex and all too human.An exhilarating work of scholarship, Leibniz in His World demonstrates how this uncommon intellect, torn between his ideals and the necessity to work for absolutist states, struggled to make a name for himself during his formative years. Audrey Borowski is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow and Isaac Newton Trust Fellow at the University of Cambridge working on the philosophy of AI. She received her PhD from the University of Oxford and is a regular contributor to The Times Literary Supplement and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

Described by Voltaire as “perhaps a man of the most universal learning in Europe,” Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) is often portrayed as a rationalist and philosopher who was wholly detached from the worldly concerns of his fellow men. Leibniz in His World: The Making of a Savant (Princeton UP, 2026) provides a groundbreaking reassessment of Leibniz, telling the story of his trials and tribulations as an aspiring scientist and courtier navigating the learned and courtly circles of early modern Europe and the Republic of Letters.Drawing on extensive correspondence by Leibniz and many leading figures of the age, Audrey Borowski paints a nuanced portrait of Leibniz in the 1670s, during his “Paris sojourn” as a young diplomat and in Germany at the court of Duke Johann Friedrich of Hanover. She challenges the image of Leibniz as an isolated genius, revealing instead a man of multiple identities whose thought was shaped by a deep engagement with the social and intellectual milieus of his time. Borowski shows us Leibniz as he was known to his contemporaries, enabling us to rediscover him as an enigmatic young man who was complex and all too human.An exhilarating work of scholarship, Leibniz in His World demonstrates how this uncommon intellect, torn between his ideals and the necessity to work for absolutist states, struggled to make a name for himself during his formative years. Audrey Borowski is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow and Isaac Newton Trust Fellow at the University of Cambridge working on the philosophy of AI. She received her PhD from the University of Oxford and is a regular contributor to The Times Literary Supplement and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Described by Voltaire as “perhaps a man of the most universal learning in Europe,” Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) is often portrayed as a rationalist and philosopher who was wholly detached from the worldly concerns of his fellow men. Leibniz in His World: The Making of a Savant (Princeton UP, 2026) provides a groundbreaking reassessment of Leibniz, telling the story of his trials and tribulations as an aspiring scientist and courtier navigating the learned and courtly circles of early modern Europe and the Republic of Letters.Drawing on extensive correspondence by Leibniz and many leading figures of the age, Audrey Borowski paints a nuanced portrait of Leibniz in the 1670s, during his “Paris sojourn” as a young diplomat and in Germany at the court of Duke Johann Friedrich of Hanover. She challenges the image of Leibniz as an isolated genius, revealing instead a man of multiple identities whose thought was shaped by a deep engagement with the social and intellectual milieus of his time. Borowski shows us Leibniz as he was known to his contemporaries, enabling us to rediscover him as an enigmatic young man who was complex and all too human.An exhilarating work of scholarship, Leibniz in His World demonstrates how this uncommon intellect, torn between his ideals and the necessity to work for absolutist states, struggled to make a name for himself during his formative years. Audrey Borowski is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow and Isaac Newton Trust Fellow at the University of Cambridge working on the philosophy of AI. She received her PhD from the University of Oxford and is a regular contributor to The Times Literary Supplement and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Described by Voltaire as “perhaps a man of the most universal learning in Europe,” Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) is often portrayed as a rationalist and philosopher who was wholly detached from the worldly concerns of his fellow men. Leibniz in His World: The Making of a Savant (Princeton UP, 2026) provides a groundbreaking reassessment of Leibniz, telling the story of his trials and tribulations as an aspiring scientist and courtier navigating the learned and courtly circles of early modern Europe and the Republic of Letters.Drawing on extensive correspondence by Leibniz and many leading figures of the age, Audrey Borowski paints a nuanced portrait of Leibniz in the 1670s, during his “Paris sojourn” as a young diplomat and in Germany at the court of Duke Johann Friedrich of Hanover. She challenges the image of Leibniz as an isolated genius, revealing instead a man of multiple identities whose thought was shaped by a deep engagement with the social and intellectual milieus of his time. Borowski shows us Leibniz as he was known to his contemporaries, enabling us to rediscover him as an enigmatic young man who was complex and all too human.An exhilarating work of scholarship, Leibniz in His World demonstrates how this uncommon intellect, torn between his ideals and the necessity to work for absolutist states, struggled to make a name for himself during his formative years. Audrey Borowski is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow and Isaac Newton Trust Fellow at the University of Cambridge working on the philosophy of AI. She received her PhD from the University of Oxford and is a regular contributor to The Times Literary Supplement and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Described by Voltaire as “perhaps a man of the most universal learning in Europe,” Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) is often portrayed as a rationalist and philosopher who was wholly detached from the worldly concerns of his fellow men. Leibniz in His World: The Making of a Savant (Princeton UP, 2026) provides a groundbreaking reassessment of Leibniz, telling the story of his trials and tribulations as an aspiring scientist and courtier navigating the learned and courtly circles of early modern Europe and the Republic of Letters.Drawing on extensive correspondence by Leibniz and many leading figures of the age, Audrey Borowski paints a nuanced portrait of Leibniz in the 1670s, during his “Paris sojourn” as a young diplomat and in Germany at the court of Duke Johann Friedrich of Hanover. She challenges the image of Leibniz as an isolated genius, revealing instead a man of multiple identities whose thought was shaped by a deep engagement with the social and intellectual milieus of his time. Borowski shows us Leibniz as he was known to his contemporaries, enabling us to rediscover him as an enigmatic young man who was complex and all too human.An exhilarating work of scholarship, Leibniz in His World demonstrates how this uncommon intellect, torn between his ideals and the necessity to work for absolutist states, struggled to make a name for himself during his formative years. Audrey Borowski is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow and Isaac Newton Trust Fellow at the University of Cambridge working on the philosophy of AI. She received her PhD from the University of Oxford and is a regular contributor to The Times Literary Supplement and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here

Described by Voltaire as “perhaps a man of the most universal learning in Europe,” Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) is often portrayed as a rationalist and philosopher who was wholly detached from the worldly concerns of his fellow men. Leibniz in His World: The Making of a Savant (Princeton UP, 2026) provides a groundbreaking reassessment of Leibniz, telling the story of his trials and tribulations as an aspiring scientist and courtier navigating the learned and courtly circles of early modern Europe and the Republic of Letters.Drawing on extensive correspondence by Leibniz and many leading figures of the age, Audrey Borowski paints a nuanced portrait of Leibniz in the 1670s, during his “Paris sojourn” as a young diplomat and in Germany at the court of Duke Johann Friedrich of Hanover. She challenges the image of Leibniz as an isolated genius, revealing instead a man of multiple identities whose thought was shaped by a deep engagement with the social and intellectual milieus of his time. Borowski shows us Leibniz as he was known to his contemporaries, enabling us to rediscover him as an enigmatic young man who was complex and all too human.An exhilarating work of scholarship, Leibniz in His World demonstrates how this uncommon intellect, torn between his ideals and the necessity to work for absolutist states, struggled to make a name for himself during his formative years. Audrey Borowski is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow and Isaac Newton Trust Fellow at the University of Cambridge working on the philosophy of AI. She received her PhD from the University of Oxford and is a regular contributor to The Times Literary Supplement and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Described by Voltaire as “perhaps a man of the most universal learning in Europe,” Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) is often portrayed as a rationalist and philosopher who was wholly detached from the worldly concerns of his fellow men. Leibniz in His World: The Making of a Savant (Princeton UP, 2026) provides a groundbreaking reassessment of Leibniz, telling the story of his trials and tribulations as an aspiring scientist and courtier navigating the learned and courtly circles of early modern Europe and the Republic of Letters.Drawing on extensive correspondence by Leibniz and many leading figures of the age, Audrey Borowski paints a nuanced portrait of Leibniz in the 1670s, during his “Paris sojourn” as a young diplomat and in Germany at the court of Duke Johann Friedrich of Hanover. She challenges the image of Leibniz as an isolated genius, revealing instead a man of multiple identities whose thought was shaped by a deep engagement with the social and intellectual milieus of his time. Borowski shows us Leibniz as he was known to his contemporaries, enabling us to rediscover him as an enigmatic young man who was complex and all too human.An exhilarating work of scholarship, Leibniz in His World demonstrates how this uncommon intellect, torn between his ideals and the necessity to work for absolutist states, struggled to make a name for himself during his formative years. Audrey Borowski is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow and Isaac Newton Trust Fellow at the University of Cambridge working on the philosophy of AI. She received her PhD from the University of Oxford and is a regular contributor to The Times Literary Supplement and Aeon. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Diese Quellen bieten einen umfassenden Überblick über das Leben und das außergewöhnliche Erbe von Blaise Pascal, einem französischen Universalgelehrten des 17. Jahrhunderts. Die Texte beleuchten seine mathematischen Durchbrüche, wie die Erfindung der ersten mechanischen Rechenmaschine und die Mitbegründung der Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie. Ebenso wird seine Arbeit als Experimentalphysiker gewürdigt, durch die er die Existenz des Vakuums bewies und das Verständnis des Luftdrucks revolutionierte. Ein zentraler Aspekt der Berichte ist Pascals tiefgreifender Wandel zum christlichen Mystiker, der nach einem spirituellen Erlebnis die Grenzen der reinen Vernunft hinterfragte. Seine posthum veröffentlichten „Pensées“ werden als zeitloses Werk analysiert, das die Zerrissenheit des Menschen zwischen Elend und Größe sowie die Logik des Glaubens thematisiert. Insgesamt zeichnen die Quellen das Bild eines tragischen Genies, dessen Denken über Wissenschaft, Existenzialismus und Religion die moderne Geistesgeschichte bis heute prägt.Blaise Pascals Arbeit legte wesentliche Grundlagen für die moderne Computertechnologie, insbesondere durch die Erfindung der Pascaline, einer der ersten mechanischen Rechenmaschinen der Welt. Pascal entwickelte dieses Gerät im Jahr 1642, um seinem Vater die mühsamen Berechnungen bei der Steuererhebung zu erleichtern. Die Maschine nutzte ein System aus ineinandergreifenden Zahnrädern und Hebeln, um Additionen und Subtraktionen durchzuführen. Eine seiner bedeutendsten mechanischen Innovationen war der sogenannte Sautoir, ein gravitationsbasierter Übertragungsmechanismus, der sicherstellte, dass jede Ziffer unabhängig blieb und Überträge kaskadenartig durch die gesamte Maschine laufen konnten.Die Pascaline gilt heute als bahnbrechender Vorläufer des Computer Engineerings, da sie bewies, dass menschliche Logikprozesse – in diesem Fall einfache Arithmetik – in eine physikalische, mechanische Form übersetzt und automatisiert werden können. Diese Demonstration der mechanischen Intelligenz beeinflusste spätere Erfinder wie Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, der auf Pascals Entwürfen aufbaute, um die automatische Multiplikation zu integrieren.Über die Hardware hinaus ist Pascals Name fest in der Softwareentwicklung verankert:Programmiersprache Pascal: Im Jahr 1970 benannte Niklaus Wirth seine neu entwickelte, strukturierte Programmiersprache nach Blaise Pascal, um dessen Erfindung des ersten digitalen Rechners zu ehren. Diese Sprache war entscheidend für die Ausbildung von Informatikern und wurde für die Entwicklung früher Software-Meilensteine wie des Apple Macintosh Betriebssystems und der ersten Versionen von Adobe Photoshop genutzt.Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und KI: Pascals Pionierarbeit in der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung und Entscheidungstheorie bildet die theoretische Basis für moderne Algorithmen, Risikomanagement und künstliche Intelligenz.Grafiktechnologie: Zu Ehren seiner Beiträge benannte das Unternehmen NVIDIA seine 2016 veröffentlichte Mikroarchitektur für Grafikprozessoren nach ihm.Pascals Vermächtnis in der Technologie zeigt sich somit sowohl in der physischen Realisierung von Rechenvorgängen als auch in der systematischen Strukturierung moderner Programmierlogik.Published by ⁠Peter H Bloecker,⁠ Director of Studies (retired)Place: Gold Coast QLD AustraliaTime: Fri 17 Apr 2026.

Diese Quellen bieten einen umfassenden Überblick über das Leben und das außergewöhnliche Erbe von Blaise Pascal, einem französischen Universalgelehrten des 17. Jahrhunderts. Die Texte beleuchten seine mathematischen Durchbrüche, wie die Erfindung der ersten mechanischen Rechenmaschine und die Mitbegründung der Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie. Ebenso wird seine Arbeit als Experimentalphysiker gewürdigt, durch die er die Existenz des Vakuums bewies und das Verständnis des Luftdrucks revolutionierte. Ein zentraler Aspekt der Berichte ist Pascals tiefgreifender Wandel zum christlichen Mystiker, der nach einem spirituellen Erlebnis die Grenzen der reinen Vernunft hinterfragte. Seine posthum veröffentlichten „Pensées“ werden als zeitloses Werk analysiert, das die Zerrissenheit des Menschen zwischen Elend und Größe sowie die Logik des Glaubens thematisiert. Insgesamt zeichnen die Quellen das Bild eines tragischen Genies, dessen Denken über Wissenschaft, Existenzialismus und Religion die moderne Geistesgeschichte bis heute prägt.Blaise Pascals Arbeit legte wesentliche Grundlagen für die moderne Computertechnologie, insbesondere durch die Erfindung der Pascaline, einer der ersten mechanischen Rechenmaschinen der Welt. Pascal entwickelte dieses Gerät im Jahr 1642, um seinem Vater die mühsamen Berechnungen bei der Steuererhebung zu erleichtern. Die Maschine nutzte ein System aus ineinandergreifenden Zahnrädern und Hebeln, um Additionen und Subtraktionen durchzuführen. Eine seiner bedeutendsten mechanischen Innovationen war der sogenannte Sautoir, ein gravitationsbasierter Übertragungsmechanismus, der sicherstellte, dass jede Ziffer unabhängig blieb und Überträge kaskadenartig durch die gesamte Maschine laufen konnten.Die Pascaline gilt heute als bahnbrechender Vorläufer des Computer Engineerings, da sie bewies, dass menschliche Logikprozesse – in diesem Fall einfache Arithmetik – in eine physikalische, mechanische Form übersetzt und automatisiert werden können. Diese Demonstration der mechanischen Intelligenz beeinflusste spätere Erfinder wie Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, der auf Pascals Entwürfen aufbaute, um die automatische Multiplikation zu integrieren.Über die Hardware hinaus ist Pascals Name fest in der Softwareentwicklung verankert:Programmiersprache Pascal: Im Jahr 1970 benannte Niklaus Wirth seine neu entwickelte, strukturierte Programmiersprache nach Blaise Pascal, um dessen Erfindung des ersten digitalen Rechners zu ehren. Diese Sprache war entscheidend für die Ausbildung von Informatikern und wurde für die Entwicklung früher Software-Meilensteine wie des Apple Macintosh Betriebssystems und der ersten Versionen von Adobe Photoshop genutzt.Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und KI: Pascals Pionierarbeit in der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung und Entscheidungstheorie bildet die theoretische Basis für moderne Algorithmen, Risikomanagement und künstliche Intelligenz.Grafiktechnologie: Zu Ehren seiner Beiträge benannte das Unternehmen NVIDIA seine 2016 veröffentlichte Mikroarchitektur für Grafikprozessoren nach ihm.Pascals Vermächtnis in der Technologie zeigt sich somit sowohl in der physischen Realisierung von Rechenvorgängen als auch in der systematischen Strukturierung moderner Programmierlogik.Published by Peter H Bloecker, Director of Studies (retired)Place: Gold Coast QLD AustraliaTime: Fri 17 Apr 2026.

En 1696, un défi mathématique bouleverse l'Europe savante. Une question simple, presque enfantine, est posée publiquement : par quel chemin un objet tombe-t-il le plus vite d'un point à un autre, sous l'effet de la gravité, sans frottement ? Ce problème prend un nom étrange, venu du grec : brachistochrone, littéralement « le temps le plus court ».À première vue, la réponse semble évidente. Le chemin le plus rapide devrait être la ligne droite, puisqu'il est le plus court. Pourtant, cette intuition est fausse. Et c'est précisément ce paradoxe qui rend le défi si célèbre.Le problème est formulé par Johann Bernoulli, l'un des plus brillants mathématiciens de son époque. Il lance un appel à tous les savants d'Europe. Parmi ceux qui relèvent le défi figurent Isaac Newton, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz et Jacob Bernoulli. Newton, raconte-t-on, reçoit l'énoncé en fin de journée et envoie sa solution… le lendemain matin.La solution est contre-intuitive : le chemin le plus rapide n'est ni une droite, ni un arc de cercle, mais une cycloïde. Il s'agit de la courbe décrite par un point situé sur une roue qui roule sans glisser. Cette trajectoire plonge d'abord très rapidement vers le bas, afin que l'objet acquière vite une grande vitesse, avant de s'adoucir progressivement à l'approche du point final.Pourquoi cela fonctionne-t-il ? Parce que le temps de parcours dépend non seulement de la distance, mais surtout de la vitesse acquise. En descendant plus brutalement au départ, l'objet gagne rapidement de l'énergie cinétique, ce qui lui permet de parcourir la suite du trajet beaucoup plus vite, même si le chemin est plus long que la ligne droite.Ce résultat marque un tournant majeur dans l'histoire des sciences. Le défi de la brachistochrone contribue à la naissance du calcul des variations, une branche des mathématiques qui cherche à optimiser des quantités comme le temps, l'énergie ou la distance. Ces outils seront ensuite essentiels en mécanique, en optique, en ingénierie… et même dans l'économie moderne.La brachistochrone a aussi une portée pédagogique remarquable. Elle montre que la nature n'obéit pas toujours à notre intuition, et que l'optimal n'est pas forcément le plus simple. On retrouve ce principe dans des domaines aussi variés que la conception des montagnes russes, la trajectoire des satellites ou l'optimisation des réseaux.Plus de trois siècles plus tard, ce défi reste un chef-d'œuvre intellectuel : une question apparemment anodine, capable de révéler toute la profondeur des lois du mouvement. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Étonnant non [?] est une émission radiophonique consacrée à la vulgarisation philosophique, produite par l'association Kairos,  rattachée à l'Université de Tours. Pour ce premier épisode, nous proposons une immersion dans la pensée de Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, philosophe et savant du XVII? siècle, autour d'une question qui traverse encore notre rapport au monde : quelle est […] L'article Etonnant non ? – Leibniz : La vie est-elle un Simple rêve ? (La Réalité de la Matière) avec Arthur et Lenny. est apparu en premier sur Radio Campus Tours - 99.5 FM.

Många har grubblat över existensens själva existens. Helena Granström ansluter sig skaran. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radios app. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Om man ska tro filosofen Arthur Schopenhauer, erbjuder universum en lika pockande som gäckande gåta för varje tänkande person: ”Ju lägre stående en människa är i intellektuellt avseende, desto mindre förbryllande och mystisk ter sig själva existensen för henne.” Det vill säga: Har man bara något bakom pannbenet, så inser man att tillvaron är obegriplig: inte bara till sin natur, utan i det att den alls finns.Ska man tro honom? Tja, den som önskar belägg för hans tes kan i alla fall utan svårighet finna en uppsjö av intellektuellt ambitiösa personer som upptagits just av bryderier över existensens själva existens.1700-talstänkaren Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, till exempel, som efter att ha fastslagit sin berömda princip att varje sakförhållande också kan ges en fullständig förklaring, konstaterade att den första fråga som därpå infann sig var: ”Varför finns det något, snarare än ingenting?”En formulering som drygt två sekler senare ekade hos hans tyske kollega Martin Heidegger som också han ansattes av frågan: ”Varför är överhuvudtaget något varande, och inte snarare intet?”Han man väl låtit sig upptas av denna undran, bleknar alla andra gåtor bort i dess bländande sken. Som ett annat högstående intellekt vid namn Ludvig Wittgenstein formulerat det är det mystiska ”inte hur världen är, utan att den är”.Och varför är den då?Det visar sig att frågan har minst lika många svar som den har möjliga invändningar mot de givna svaren – som den har möjliga underkännanden av själva frågan.Till att börja med kan man ju undra hur ett tillfredsställande svar skulle kunna se ut? Vilken orsak till världens existens skulle inte i sin tur kräva en orsak, så att man i slutändan inte hade åstadkommit något alls?Leibniz själv tyckte sig kunna besvara frågan så snart han ställt den: Orsaken till världens existens är Gud.Jaha. Men vad är i så fall orsaken till att Gud finns?Jo, svarar Leibniz, det är Gud.Vilket är det som i Leibniz mening skiljer Gud och universum åt: Universum hade lika gärna inte kunnat existera, och därför kräver dess existens en förklaring. Gud, däremot, utgör sin egen nödvändighet: I Guds identitet, ingår egenskapen att han existerar. Orsaken till att Gud finns är Gud.Ett besläktat argument är det som går under det arabiska namnet Kalam, och som gör gällande att universum behöver förklaras eftersom det en gång har uppstått, medan Gud är ett tidlöst väsen som alltid har funnits, och som sådant kan förbli oförklarat.Utifrån ett sådant resonemang kan den kosmologiska teorin om världsalltets födelse i Big Bang för knappt 14 miljarder år sedan med en del god vilja betraktas som belägg för en övernaturlig varelses inblandning. Men å andra sidan kan man invända att de flesta varianter av Big Bang-modellen gör gällande att tiden uppstod först i och med ursmällen, så att universum faktiskt visst alltid har existerat, om man med alltid menar ”vid alla ögonblick i tiden”.Och därmed har man gett sig in på fysikernas försök att besvara den uppenbarligen svårbesvarade frågan om orsaken till världens existens. Varför något snarare än intet? Vad sägs om svaret: ”Därför att ett instabilt vakuum uppstod som en fluktuation i den absoluta intigheten, som i fysikaliska termer kan beskrivas som en sluten fyrdimensionell rumtid med radien noll. Detta vakuum genomsyrades av kvantfält vars fluktuationer i sin tur sådde fröet till det universum vi ser idag”?Ja, det får åtminstone mig att undra om allt ståhej kring frågan om existensens orsak åtminstone till viss del är ett resultat av de högtstående intellektens tendens att intellektualisera lite för mycket?För hur mycket har det intet som enligt Heidegger gör sig påmint i stunder av bottenlös förtvivlan eller oförstörd lycka, egentligen att göra med den teoretiska fysikens bild av ett universum som ännu inte finns? Kanske faktiskt nästan – intet?Men en sak kan man i alla fall säga om fysikernas rumtid utan utsträckning: Den är verkligen intet, mer intet än en tom rumtid, mer intet än ett tomt rum utan tid, mer intet än – ja, det mesta. Det enda som måste sägas ha funnits från början i denna modell är de naturlagar som tillåter ett kvantfält att tunnla fram ur detta totala intet. Men på vilket sätt fanns i så fall de?Frågan om varför det finns något för oss alltså oförhappandes vidare till frågan om huruvida fysikens lagar existerar inte bara oberoende av den mänskliga tanken, utan till och med oberoende av att det finns någon fysikalisk tillvaro som de kan beskriva. Och där har vi hamnat utan att vad det verkar ha kommit så särskilt mycket närmare ett svar på frågan om varför något existerar alls.Och ju mer man tänker på saken, desto mindre uppenbart tycks det att upptagenheten vid denna fråga är tecken på intellektuell finess. Är den i själva verket inte, som redan Immanuel Kant ville göra gällande, bara en effekt av att ha utvidgat idén om orsak och verkan längre än vad som är rimligt? Oavsett hur naturlig kausaliteten ter sig för oss, finns det nämligen mycket som tyder på att den inte gäller på de minsta partiklarnas kvantmekaniska nivå, och att universums födelse var en händelse då kvantmekaniken spelade roll har vi mycket goda skäl att tro. Och dessutom: Om tiden uppstod först i och med den stora smällen, hur är det möjligt att tala om en orsak som föregår den? Är det något som behövs för att orsakssamband ska kunna upprättas är det väl tid.För den som vill gå ännu djupare i sin kritik av frågan om varför något istället för intet, finns inte heller några hinder. Varför tycker vi exempelvis att existensen av något behöver motiveras, men inte existensen av intet? Varför ska intigheten på detta vis betraktas som ett naturligt grundtillstånd? Enligt filosofen Adolf Grünbaum är det ingen slump att frågan började ställas först i den moderna eran: De gamla grekerna upptogs inte av den, och inte heller antika indiska tänkare. Skälet? De var inte fostrade i den kristna tro som postulerar en skapelse ur intet, ex nihilo. Först i och med den kristna läran om en allsmäktig gud som häver existensen upp ur intet och därefter oupphörligt verkar för att upprätthålla den, skulle vi inte vara så övertygade om att varje avvikelse från intigheten kräver en förklaring. Detta alltså enligt Grünbaum. Som matematiker är jag också frestad att inflika att det finns många fler sätt att existera på, än det finns att inte existera på, vilket väl i sig är en sorts statistiskt argument för någontinget. Kanske är frågan om varför världen är i själva verket ett skenproblem?Ja, vem vet. Men hur som helst finns det också, vad Schopenhauer än påstod, tänkande personer som intar en helt annan hållning till problematiken än den djupsinnigt grubblande. Som exempelvis filosofen Sidney Morgenbesser, som när den eviga frågan ställdes till honom helt sonika snäste ifrån: ”Äsch! Även om det fanns intet skulle ni säkert inte vara nöjda ändå!”Helena Granströmförfattare med bakgrund inom fysik och matematikLitteraturJim Holt – Why does the world exist? (Liveright, 2012) Niayesh Afshordi och Phil Halper – Battle of the big bang (University of Chicago Press, 2025) Thomas Hertog – Om tidens uppkomst (Fri Tanke, 2023) Philip Goff – Meningen med universum (Fri Tanke, 2025)

Om monader och Gud och lite om lycka

En fortsättning på problemen med Guds ondska och kroppen och själen och den fria viljan och hur man löser allt det där enklast

Das wöchentliche Kultur- und Literaturmagazin spiegelt besonders die Kultur und literarische Szene in Niedersachsen und informiert über neue Bücher und Hörbücher.

Brzydale, potwory i piekielne psy... START 00:00:00 Korepetycje filozoficzne - Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 00:07:10 Bruno Kadyna - Brzydale 00:18:43 Słowne interludium 00:59:46 Filmotekarium - Potwór sezon 3: Historia Eda Geina 01:00:20 Słowne interludium 01:26:37 MAUPA - Andy Collins - Przepowiednie dla świata 01:34:46 Słowne interludium 01:51:02 Marek Tomasik - Szansa jedna na milion 01:51:50 Przemysław Podoliński - Waga intencji 02:10:56 Krzysztof Lutowski - Miłość to piekielny pies 02:44:35 Słowo na dobranoc 03:02:59

Peace of Westphalia, the creation of the modern nation-state, Thirty Years War, the role of technology in social upheaval, the role government plays in securing wealth, contracts, property rights, record keeping, Sumeria, cuneiform tablets, Medieval sovereignty vs sovereignty in a nation-state, the pitfalls of the nation state, creating public census of opinion, total propaganda, grassroots bodies that gain international reach, nongovernment organization (NGOs), drug cartels, the problem of corruption in centralized structures, home owners associations (HOAs), HOA corruption in Florida, corruption in local centralized bodies, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, blockchainMusic by: Keith Allen Dennishttps://keithallendennis.bandcamp.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Bilgisayar... Tüm dünyayı baştan aşağı değiştiren bir icat. Belki de tarihin en önemli kesiflerinde biri. Fakat bu devrim bir anda olmadı elbette. Basit bir hesap yapma aracından, yapay zekaya kadar uzanan bu serüven, insanlığın kendini aşma çabasının da hikayesiydi aslında. Hiçbir Şey Tesadüf Değil'de bu teknolojik devrimin arka planına odaklanıyoruz. İki bölümden oluşacak mini bu mini serinin ilk ayağındaysa, hayatımızı değiştiren bu teknolojiyi en ilkel günlerinden itibaren incelemeye çalışıyoruz.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Si on peut effectivement affirmer cela c'est à cause du philosophe et scientifique anglais Francis Bacon grâce à son invention de l'alphabet bilitère. Cet alphabet est un système de codage qui n'utilise que deux symboles, « A » et « B », pour représenter toutes les lettres de l'alphabet latin. L'idée de Bacon repose sur le fait qu'en combinant ces deux symboles selon des séquences spécifiques de cinq caractères, il est possible de représenter chaque lettre de l'alphabet. Par exemple, dans cet alphabet bilitère, la lettre « A » pourrait être codée par « AAAAA », la lettre « B » par « AAAAB », et ainsi de suite. En tout, 32 combinaisons sont possibles (car 2^5 = 32), ce qui est suffisant pour couvrir les 26 lettres de l'alphabet et d'autres caractères nécessaires. Ce système était destiné à des applications cryptographiques, permettant de dissimuler des messages en utilisant des textes apparemment innocents, où les lettres choisies auraient une forme spécifique qui correspondrait aux « A » et « B » du code de Bacon. Ce principe de codage binaire de l'information fait de l'alphabet bilitère un précurseur du système binaire utilisé aujourd'hui dans l'informatique. Le langage binaire moderne repose sur les chiffres 0 et 1, et fonctionne selon une logique similaire : chaque lettre, chiffre ou symbole est traduit en une séquence de bits (0 et 1). Le système de Bacon ne repose pas sur des impulsions électriques ou des technologies numériques comme les ordinateurs, mais le concept fondamental de représenter des informations complexes à l'aide d'une séquence de deux symboles est le même. Ainsi, Francis Bacon a posé une base conceptuelle importante en montrant que toute information textuelle pouvait être encodée avec une combinaison de seulement deux éléments. Ce fut un jalon philosophique qui, bien qu'à visée cryptographique, a ouvert la voie aux idées qui allaient plus tard se concrétiser dans les théories de Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz sur le binaire, puis dans l'informatique moderne. Le langage binaire que nous connaissons aujourd'hui, utilisé pour le traitement et le stockage de l'information numérique, peut donc en partie remonter à cette idée visionnaire du XVIIe siècle. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Esta semana falamos dos 308 anos da morte do polímato Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a 14 de Novembro de 1716, e da mais antiga reclamação de um cliente, na antiga Mesopotâmia, há mais de 3700 anos. Sugestões da semana 1. Exposição "Desconstruir o Colonialismo, Descolonizar o Imaginário. O Colonialismo Português em África: Mitos e Realidades", organizada  pelo Centro de Estudos Sobre África e Desenvolvimento (CESA/ISEG-Universidade de Lisboa) e pelo Museu Nacional de Etnologia, sendo comissariada por Isabel Castro Henriques; 2. Joel Sabino - Sé Velha de Coimbra. Uma viagem pela sua história. Coimbra: Sé Velha de Coimbra, 2024. ---- Obrigado aos patronos do podcast: André Silva, Andrea Barbosa, Bruno Ricardo Neves Figueira, Cláudio Batista, Isabel Yglesias de Oliveira, Joana Figueira, NBisme, Oliver Doerfler, Pedro Matias; Alessandro Averchi, Alexandre Carvalho, Daniel Murta, David Fernandes, Francisco, Hugo Picciochi, João Cancela, João Pedro Tuna Moura Guedes, Jorge Filipe, Luisa Meireles, Manuel Prates, Patrícia Gomes, Pedro Almada, Pedro Alves, Pedro Ferreira, Rui Roque, Vera Costa; Adriana Vazão, André Abrantes, André Chambel, André Silva, António Farelo, Beatriz Oliveira, Bruno Luis, Carlos Castro, Catarina Ferreira, Diogo Camoes, Diogo Freitas, Fábio Videira Santos, Filipe Paula, Gn, Hugo Vieira, Igor Silva, João Barbosa, João Canto, João Carlos Braga Simões, João Diamantino, João Félix, João Ferreira, Joel José Ginga, José Santos, Luis, Luis Colaço, Miguel Brito, Miguel Gama, Miguel Gonçalves Tomé, Miguel Oliveira, Miguel Salgado, Nuno Carvalho, Nuno Esteves, Pedro Cardoso, Pedro L, Pedro Oliveira, Pedro Simões, Ricardo Pinho, Ricardo Santos, Rúben Marques Freitas, Rui Rodrigues, Simão, Simão Ribeiro, Sofia Silva, Thomas Ferreira, Tiago Matias, Tiago Sequeira, Vitor Couto. ----- Ouve e gosta do podcast? Se quiser apoiar o Falando de História, contribuindo para a sua manutenção, pode fazê-lo via Patreon: https://patreon.com/falandodehistoria ----- Música: "Hidden Agenda” de Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com); Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Edição de Marco António.

Lässt sich etwa aus Pipi Gold machen? Der Alchemist Hennig Brand macht im Jahr 1669 buchstäblich erleuchtende Experimente und entdeckt dabei: das Element Phosphor. Von Marko Rösseler.

This week we speak to multidisciplinary independent researcher William Sarill, whose life has traced a high-dimensional curve through biochemistry, art restoration, physics, and esotericism (and I'm stopping the list here but it goes on). Bill is one of the only people I know who has the scientific chops to understand and explain how to possibly unify thermodynamics with general relativity AND has gone swimming into the deep end of The Weird for long enough to develop an appreciation for its paradoxical profundities. He can also boast personal friendships with two of the greatest (and somewhat diametrically opposed) science fiction authors ever: Phil Dick and Isaac Asimov. In this conversation we start by exploring some of his discoveries and insights as an intuition-guided laboratory biomedical researcher and follow the river upstream into his synthesis of emerging theoretical frameworks that might make sense of PKD's legendary VALIS experiences — the encounter with high strangeness that drove him to write The Exegesis, over a million words of effort to explain the deep structure of time and reality. It's time for new ways to think about time! Enjoy…✨ Support This Work• Buy my brain for hourly consulting or advisory work on retainer• Become a patron on Substack or Patreon• Help me find backing for my next big project Humans On The Loop• Buy the books we discuss from my Bookshop.org reading list• Buy original paintings and prints or commission new work• Join the conversation on Discord in the Holistic Technology & Wise Innovation and Future Fossils servers• Make one-off donations at @futurefossils on Venmo, $manfredmacx on CashApp, or @michaelgarfield on PayPal• Buy the show's music on Bandcamp — intro “Olympus Mons” from the Martian Arts EP & outro “Sonnet A” from the Double-Edged Sword EP✨ Go DeeperBill's Academia.edu pageBill's talk at the PKD Film FestivalBill's profile for the Palo Alto Longevity PrizeBill's story on Facebook about his biochemistry researchBill in the FF Facebook group re: Simulation Theory, re: The Zero-Point Field, re: everything he's done that no one else has, re: how PKD predicted ChatGPT"If you find this world bad, you should see some of the others" by PKDThe Wyrd of the Early Earth: Cellular Pre-sense in the Primordial Soup by Eric WargoMy first and second interviews with William Irwin ThompsonMy lecture on biology, time, and myth from Oregon Eclipse Gathering 2017"I understand Philip K. Dick" by Terence McKennaWeird Studies on PKD and "The Trash Stratum" Part 1 & Part 2Weird Studies with Joshua Ramey on divination in scienceSparks of Genius: The Thirteen Thinking Tools of the World's Most Creative People by Robert & Michele Root-BernsteinDiscovering by Robert Root-Bernstein✨ MentionsPhilip K. Dick, Bruce Damer, Iain McGilchrist, Eric Wargo, Stu Kauffman, Michael Persinger, Alfred North Whitehead, Terence McKenna, Karl Friedrich, Mike Parker, Chris Jeynes, David Wolpert, Ivo Dinov, Albert Einstein, Kurt Gödel, Erwin Schroedinger, Kaluza & Klein, Richard Feynman, Euclid, Hermann Minkowski, James Clerk Maxwell, The I Ching, St. Augustine, Stephen Hawking, Jim Hartle, Alexander Vilenkin, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Timothy Morton, Futurama, The Wachowski Siblings, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Leonard Euler, Paramahansa Yogananda, Alfred Korbzybski, Frank Herbert, Robert Heinlein, Claude Shannon, Ludwig Boltzmann, Carl Jung, Danny Jones, Mark Newman, Michael Lachmann, Cristopher Moore, Jessica Flack, Robert Root Bernstein, Louis Pasteur, Alexander Fleming, Ruth Bernstein, Andres Gomez Emilsson, Diane Musho Hamilton This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit michaelgarfield.substack.com/subscribe

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ist nicht nur Mathematiker, sondern Universalgelehrter. Aber stammen tatsächlich all seine Ideen von ihm selbst? Vorwürfe werden laut, Leibniz würde mathematische Entdeckungen eines Kollegen plagiieren. Die Idee für diesen Podcast ist am MIP.labor entstanden, der Ideenwerkstatt für Wissenschaftsjournalismus zu Mathematik, Informatik und Physik an der Freien Universität Berlin, ermöglicht durch die Klaus Tschira Stiftung. (00:00:00) Einleitung (00:02:08) Universalgelehrter Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (00:05:11) Plagiatsvorwürfe: Leibniz vs. Newton (00:09:30) Showdown in der Royal Society (00:12:13) Das Paradoxon von Achilles und der Schildkröte (00:14:36) Anti-Unendlichkeiten oder: Infinitesimale (00:15:53) Die Lösung des Paradoxons (00:18:28) Infinitesimalrechnung = Analysis (00:19:04) Das Ende des Plagiatsstreits (00:20:32) Analysis heute (00:23:00) Verabschiedung >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/geschichten-aus-der-mathematik-gottfried-wilhelm-leibniz

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ist nicht nur Mathematiker, sondern Universalgelehrter. Aber stammen tatsächlich all seine Ideen von ihm selbst? Vorwürfe werden laut, Leibniz würde mathematische Entdeckungen eines Kollegen plagiieren. Die Idee für diesen Podcast ist am MIP.labor entstanden, der Ideenwerkstatt für Wissenschaftsjournalismus zu Mathematik, Informatik und Physik an der Freien Universität Berlin, ermöglicht durch die Klaus Tschira Stiftung. (00:00:00) Einleitung (00:02:08) Universalgelehrter Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (00:05:11) Plagiatsvorwürfe: Leibniz vs. Newton (00:09:30) Showdown in der Royal Society (00:12:13) Das Paradoxon von Achilles und der Schildkröte (00:14:36) Anti-Unendlichkeiten oder: Infinitesimale (00:15:53) Die Lösung des Paradoxons (00:18:28) Infinitesimalrechnung = Analysis (00:19:04) Das Ende des Plagiatsstreits (00:20:32) Analysis heute (00:23:00) Verabschiedung >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/geschichten-aus-der-mathematik-gottfried-wilhelm-leibniz

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was much more than Isaac Newton's rival. He was a polymath who dabbled in everything from music to metaphysics and embodied the spirit of true deep generalism. Modern marketers can connect the dots, even if you didn't know they exist, by studying continual change: from calculus or clicks."Absorb what's useful, reject what's useless."{00:10:04} - “A lot of people think that there are these tried and true tactics for this and that and the other thing. And there's just so much nuance to our businesses, and then there's so much nuance to the scale that you're at. There's so much nuance to the context of the company.” - Rabah{00:19:38} - “Every part of a digital experience, perhaps your website, every product recommendation, every marketing message, could be tailored in the future to reflect the unique needs and desires and the context of the individual consumer. What Leibniz teaches us through monadology is about our interconnectedness: to a brand, to a purchase, to a product, and each other.” - Phillip{00:34:27} - “The way I define or bifurcate marketing from sales is marketing is selling one to many. Sales is selling one-to-one. And now you're seeing a blurring of the lines with technology. Now I can market almost one to one, not in the actual literal sense, but in that persona, jobs to be done, where that person is on their customer journey, and what I know about them.” - RabahAssociated Links:Learn more about Rabah Rahil and FERMÀTHave you checked out our YouTube channel yet?Subscribe to Insiders and The Senses to read more about what we are witnessing in commerce.Listen to our other episodes of Future Commerce

ein Vortrag der Historikerin Barbara Stollberg-RilingerModeration: Sibylle Salewski********** Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz war Philosoph, Mathematiker und noch viel mehr. Als Höfling hatte er auch eine feste Rolle am Fürstenhof, die er bewusst wahrgenommen hat. Ein Vortrag der Historikerin Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger. Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger ist Rektorin des Wissenschaftskollegs Berlin, Professorin für Geschichte der Frühen Neuzeit an der Universität Münster und korrespondierendes Mitglied der Niedersächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Ihr Vortrag hat den Titel "Leibniz, der Höfling". Sie hat ihn am 18. November 2023 in Göttingen gehalten, auf der Jahresfeier der Niedersächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ********** Schlagworte: +++ Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz +++ Wissenschaft +++ Forschung +++ Innovation +++ Laufschuhe +++ Hof +++ Universalgenie +++**********Mehr zum Thema bei Deutschlandfunk Nova:Von Preußen in die USA: Was Friedrich Wilhelm I. und Donald Trump gemeinsam habenFrauen in der Politik: Warum Maria Theresia zum Mann erklärt werden mussteRitualforschung: Kniefall, Krönung, Bruderkuss**********Den Artikel zum Stück findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: Tiktok und Instagram.

Mathematik, Physik, Philosophie, Jura, Geschichte, Politik – kaum ein Feld, das Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz nicht beherrschte. Alle diese Themen vereinten sich in einer Frage, die ihn sein ganzes Leben lang beschäftigte: Wie funktioniert unsere Welt?

This episode explores the life and significant contributions of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a German polymath who played a pivotal role in the development of philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and more. His work continues to influence contemporary thought and science. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, “When the Future Is Not Now,” by Janet Retseck, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin. The essay is followed by an interview with Retseck and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Drawing on cultural history, Retseck explores a dying cancer patient's persistent optimism. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: When the Future Is Not Now, by Janet Retseck, MD, PhD   The most optimistic patient I have ever met died a few years ago of lung cancer. From the beginning, Mr L was confident that he would do well, enthusiastically telling me, “I'll do great!” As chemoradiation for his stage III lung cancer commenced, he did do well. Until he got COVID. And then reacted to the chemotherapy. And then was admitted with pneumonia. And then c. difficile diarrhea. And then c. diff again. But whenever we checked in with him, he reported, “I'm doing great!” He could not wait to return to treatment, informing me, “We're going to lick this, Doc!” Of course I asked him if he wanted to know prognosis, and of course he said no, because he was going to do great. He trusted that his radiation oncologist and I would be giving him the absolute best treatment for his cancer, and we did. In the end, weak and worn out and in pain, with cancer in his lungs and lymph nodes and liver and even growing through his skin, he knew he was not doing great. But he remained thankful, because we had done our best for him. Our best just wasn't enough. While it can overlap with hope, optimism involves a general expectation of a good future, whereas hope is a specific desire or wish for a positive outcome. Research has shown that for patients with cancer, maintaining optimism or hope can lead to better quality of life.1,2 As an oncologist, I am in favor of anything that helps my patients live longer and better, but sometimes I also wonder if there is any real cause for optimism, because the odds of living at all with advanced cancer are just so bad. From 2013 to 2019, the 5-year relative survival rate for people with stage III lung cancer was 28%. For stage IV disease, it was just 7%.3 Immunotherapy and targeted treatments have improved outcomes somewhat, but the chances for most patients of living more than a couple of years after being diagnosed remain low. Even with our best treatments, there seems to be more reason for despair than optimism. Yet here was my patient and his persistent optimism, his faith in treatment to give him a good future, and my hope that he was right, even when I knew he was probably wrong. What drives this belief in a good future, a better future, in the face of such a rotten present? Optimism as a word and a philosophy emerged in the 18th century in the work of German thinker Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. As it was for my patient, optimism served as a way to negotiate the problem of human suffering.  Attempting to explain how a perfect, omniscient, and loving God could allow so much suffering, imperfection, and evil, Leibniz argued that God has already considered all possibilities and that this world is the best of all possible worlds. Leibniz did not mean that this world is some sort of a utopia; rather, the God-given freedom to choose to do good or evil, and even our vulnerable aging bodies, are good in themselves.4 If my patient were Leibniz, his optimism about his cancer could be explained by an acceptance that everything happens for a reason, his suffering somehow part of a larger whole, selected by God as the best possible way to the greatest good.  But while Mr L did take his diagnosis and various complications in stride, a belief that it was all for the best did not seem to be at the core of his optimism. Nor, in the end, did he reject his optimism, as the French philosopher Voltaire would have him do. Voltaire famously skewered Leibniz's optimism in his 1759 novel Candide, in which Candide, having been raised on Leibniz' philosophy, is kicked out into the cold, cruel world, where not just he, but everyone around him, suffers horribly and unremittingly, such that at one point, he cries, “If this is the best of all possible worlds, what must the others be like?” Whatever Voltaire's satire in favor of empirical knowledge and reason did to Leibniz's philosophy, it did not kill optimism itself. Scientific optimism, in the form of progressivism, the idea that science and our future could only get better and better, flourished in the nineteenth century. Certainly, life for many did improve with scientific advancements in everything from medicine to telephones to airplanes. With this brightness, though, came a deepening shadow, a tension heightened by the experience of chemical warfare and shellshock in World War I. Instead of better living through chemistry, science provided the means for horrifically more efficient death. The assimilation of science to the service of evil soon culminated in the vile spread of eugenics, racism, and mass murder. Like Candide, pretty much everyone in the 21st century must be wondering if we do not live in the worst of all possible worlds. And yet, when it came down to it, what else could my patient hold onto if not optimism that science would save his life? As I continued to reflect on Mr L's response to his illness, I realized that I had unconsciously already stumbled on Mr L's type of optimism, or rather its popular culture archetype. One day, when he was getting his chemotherapy in an isolation room due to his recent COVID infection, I passed by the glass window. I waved, and he waved back. Then, I put my hand up to the glass, fingers separated in the Vulcan salute. He laughed, and waved again. The scene, for non-Star Trek fans, is from the movie The Wrath of Khan. The Vulcan, Spock, too is in glass-walled isolation, dying of radiation poisoning, after having sacrificed himself to save the ship and its crew. He and Captain Kirk connect through the glass with the Vulcan salute, as Spock tells his friend, “Live long, and prosper.” Later, Mr L told me that he had never been able to do the Vulcan salute and that he was not especially a Star Trek fan, though he had watched it years ago with his kids. But he loved this private joke we had, flashing this sign to me whenever we met, laughing when he could not make his fingers part properly. Star Trek epitomizes optimism for the future, arising as it did in the context of the Space Race to the Moon. Set in the 23rd century, Star Trek reveals that humans have finally learned the error of their ways: nuclear warfare, racism, and poverty are all things of the past, as are most diseases, ameliorated by the advance of science. In the world of Star Trek, medicine is, if not easy, then at least almost always successful. In one episode, the ship's doctor, McCoy, and Spock whip up an antidote to a deadly aging virus. Later, slung back to 1980s San Francisco in Star Trek: Voyage Home, McCoy, aghast at “medieval” 20th-century medicine, gives an elderly woman on dialysis a pill that allows her to grow a new kidney. In the world of Star Trek, cancer, of course, has been cured long ago. My patient's optimism is realized here, in a future that regards 20th-century science as “hardly far ahead of stone knives and bear skins,” as Spock complains in another episode. Star Trek remains popular because, in spite of everything, there endures a deep desire for, if not the best, then at least a better possible world. I'm an oncologist, not a Vulcan, and when it became clear that Mr L was not going to “live long and prosper,” I was frustrated and disappointed. His optimism could no longer sustain my hope. We were not in the idealized world of Star Trek, and I could not heal him with science and technology. Whatever the future of medicine might hold, our best possible treatments were still just “stone knives and bearskins.” Optimism, whether his, mine, or that of science, would not save him. The only optimism that seemed warranted was not for the future, but in the future. At the family meeting to discuss hospice, Mr L sat in a wheelchair, weak and thin, on oxygen, wrapped in a warm blanket. As his family slowly came to realize that their time with him and all that he was to them—father, husband, bedrock—was moving into the past, he seemed to shift from a focus on the future to the reality of now. Gathering his strength, he dismissed their concerns about what his loss would mean to them with a sweep of his arm. Tearful, but not despairing, he instructed his children to support their mother and each other after he was gone. At the end, Mr L's optimism became not about his future, but theirs. His wish was for them to embrace living their own best lives as they entered this new, not better, future, a future without him. A few days later, I visited him in his hospital room while he was waiting to go home with hospice care. He was dozing in the bed, and I hated to wake him. Then he opened his eyes and smiled. We chatted for a bit, but he tired easily. As I prepared to leave, I tried to give him the Vulcan salute one last time. He shook his head and opened his arms. “Give me a hug!” he said. And I did. I would like to thank Mr L's family and the Moving Pens writing group at the Medical College of Wisconsin for their invaluable support. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, Associate Editor for Art of Oncology and a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. With me today is Dr. Janet Retseck, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin and the author of “When the Future is Not Now.”  Dr. Retseck has no disclosures.   Welcome to the show, Janet.  Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, thank you. Thank you for inviting me. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's our pleasure to have you on. I like to start the conversation by asking authors what is on their night table or if they have a good recommendation for our listeners and colleagues.  Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, I usually read three books at a time—one book of short stories, one book of nonfiction, and one novel. And right now I'm reading Elizabeth Hand's book of short stories, Last Summer at Mars Hill. I am reading Dr. Rachel Remens' Kitchen Table Wisdom because I work with The Healer's Art, and I found this book misplaced, and I thought, "Oh, my, I should read that." And I'm reading a novel called The Donut Legion by Joe Landsdale. And I bought this because I liked the title, and I am very hopeful that it involves a group of people using donuts to fight evil.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: How interesting. I look forward to listening and hearing more about that.   Let me start by asking a little bit about your motivation for writing this essay. I mean, we often write to process difficult experiences, and then what leads many authors to want to share it and publish it is that there is a message or that something was particularly impactful. And I was struck by the fact that you start by sharing with us that you took care of Mr. L, the patient, and the story some time ago, several years ago. So what about Mr. L sort of left a deep impression with you, and if there is one, what is the message and what drove you to write this story? Dr. Janet Retseck: Mr. L and I connected right away when he came to my clinic. At that time, he did have a curable lung cancer, but everything that could go wrong did go wrong. Yet he had a dispositional optimism. He always told us, no matter what was going on, "I'm doing great,” just like that. When he died, I had a lot of grief around that. And at that time, I thought I would perhaps write about that grief and whether I had any right to that grief. And so I opened up a software that allows mind mapping, and I just looked at it last night in preparation for this interview. And on one side, it has all the things that I cared about and connected with Mr. L, and on the other, there's this bright purple line going with big letters "Do Better."  Then I reflected again on our connection with the Vulcan “Live long and prosper,” and how ironic it was that that's what one of our connections was. And yet he was not living long and prospering, and nothing about that over-the-top optimism of Star Trek had happened at all with all the medicine that I was able to give him. And that's where it came together.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's talk a little bit about that Vulcan salute. My digging around a little bit led me to understand that it was Leonard Nimoy who introduced that and that it's really a representation of a Hebrew letter, Shin. So how did you and Mr. L come up with a Vulcan salute? What did it mean to you? It's very moving how you tell us about it and what it symbolized. And so I just want to give you a chance to tell our listeners a little bit more about that. Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, there was a point during his chemoradiation when Mr. L developed the COVID infection, and radiation oncology wanted to continue with radiation, and he wanted to continue with chemotherapy. And everything we knew at the time, we felt it would be safe to do so because it's a pretty low dose. It's just radio-sensitizing. But anyone getting chemotherapy in our infusion center had to be in an isolation room. And this has a glass window. And I was walking past, and I saw him in there, and I kind of goofed around with him. The scene from the movie Wrath of Khan came to me, where Spock is in an isolation room, and Kirk connects with him through the glass. Spock is dying, and Kirk doesn't want him to die, and they give the Vulcan salute to each other through the glass. And of course, he couldn't quite do it. He knew what I was doing. He watched Star Trek in the past, but he wasn't especially a fan. But after that, that was our thing. Whenever he came in, he was trying, he was struggling to push his fingers apart. That was one of the ways we just connected with each other, to signal our affection for each other. Dr. Lidia Schapira: There is a lot of affection here. When I finished reading it, I read it several times, but I just thought the word "love" came to mind. There's so much love we feel for patients. We often don't quite say the word because we have these weird associations with love as something that's forbidden, but that's what this feels like, and that's the origin for our grief. I mean, we've really lost a loved one here as well. Mr. L sounds incredibly special, even in that last scene where he wants his family to imagine a future without him. So tell us a little bit about your reflections from what you've learned from and with Mr. L about how people who have really no future to live think about their own future and sort of their presence or their memory for those who love them. Dr. Janet Retseck: That's a very complicated question. For Mr. L. I think he was certain he was going to do well, that with all everything that we would be giving him, that he would survive and spend more time with his family and that's what he held onto. And I don't know that it was sort of delusional hope. We get every brand of acceptance and denial as oncologists. We have people coming in with their magic mushrooms, their vitamins, their vitamin C infusions. We have people going down to Mexico for their special secret treatments that have been withheld by pharmaceutical companies. We have people denying altogether that they are sick, coming in with fungating masses. But Mr. L was very different from that. His disposition was "Everything is good and it's going to be good, and I trust you 100%," and that's a big responsibility— is to take the patient's trust and to try to deliver on that. And in some way, my grief when he died was I could not do that in a lot of the ways the medicine world is at now. We break our patients' trust. Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's an interesting way of looking at it, and I sort of would push back a little bit on that. Dr. Janet Retseck: As you should.   Dr. Lidia Schapira: Good. I'm trying to do my job here and say that you shared that you both were disappointed by the limitations of what current medicine can offer, and that's I think where you sort of spin your sort of philosophical and very beautiful reflection on the future. It is my understanding that that's where the title of this piece also comes, that you and Mr. L sort of could bond over his optimism and over the sort of futuristic view that medicine can fix anything until you couldn't. And then you both sort of adapted, adjusted, accepted, and again bonded in a very different way through the bonds of affection and support in presence. So I would not want your readers to think that your heart is broken because you disappointed him because you couldn't cure him, but that your heart is broken, if it was, because you had such affection and respect for him.  I agree with you that he seemed to be well served by his optimism and it was working for him until it wasn't anymore. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about how you think about that optimism and hope and acceptance. Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, I should come clean and say I'm an optimist myself. I have to be, as an oncologist. Here we are starting at the very beginning with a patient, a curable intent, or is palliative intent, and we are giving these very harsh drugs, and I am optimistic I am going to do good rather than hurt the patient. And I tell them that right up front, this is what we hope will happen. Optimism really subtends to everything that I do, as well as an oncologist. So I don't mean to say we shouldn't hope, we should not be optimistic about what we can do now, but there's also that tension with the desire to do better always for our patients. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Janet, I was struck by your sort of teaching us about the origin of the word optimism. So, say a little bit more about what led you to go back to thinking about what the word actually means and how your patient illustrated this for you.  Dr. Janet Retseck: Thank you for asking that. It was actually serendipitous because I had settled on the Star Trek motif for thinking about my relationship with Mr. L and Star Trek with all of its optimism about the future, and it just fits so well with Mr. L's disposition. And I thought I need to differentiate that from hope or wishful thinking or magical thinking because it is something very different. So I went to the handy dictionary and looked up optimism, and right there the first definition: optimism is a philosophy developed by Leibniz regarding the best of all possible worlds. In other words, this is the world that is the best possible one of all the possibilities, even with all the suffering and the evil and the pain that we have to deal with. And so I thought, well, maybe I'll learn a little bit more about this Leibniz. I'd heard the phrase ‘best of all possible worlds' before.   I did a little research and I found this wonderful article that I cite in my paper that described Leibniz and his optimistic science. And I thought, well, this is a real way in to thinking about Mr. L and putting into a larger context of optimism versus hope and optimism and its focus on the future. And really that idea of, not that everything that's happening to him is for the best, but it's the best. He got the best, and he very thoroughly believed that he was getting the best treatment, and he was. But my point was that even though it was the best, it wasn't enough yet. So where is that ‘enough' located? And I think it is located in the future, but it's a future we can continue to hope for, and a future I think will come to pass someday. Someday we will not need to be oncologists, just like there don't need to be doctors who treat tuberculosis anymore. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So when my son was very little and he heard me very optimistically also talk about new treatments and so on, he said to me, “Mummy, the day that there's no more cancer, what are you going to do?” If somebody asked you the same question? What do you imagine yourself doing other than being an oncologist? Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, I guess I would go back to being an English professor. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Tell us more about that.  Dr. Janet Retseck: Now, I have let the cat out of the bag. So that little Ph.D. next to my name, I've decided to embrace that - that is in English. And as many people may know, the job market in English is not fantastic. And I've always had a bent toward science and medicine. And when I discovered that it was possible to go back and get my sciences, in part through sheer memorization, I decided to do that. Because what better way to spend ten years of my life than learning how to be a physician? Dr. Lidia Schapira: So in the last minute of the podcast, tell us a little bit about your Ph.D. What is your area of interest, and have you taught? Are you planning to go back to teaching or are you currently teaching? Dr. Janet Retseck: My Ph.D. is more or less in Victorian novel and interpretation, and I taught for 16 or 17 years, mostly community college, some at the Claremont Colleges, mostly composition, and I am teaching right now. This is what I love, being at the Medical College of Wisconsin. It is like I hit a home run coming here because they have a very strong medical humanities program. And when I arrived here, I was directly pointed to the directors of the medical humanities, “Look, here's a Ph.D. in English!” And I thought, “You mean I can do something with this here in medicine?” And so I connected with Bruce Campbell and Art Derse, who were instrumental in bringing narrative medicine to the Medical College of Wisconsin. So I'll be teaching a class of that in narrative medicine in the spring, and I do everything I can to teach the medical students and residents and fellows here at the Medical College of Wisconsin as a VA.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, that was quite a surprise for me. I didn't know that. I knew, reading your essay, that it was beautifully written. Thank you. I was going to ask what your Ph.D. was in, expecting you to tell me something about some branch of science I know nothing about. But this came as a surprise. So I am so glad that you're doing what you're doing. I'm sure your patients and your future students really appreciate it and will appreciate it. So thank you so much, Janet.  And until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experiences, and conclusions; guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  Show Notes:  Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio:  Dr. Janet Retseck is an Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

This is a relatively short treatise by the highly influential and admired philosopher and polymath Leibniz. It presents his views on metaphysics including the role of God in providing universal optimisation and order, along with the role and definition of individual substances including spirits, and the relation of the soul to the material body. He relates his views to those of foregoing scholastic philosophers and to Plato himself. There is discussion of free will and sin vis-a-vis God's omniscience. In a reference to laws of physics he is critical of Descartes. He discusses the importance of final causes and efficient causes in regard to mechanics. He also discusses the nature and origin of knowledge. He concludes by asserting the place of Christ in promulgating the city of God and the monarchy of heaven.Translated by George Montgomery.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

This is a relatively short treatise by the highly influential and admired philosopher and polymath Leibniz. It presents his views on metaphysics including the role of God in providing universal optimisation and order, along with the role and definition of individual substances including spirits, and the relation of the soul to the material body. He relates his views to those of foregoing scholastic philosophers and to Plato himself. There is discussion of free will and sin vis-a-vis God's omniscience. In a reference to laws of physics he is critical of Descartes. He discusses the importance of final causes and efficient causes in regard to mechanics. He also discusses the nature and origin of knowledge. He concludes by asserting the place of Christ in promulgating the city of God and the monarchy of heaven.Translated by George Montgomery.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Bedroht das Artensterben uns Menschen?; Schwammstadt - Wie man Wasser halten kann; Warum Menschen zu spät kommen; Künstliche Intelligenz - Wirklich gefährlich für uns?; Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz - Das letzte Universalgenie; Linkshänder oder Rechtshänder - Wie entscheidet sich das?; Bartgeier in den Alpen. Moderation: Martin Winkelheide. Von WDR 5.

Hello Interactors,Who would've thought that R.E.M.'s hit tune "Stand" held the secrets to Western spatial thinking? This week I break it down for you. From Aristotle's "Stand in the place where you live" to Newton's "Carry a compass to help you along," it's like they were dropping knowledge bombs all along! So next time you get this '80s hit stuck in your head, remember, you're getting a crash course in geographic philosophy. Rock on!As interactors, you're special individuals self-selected to be a part of an evolutionary journey. You're also members of an attentive community so I welcome your participation.Please leave your comments below or email me directly.Now let's go…IT'S FIXEDR.E.M.'s 1988 hit single, Stand, starts with this chorus:Stand in the place where you liveNow face northThink about directionWonder why you haven't beforeNow stand in the place where you wereNow face westThink about the place where you liveWonder why you haven't beforeFollowed by this verse:If you are confused, check with the sunCarry a compass to help you alongYour feet are going to be on the groundYour head is there to move you aroundWithout knowing it, they outlined what one researcher regards as the complete set of Western thought on space and place. In 1996, history and philosophy of geography professor Michael Curry identified just four distinct, but relational, notions of space that emerged two thousand years ago but continue to shape Western thought today.Curry's four main categories of space provide a framework for understanding different conceptualizations of space. These notions have influenced philosophical and scientific perspectives on space throughout history. Here they are:1. Static, Hierarchical, and Concrete Space (Aristotle 384-322 BC):This notion of space was influenced by Aristotle. It suggests objects and events have their natural places within the world. Aristotle associated the elements of earth, air, fire, and water with their respective natural places – a rock falls back to earth, water finds its way back to water, air flows to air, and fire moves upwards.This perspective views space as fixed and objects, and their elements, as being in specific positions within it. Curry reminds us that despite what modern science may say about the atomic structures and behavior of the world, we can see – as Aristotle did – that a bubble rises through water to find air like a frightened toddler running to their mother. And even with the best throw, there's no separating a rock from its mother earth. Aristotle embraced a qualitative notion of science, informed by what he perceived to be true. Even when we may know we're deceived. For example, we have to remind ourselves that the earth is not fixed and the sun does not set, even though it appears to be true.Aristotle's notion of space remained in Europe throughout the Middle Ages and guided all thought and action. But even though this Aristotelian common-sense view of the world can be seen even today, Curry notes that in 1277 the Church did its part to stamp it out. The Catholic church's passing of Condemnation of 1277 aimed at eradicating Aristotelian teachings. The Church also embraced mathematics in the Middle Ages, though later challenged advances in math that conflicted with religious doctrine, recognizing its truth, contribution to education, and sensing the economic and intellectual power it wielded.As the Enlightenment awoke, and with it the rise of Church-backed European geopolitical power, a more exacting view of space emerged. Surveying was ripped from the Roman ages and with it the gridding of land for political, economical, and military organizing and domination.Then, in the mid to late 1600s, Descartes further quantified space by marrying elements of algebra to geometry imbued with Christian religiosity. He, and the Church, preached – like Plato did – that this model of mathematical certainty is the bases of all knowledge. So, while the common sense, observational, and qualitative views of Aristotle are still with us today, they don't have nearly the influence over science Cartesian approaches do. Which leads us to Curry's second big influence on our notion of space.2. Absolute Grid Space (Newton 1642-1727):The second notion of space is most often associated with Isaac Newton. This conceptualization of space is influenced by Descartes and views space as an absolute grid. In this view, space is considered an infinite and independent entity within which objects exist and events occur. It is a framework where positions, distances, and directions can be precisely defined, a fixed reference frame allows for the measurement and calculation of an object's position and movement. Curry reminds us that Newton is largely regarded as a secular contributor to science, but like Descartes his work is riddled with religious overtones.His Christian view of space as infinite and eternal, where objects and motion are the work of an omnipresent God, are found in his 1686 Fundamental Principles of Natural Philosophy. He says God“is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient…He endures forever and is everywhere present. He is omnipresent not virtually only but also substantially…In him are all things contained and moved, yet neither affects the other; God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies, bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God.”But Newton's voice and influence was not alone. Which gets us to number three.IT'S ALL RELATIVE3. Relational Space (Leibniz 1646-1716):The third notion of space was influenced by Newton's contemporary Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. He argued for a relational understanding of space. While adopting the scientific outlook of Newton, Leibniz attacked Newton's absolutist approach tinged with Christian orthodoxy. Whereas Newton rejected the senses, as they may deceive God's power and will, Leibniz emphasized the importance of considering how we sense relationships among objects and events. Because our eyes (with the help of our brain) can sense objects moving relative to one another, Leibniz argued space is fundamentally defined by these relationships. The positions and properties of objects are interdependent. This relational view highlights the dynamic and interconnected nature of spatial relationships that comes from motion of one object relative to another.This notion of spatial relationships, that some objects appear to move in absolute space while others remain stationary has echoes of both Descartes and Newton but without metaphysical religiosity. It also embraces elements of a human-centeredness that culminates in unique and individual spatial perceptions. This opened the door to number four.4. Imposed Form Space (Kant 1724-1804):The last notion of space, associated with the philosopher Immanuel Kant, challenges the previous perspectives by positing that space is something imposed on the world by humans. Kant argued that space is not an inherent quality of the external world but rather a framework through which humans perceive and organize their experiences. In this view, space is a subjective construct that shapes our understanding of the world.Kant very much believed in Descartes and Newton's mathematical truths in how to describe the world and how objects behave, but in his 1781 Critique of Pure Reason he questioned what we can really know about the world given it's all skewed by our perceptions. Curry recalls that Kant himself regard this shift in thinking as a ‘Copernican Revolution'. Just as Copernicus reoriented the universe by centering planets around the sun, Kant believed his critique of reason shifts the center of knowledge from what was thought to be known to the perception of the knower. He observed that even though something can be shown to be mathematically true, like gravity, we can't see gravity. We can calculate wind speed, but we can't see what caused the air to move. Kant's revolution opened the door for radical alternatives to describing the world, including the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry just thirty years after Kant's publication.Curry's four notions of Western spatial thought just may have culminated in a pop hit single in the 1980s. Aristotle would have liked that R.E.M. suggest we “check with the sun” given his version of space is all about the fixed positions of natural elements. Newton would commend them on advising to “carry a compass to help you along” an absolute grid space. Leibniz would remind the confident compass holder that while “your feet are going to be [at a point] on the ground, your head is there to move you around” relative to that point. And Kant would have told everyone to just stop and “think about the place where you live, wonder why you haven't before.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

This volume collects the private letters and published epistles of English women philosophers of the early modern period (c. 1650-1700). It includes the correspondences of Margaret Cavendish, Anne Conway, Damaris Cudworth Masham, and Elizabeth Berkeley Burnet. These women were the interlocutors of some of the best-known intellectuals of their era, including Constantijn Huygens, Walter Charleton, Henry More, Joseph Glanvill, John Locke, Jean Le Clerc, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Their epistolary exchanges range over a wide variety of philosophical subjects, from religion, moral theology, and ethics to epistemology, metaphysics, and natural philosophy. For the first time in one collection, the philosophical correspondences of these women have been brought together to be appreciated as a whole.  Women Philosophers of Seventeenth-Century England: Selected Correspondence (Oxford UP, 2019) is an invaluable primary resource for students and scholars of these neglected women thinkers. It includes original introductory essays for each woman philosopher, demonstrating how her correspondences contributed to the formation of her own views as well as those of her better-known contemporaries. It also provides detailed scholarly annotations to the letters and epistles, explaining unfamiliar philosophical ideas and defining obscure terminology to help make the texts accessible and comprehensible to the modern reader. This collection and its companion volume, Women Philosophers of Eighteenth-Century England (forthcoming), provide valuable historical evidence that women made substantial contributions to the formation and development of early modern thought and reflect the intensely collaborative and gender-inclusive nature of philosophical discussion in the early modern period. Jacqueline Broad is a professor of Philosophy and also the Head of the Monash Philosophy Department at Monash University, Melbourne. Her main area of research is women's philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This volume collects the private letters and published epistles of English women philosophers of the early modern period (c. 1650-1700). It includes the correspondences of Margaret Cavendish, Anne Conway, Damaris Cudworth Masham, and Elizabeth Berkeley Burnet. These women were the interlocutors of some of the best-known intellectuals of their era, including Constantijn Huygens, Walter Charleton, Henry More, Joseph Glanvill, John Locke, Jean Le Clerc, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Their epistolary exchanges range over a wide variety of philosophical subjects, from religion, moral theology, and ethics to epistemology, metaphysics, and natural philosophy. For the first time in one collection, the philosophical correspondences of these women have been brought together to be appreciated as a whole.  Women Philosophers of Seventeenth-Century England: Selected Correspondence (Oxford UP, 2019) is an invaluable primary resource for students and scholars of these neglected women thinkers. It includes original introductory essays for each woman philosopher, demonstrating how her correspondences contributed to the formation of her own views as well as those of her better-known contemporaries. It also provides detailed scholarly annotations to the letters and epistles, explaining unfamiliar philosophical ideas and defining obscure terminology to help make the texts accessible and comprehensible to the modern reader. This collection and its companion volume, Women Philosophers of Eighteenth-Century England (forthcoming), provide valuable historical evidence that women made substantial contributions to the formation and development of early modern thought and reflect the intensely collaborative and gender-inclusive nature of philosophical discussion in the early modern period. Jacqueline Broad is a professor of Philosophy and also the Head of the Monash Philosophy Department at Monash University, Melbourne. Her main area of research is women's philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

This volume collects the private letters and published epistles of English women philosophers of the early modern period (c. 1650-1700). It includes the correspondences of Margaret Cavendish, Anne Conway, Damaris Cudworth Masham, and Elizabeth Berkeley Burnet. These women were the interlocutors of some of the best-known intellectuals of their era, including Constantijn Huygens, Walter Charleton, Henry More, Joseph Glanvill, John Locke, Jean Le Clerc, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Their epistolary exchanges range over a wide variety of philosophical subjects, from religion, moral theology, and ethics to epistemology, metaphysics, and natural philosophy. For the first time in one collection, the philosophical correspondences of these women have been brought together to be appreciated as a whole.  Women Philosophers of Seventeenth-Century England: Selected Correspondence (Oxford UP, 2019) is an invaluable primary resource for students and scholars of these neglected women thinkers. It includes original introductory essays for each woman philosopher, demonstrating how her correspondences contributed to the formation of her own views as well as those of her better-known contemporaries. It also provides detailed scholarly annotations to the letters and epistles, explaining unfamiliar philosophical ideas and defining obscure terminology to help make the texts accessible and comprehensible to the modern reader. This collection and its companion volume, Women Philosophers of Eighteenth-Century England (forthcoming), provide valuable historical evidence that women made substantial contributions to the formation and development of early modern thought and reflect the intensely collaborative and gender-inclusive nature of philosophical discussion in the early modern period. Jacqueline Broad is a professor of Philosophy and also the Head of the Monash Philosophy Department at Monash University, Melbourne. Her main area of research is women's philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

This volume collects the private letters and published epistles of English women philosophers of the early modern period (c. 1650-1700). It includes the correspondences of Margaret Cavendish, Anne Conway, Damaris Cudworth Masham, and Elizabeth Berkeley Burnet. These women were the interlocutors of some of the best-known intellectuals of their era, including Constantijn Huygens, Walter Charleton, Henry More, Joseph Glanvill, John Locke, Jean Le Clerc, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Their epistolary exchanges range over a wide variety of philosophical subjects, from religion, moral theology, and ethics to epistemology, metaphysics, and natural philosophy. For the first time in one collection, the philosophical correspondences of these women have been brought together to be appreciated as a whole.  Women Philosophers of Seventeenth-Century England: Selected Correspondence (Oxford UP, 2019) is an invaluable primary resource for students and scholars of these neglected women thinkers. It includes original introductory essays for each woman philosopher, demonstrating how her correspondences contributed to the formation of her own views as well as those of her better-known contemporaries. It also provides detailed scholarly annotations to the letters and epistles, explaining unfamiliar philosophical ideas and defining obscure terminology to help make the texts accessible and comprehensible to the modern reader. This collection and its companion volume, Women Philosophers of Eighteenth-Century England (forthcoming), provide valuable historical evidence that women made substantial contributions to the formation and development of early modern thought and reflect the intensely collaborative and gender-inclusive nature of philosophical discussion in the early modern period. Jacqueline Broad is a professor of Philosophy and also the Head of the Monash Philosophy Department at Monash University, Melbourne. Her main area of research is women's philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

This volume collects the private letters and published epistles of English women philosophers of the early modern period (c. 1650-1700). It includes the correspondences of Margaret Cavendish, Anne Conway, Damaris Cudworth Masham, and Elizabeth Berkeley Burnet. These women were the interlocutors of some of the best-known intellectuals of their era, including Constantijn Huygens, Walter Charleton, Henry More, Joseph Glanvill, John Locke, Jean Le Clerc, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Their epistolary exchanges range over a wide variety of philosophical subjects, from religion, moral theology, and ethics to epistemology, metaphysics, and natural philosophy. For the first time in one collection, the philosophical correspondences of these women have been brought together to be appreciated as a whole.  Women Philosophers of Seventeenth-Century England: Selected Correspondence (Oxford UP, 2019) is an invaluable primary resource for students and scholars of these neglected women thinkers. It includes original introductory essays for each woman philosopher, demonstrating how her correspondences contributed to the formation of her own views as well as those of her better-known contemporaries. It also provides detailed scholarly annotations to the letters and epistles, explaining unfamiliar philosophical ideas and defining obscure terminology to help make the texts accessible and comprehensible to the modern reader. This collection and its companion volume, Women Philosophers of Eighteenth-Century England (forthcoming), provide valuable historical evidence that women made substantial contributions to the formation and development of early modern thought and reflect the intensely collaborative and gender-inclusive nature of philosophical discussion in the early modern period. Jacqueline Broad is a professor of Philosophy and also the Head of the Monash Philosophy Department at Monash University, Melbourne. Her main area of research is women's philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This volume collects the private letters and published epistles of English women philosophers of the early modern period (c. 1650-1700). It includes the correspondences of Margaret Cavendish, Anne Conway, Damaris Cudworth Masham, and Elizabeth Berkeley Burnet. These women were the interlocutors of some of the best-known intellectuals of their era, including Constantijn Huygens, Walter Charleton, Henry More, Joseph Glanvill, John Locke, Jean Le Clerc, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Their epistolary exchanges range over a wide variety of philosophical subjects, from religion, moral theology, and ethics to epistemology, metaphysics, and natural philosophy. For the first time in one collection, the philosophical correspondences of these women have been brought together to be appreciated as a whole.  Women Philosophers of Seventeenth-Century England: Selected Correspondence (Oxford UP, 2019) is an invaluable primary resource for students and scholars of these neglected women thinkers. It includes original introductory essays for each woman philosopher, demonstrating how her correspondences contributed to the formation of her own views as well as those of her better-known contemporaries. It also provides detailed scholarly annotations to the letters and epistles, explaining unfamiliar philosophical ideas and defining obscure terminology to help make the texts accessible and comprehensible to the modern reader. This collection and its companion volume, Women Philosophers of Eighteenth-Century England (forthcoming), provide valuable historical evidence that women made substantial contributions to the formation and development of early modern thought and reflect the intensely collaborative and gender-inclusive nature of philosophical discussion in the early modern period. Jacqueline Broad is a professor of Philosophy and also the Head of the Monash Philosophy Department at Monash University, Melbourne. Her main area of research is women's philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Grant Maxwell's book Integration and Difference: Constructing a Mythical Dialectic looks at the problem of the opposites through the lens of 13 philosophers who mostly fit within a constructivist stream of pragmatist, speculative, or process thought. This Voices of VR podcast episode is a 2.5-hour, philosophical deep dive providing an overview of each of these thinkers and how their ideas fit into the broader context of experiential design, perception, embodied experience, consciousness, and the metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality itself. The 13 philosophers included within Maxwell's book and this discussion include: Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) F.W.J. Schelling (1775-1834) Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) William James (1842-1910) Henri Bergson (1859-1941) Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) C.G. Jung (1875-1961) Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) James Hillman (1926-2011) Isabelle Stengers (1949-)

Chapitre 1 : Aux origines de l'inconscient.Les questions de santé mentale ont beau rester un sujet tabou, elles commencent à se frayer un chemin dans nos conversations, en privé comme au travail. Et pour cause ! Une personne sur deux sera confrontée à la maladie psychique au cours de sa vie, et une sur cinq présentera une forme grave de trouble psychologique.Dans ce paysage, la psychanalyse occupe une place de choix parmi les thérapies proposées à quiconque cherche à alléger sa peine ou à tout simplement mieux se connaître. Pourtant, depuis quelques décennies, des voix s'élèvent pour en dénoncer les fondements, les pratiques et même les résultats thérapeutiques. Peut-on vraiment faire confiance à la psychanalyse ? Que traite-t-elle ? Et comment ?Dans ce premier chapitre, nous remontons le temps avec Jacques Van Rillaer, professeur de psychologie et ancien psychanalyste, pour situer la psychanalyse dans l'histoire des idées. Freud a-t-il inventé la psychologie et la notion d'inconscient ? •• SOUTENIR ••Méta de Choc est gratuit, indépendant et sans publicité. Vous pouvez vous aussi le soutenir en faisant un don ponctuel ou mensuel : https://metadechoc.fr/tree/•• RESSOURCES ••Toutes les références en lien avec cette émission sont sur le site Méta de Choc : https://metadechoc.fr/podcast/que-vaut-la-psychanalyse/•• SUIVRE ••Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, PeerTube, YouTube.•• TIMECODES ••03:00 : Qui est Jacques Van Rillaer ? Professeur en psychologie scientifique et psychologie sociale, psychothérapeute en TTC, éducation catholique, vocation de moine dominicain, Stefan Zweig, université de psychologie, analyse didactique, textes fondamentaux de Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan, école lacanienne.13:00 : Quelle différence entre psychanalyse, psychologie scientifique et psychiatrie ? Joseph Breuer, place dominante de l'inconscient et de la sexualité, complexe d'Œdipe, enseignement de la psychanalyse à l'université, formation des psychanalystes, la méthode de Freud, méthodologie scientifique, neurasthénie due à la masturbation, Claude Bernard, réfutabilité d'une théorie.21:18 : Qu'est-ce que la psychanalyse ? divan, associations libres, interprétations, attention flottante, psychologie individuelle d'Alfred Adler, psychologie analytique de Carl Gustav Jung, PIP psychothérapie d'inspiration psychanalytique, POP psychothérapie d'orientation psychanalytique, thérapie éclectique, le psychanalyste déchiffre l'inconscient.26:42 : Freud a-t-il inventé la psychologie ? philosophes présocratiques, Aristote, stoïciens, restructuration cognitive, Sénèque, Saint Augustin, Montaigne, J. J. Rousseau, Franz Anton Mesmer, Gustave Le Bon, Pierre Janet, hypnose, hystérie.37:10 : D'où viennent les grands concepts de Freud ? Freud a-t-il inventé l'inconscient ? Antiquité, René Descartes, John Locke, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, importance du vécu dans l'enfance, interprétation des rêves, lapsus, actes manqués, Érasme, Wilhelm Wundt, libido, trois essais sur la théorie de la sexualité, refoulement, analyse psychodynamique, transfert, Franz Anton Mesmer, Pierre Janet.53:50 : Naissance de la psychologie scientifique : mesures astronomiques, équation personnelle, Wilhelm Wundt, illusions d'optique, perceptions visuelles, interprétations, Alfred Binet, échelle métrique d'intelligence, test de QI, psychologie appliquée, crise de réplicabilité en psychologie, effet Pygmalion. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

During the final weeks of the summer, the Institute of Intellectual History brings a series of new interviews with leading intellectual historians about their career and work in intellectual history.  In this sixth interview, we present a conversation with Maria Rosa Antognazza. is a professor of Philosophy at King's College London. Her research interests include the history of philosophy, epistemology and the philosophy of religion, including the relationship between science and religion. She has published extensively on early modern philosophy and specifically on Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Notably, her book Leibniz - An Intellectual Biography (CUP, 2009) was the winner of the 2010 Pfizer award. More recently, she was awarded the 2019-2020 Mind Senior Research Fellowship for work on her book Thinking with Assent: Renewing a Traditional Account of Knowledge and Belief (forthcoming with Oxford University Press). 

In this episode of the Chasing Leviathan podcast, PJ and Dr. Steven Nadler discuss the heated debates between Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Antoine Arnauld, and Nicolas de Malebranche over how to best answer the theological problem of evil and suffering. Dr. Nadler not only provides historical insight into this particular conversation, but also reflects on the impact that theological speculation has on our own contemporary debates. For a deep dive into Dr. Steven Nadler's work, check out his book: https://www.amazon.com/Best-All-Possible-Worlds-Philosophers/dp/0374229988Check out our blog on www.candidgoatproductions.com Who thinks that they can subdue Leviathan? Strength resides in its neck; dismay goes before it. When it rises up, the mighty are terrified. Nothing on earth is its equal. It is without fear. It looks down on all who are haughty; it is king over all who are proud. These words inspired PJ Wehry to create Chasing Leviathan. Chasing Leviathan was born out of two ideals: that truth is worth pursuing but will never be subjugated, and the discipline of listening is one of the most important habits anyone can develop. Every episode is a dialogue, a journey into the depths of a meaningful question explored through the lens of personal experience or professional expertise.

Like Caligula declaring war on Neptune and ordering his troops to charge into the Mediterranean Sea, our technological masters are designing neural networks meant to capture the human soul in all its oceanic complexity. According to the cognitive scientist Abeba Birhane, this is a fool's errand that we undertake at our peril. In her paper "The Impossibility of Automating Ambiguity," she makes the case for the irremediable fluidity, spontaneity, and relationality of people and societies. She argues that ongoing efforts to subsume the human (and the rest of reality) in predictive algorithms is actually narrowing the human experience, as so many of us are excluded from the system while others are compelled to artificially conform to its idea of the human. Far from paving the way to a better world, the tyranny of automation threatens to cut us off from the Real, ensuring an endless perpetuation of the past with all its errors and injustices. Phil and JF discuss Birhane's essay in this episode. Header image from via www.vpnsrus.com (cropped). Downloaded from Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Artificial_Intelligence_%26_AI_%26_Machine_Learning_-_30212411048.jpg). Listen to volume 1 (https://pierre-yvesmartel.bandcamp.com/album/weird-studies-music-from-the-podcast-vol-1) and volume 2 (https://pierre-yvesmartel.bandcamp.com/album/weird-studies-music-from-the-podcast-vol-2) of the Weird Studies soundtrack by Pierre-Yves Martel (https://www.pymartel.com) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/weirdstudies) Find us on Discord (https://discord.com/invite/Jw22CHfGwp) Get the new T-shirt design from Cotton Bureau (https://cottonbureau.com/products/can-o-content#/13435958/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s)! Get your Weird Studies merchandise (https://www.redbubble.com/people/Weird-Studies/shop?asc=u) (t-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.) Visit the Weird Studies Bookshop (https://bookshop.org/shop/weirdstudies) REFERENCES Abebe Birhane, "The Impossibility of Automating Ambiguity” J. F. Martel, “Reality is Analog: Philosophizing with Stranger Things” (http://www.reclaimingart.com/reality-is-analog.html) Melissa Adler, Cruising the Library: Perversities in the Organization of Knowledge (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9780823276363) Weird Studies, Episode 75 on 2001: A Space Odyssey (https://www.weirdstudies.com/75) Weird Studies, Episode 114 on the Wheel of Fortune (https://www.weirdstudies.com/114) William James (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James), American philosopher Midjourney, AI art generator Rhine Research Center (https://www.rhineonline.org/), parapsychology lab George Lewis, “Improvised Music after 1950: Afrological and Eurological Perspectives” (https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/58902/original%20%20/Lewis+-+Improvised+Music+after+1950-+Afrological+and+Eurological+Perspectives+.pdf) Abebe Birhane, “Descartes was Wrong: A Person is a Person Through Other Persons” (https://aeon.co/ideas/descartes-was-wrong-a-person-is-a-person-through-other-persons) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz) German philosopher J. R. R. Tolkein, “On Fairy-Stories” (https://coolcalvary.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/on-fairy-stories1.pdf) Martin Buber, [I and Thou](https://archive.org/stream/IAndThou572/BuberMartin-i-and-thoudjvu.txt)

Nope. But he gets a Really Right! We have a rare third host today! Luna is part of this episode. Starting with sad news about the Oslo shooting, we then talk about Scotland's discussion about independence. This week's TWISH congratulates Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to his birthday on the 1st of July 1646. They discuss what a Staffelwalze is (aptly named Leibniz wheel) and András mentions important facts about the mathematician's life. The news this week were the following: GERMANY: Could Sucharit Bakhdi's professorship be revoked? INTERNATIONAL: ECDC launches online course into how to address online vaccine misinformation UK: New study into why people hear voices of the dead Today's prize for being Really Wrong would go to the US Supreme Court if we were US-based, but instead we keep up the good mood and give out a Really Right- award! Pope Francis ordered for Pope Pius XII.'s archive to be made accessible online. Pius is often referred to as the "War Era Pope" and was reluctant to interfere on behalf of persecuted people. So, for doing the right thing for once, Frankie receives this week's prize for being Really Right. Enjoy! Segments: Intro; Greetings; TWISH; News; Really Wrong; Quote And Farewell; Outro; Out-Takes

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has - Margaret Mead In this episode we continue our discussion of Chinese philosophy and look at the I-Ching through a two-part series of discussions. We start by discussing the three principal cosmological theories of the universe in ancient Chinese thought, i.e., Tai Ji (Yin and Yang), Wu Xing (Five Elements), and Ba Gua (Eight Trigrams), and work our way towards the foundations of the I-Ching and the legend of Fu Xi and Nü Wa. We also speak about the striking similarities between the I-Ching and how we understand the world today scientifically, as well as how it is believed to have influenced prominent historical figures, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. In the next episode, we will look specifically at hexagrams within the I-Ching and discuss its meaning in philosophy and the contemporary world. Always feel free to let us know what you think, or if you have any episode requests. We would love to hear from you in the comments! Thank you for listening and as always we'll see you next time as we search for truth on the road that never ends!