German mathematician and philosopher
POPULARITY
5 episodes with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
2 episodes with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
2 episodes with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
2 episodes with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
3 episodes with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
2 episodes with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
2 episodes with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
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.
Monaden sind metaphysische Substanzen, die nicht in Teile zerlegt werden können. Es gibt unendlich viele von ihnen. Alle Dinge und alle Wesen besitzen Monaden, die ihre Eigenschaften festlegen. Das gilt für ein Sauerstoffatom ebenso wie für die Seele eines Menschen. Die Monaden bilden eine Hierarchie. Gott ist die höchste Monade. Das Meer der Monaden ist der eigentliche Stoff, der unser Universum erzeugt und existent erhält. Dieses Meer kann man sich auch als das gnostische Pleroma vorstellen.
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 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
Schön am Pool sitzen, Kaffee trinken, vielleicht ein Keks dazu. Denn sprechen wir über Leibniz! Und am Rande auch um Leibniz-Kekse, hauptsächlich aber über die Monadologie von Leibniz. Eine verrückte kleine Theorie, die irgendwie auch einen Unfall in einem Hofgarten verursacht hat. Viel Spass mit dem dritten SAQ-Sommer-Snack!
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
Falls euch cogitamus gefällt, lasst bitte ein Abo da und/oder empfehlt uns weiter. Abonnieren könnt ihr uns auch auf YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2YdZ5ryFQ32Zd75m2AW5cw Unterstützen könnt ihr uns ebenfalls: paypal.me/cogitamus oder cogitamus@posteo.de. Schaut auch mal auf UNCUT vorbei: https://www.uncut.at/. Im 18. Jahrhundert wirkt Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) als letzter Universalgelehrter dieser Zeit in Leipzig und Hannover. Auf welchen Gebieten hat er seine Interessen entwickelt? Welche sind seine philosophischen Werke und was ist die von ihm angestrebte Universalwissenschaft? 250 Jahre später erhebt auch der Wiener Kreis Anspruch auf die Konzeption einer Einheitswissenschaft. Was kennzeichnet den Wiener Kreis? Inwiefern kritisiert Otto Neurath das eigene Programm? Welche Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede sind in den Theorien zwischen Leibniz und Wiener Kreis sichtbar? Nächste Folgen: Kant; Jean-Jaques Rosseau und das revolutionäre Privateigentum; Weibliches Körperbewusstsein nach Iris Marion Young Timemarker 00:00 Intro 03:23 Wer ist G.W. Leibniz? 07:28 Leibniz‘ Universalwissenschaft 19:05 Wiener Kreis: Einheitswissenschaft 30:48 Neuraths Kritik 38:35 Anwendung in der Moderne 42:57 Fazit Literatur/Links/Quellen Carnap, Rudolf: „Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache“ [1932], in: Carnap, Rudolf: Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie und andere metaphysikkritische Schriften. Hamburg: Meiner 2004, 81–110. Verschiedene Texte von Leibniz im Sammelband von Herring namens Schriften zur Logik und zur philosophischen Grundlegung von Mathematik und Naturwissenschaft. Band 4, u.a. folgende: „Anfangsgründe einer allgemeinen Charakteristik (1677)“, „Brief an Gabriel Wagner (1696)“, „Regeln zur Förderung der Wissenschaften (1680)“ Verschiedene Texte zum Wiener Kreis im Sammelband von Stöltzner/Uebel namens Wiener Kreis. Texte zur wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassung, u.a. folgende: Neurath, Otto: „Einheit der Wissenschaft als Aufgabe (1935)“, Verein Ernst Mach (Hg.): „Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis (1929)“ Poser, Hans: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz zur Einführung. 4. ergänzte Auflage. Hamburg: Junius Verlag 2005. Bildnachweise: https://image.geo.de/30146610/t/sN/v3/w1440/r1.7778/-/gottfried-wilhelm-leibniz-jpg--83509-.jpg; https://www.scienceblog.at/pics/2015/20150529/abb3.jpeg; https://pixabay.com/de/illustrations/gehirn-geist-psychologie-idee-2062057/; https://pixabay.com/de/photos/analyse-biochemie-biologe-biologie-2030265/
William MarxLittératures comparéesCollège de FranceAnnée 2023-202401 - Comment lire ? - Lire : une tâche utopiqueRésuméDans son Cours de poétique, Paul Valéry expliquait que le sentiment esthétique était ce qui reste quand tout s'est effondré autour de nous. Il y a là une sorte de cogito esthétique, à la manière de Descartes : non pas « je pense, donc je suis », mais « j'éprouve la beauté, donc je suis ». Lire est une activité intense, qui emporte tout l'être. Mais qu'est-ce que lire ? Le terme en français désigne deux activités différentes, quoique complémentaires. Savoir lire, c'est d'abord savoir déchiffrer littéralement un texte écrit. Mais lire, c'est aussi savoir comprendre et interpréter ce texte. Cette nécessité de l'interprétation est fondamentale, car le sens d'un texte ne se donne pas de lui-même. Il y a plusieurs interprétations possibles d'un texte, dont certaines sont meilleures et plus valables que les autres. Ce qu'on nomme par commodité de langage le vrai sens d'un texte est le résultat d'une construction complexe faite par le lecteur. Comme l'explique Ortega y Gasset, pour pouvoir parler, nous devons taire beaucoup de choses, le silence est une condition de la parole, et le lecteur, pour reconstituer le message, doit « construire laborieusement [en lui-même] toute la réalité mentale non dite » dans le texte. « Lire avec sérieux et sincérité » : voilà tout l'enjeu. C'est une question d'épistémologie et d'éthique. Le Saint Jérôme d'Antonello da Messina illustre fort bien cette « tâche utopique » de la lecture. Et aujourd'hui, quand se multiplient les lectures de type inquisitorial et la critique radicale des textes (cancel culture, wokism, entre autres), il convient de replacer ces nouvelles façons de lire dans un panorama historique et culturel des modes de lecture et d'interprétation.Auteurs et œuvres citésPaul Valéry, Cours de poétique, Histoires brisées. René Descartes, Discours de la méthode. Miguel de Cervantès, Don Quichotte. Gustave Flaubert, Madame Bovary. William K. Wimsatt, « The Intentional Fallacy ». Roland Barthes, « La Mort de l'auteur ». Aristote. Platon. Emmanuel Kant. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. John Wilkins. Friedrich Nietzsche. José Ortega y Gasset, Qu'est-ce que lire ? Andrei Minzetanu, La Lecture vertueuse. Antonello da Messina, Saint Jérôme dans son étude. Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Voyage au bout de la nuit.
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?
Si te gusta lo que escuchas y deseas apoyarnos puedes dejar tu donación en PayPal, ahí nos encuentras como @IrvingSun --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/irving-sun/message
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.
In each episode of “40 Great Philosophers & What They Mean for Judaism,” Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz (President and Dean of Valley Beit Midrash) explores influential philosophers and how their teachings and beliefs relate to Jewish values and traditions. You can also listen to “40 Great Philosophers & What They Mean for Judaism” on your preferred podcast platform.Attended these classes live over Zoom by becoming a member for just $18 per month: https://www.valleybeitmidrash.org/become-a-member------------------Stay Connected with Valley Beit Midrash:• Website: https://www.valleybeitmidrash.org• Donate: https://www.valleybeitmidrash.org/donate• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ValleyBeitMidrash• Follow Rabbi Shmuly: https://www.facebook.com/RabbiShmulyYanklowitz
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
What is the fundamental element of reality? In 1714 Leibniz published the Monadology and gave a very interesting answer to this question. There he argued that a non-physical part less basic substance called a Monad was indeed the fundamental element of reality. Tune in to learn more about Monads and see if you think Leibnitz was on to unlocking one of the oldest metaphysical quandaries. You can find a free copy of the Monadology here: https://www.plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Monadology-1714-by-Gottfried-Wilhelm-LEIBNIZ-1646-1716.pdf Image Attribution: By Christoph Bernhard Francke - Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, online, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53159699 Send your questions, comments, and ideas for future episodes to eggtimerphilosophy@gmail.com
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
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/british-studies
In dieser Folge stellen wir die Frage: Was wäre, wenn - wenn Gott nur ein kleines bisschen an den Parametern dieser Welt gedreht hätte? Egal wie, wir würden meist in einem Universum landen, in dem es keine Atome, keine Sterne, keine Chemie, damit keine Biologie und somit auch keine Menschen geben würde, die sich über dieses "Finetuning" der Welt wundern könnten. Hatte also Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz recht, als er sagte, dass Gott nur die besten aller möglichen Welten erschaffen konnte? Aber statt zu unterstellen, dass ein Gott diese Welt für uns schuf, betrachten wir eine andere Möglichkeit: Wie wäre es, wenn neben unserem Universum in einem Multiversum einige riesige Zahl alternativer Universen mit anderen physikalischen Gesetzen realisiert wären? Unter ihnen befände sich gewiss ein lebensfreundliches. Kann man mit diesen anderen Universen in Kontakt treten? Diese Frage besprechen wir in unserem Podcast.
Hello Interactors,Today is part one of a two-part exploration. I was curious as to why conventional economics continues to rely so heavily on deterministic mathematical models that assume perfect conditions even though they know such inert situations don't exist in nature. It may tie back to the Enlightenment and the popular beliefs of Newton and Descartes who merged Christian beliefs with mathematic certainty – despite viable alternative theories they helped squelch. 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…THE SPERMISTSIsaac Newton and René Descartes were spermists. They believed they entered this world through preformation. This theory states every future organism is wrapped up in a seed or sperm as a preformed miniature version of itself. This was the dominant belief among Europe's most respected Enlightenment thinkers. They believed not only did a Christian god create all the plants and animals, including humans, but all the future ones too. Intercourse, they surmised, is a magical act that initiates the growth of microscopic animacules which then grow until they are fully formed. It's easy to brush this off as a point in time lack of knowledge and excuse these brilliant minds. We might say, “They just didn't know any better.” But it turns out there were other brilliant minds at the time who thought they were crazy.But powerful people are not easily persuaded. They, along with the church, continued to push the idea that preformation is as elementary to evolution as mathematical axioms are to theorems. A mathematical certainty that one day seduced many scientists, and later economists, into similar deterministic expressions.One of the early preformation influencers was the Dutch philosopher, mathematician, and theologian, Bernard Nieuwentyt (1654-1718). Three years before his death, he published a soon to be popular book, The Religious Philosopher: Or, The Right Use of Contemplating the Works of the Creator. In it he writes,“This however is sure enough…that all living Creatures whatever proceed from a Stamin or Principle, in which the Limbs and Members of the Body are folded and wound as it were in a Ball of Thread; which by the Operation of adventitious Matter and Humours are filled up and unfolded, till the Structure of all the Parts have the Magnitude of a full grown Body.”His book was translated into English in 1724 and its influence spread. In 1802, the English clergyman and philosopher, William Paley (1743-1805), expanded on the ‘Ball of Thread' analogy with his infamous watchmaker analogy. Using examples of mechanistic functions of the human body like joints and muscles, he expanded the popular notion that this is the work of a supreme designer – their Christian god. He writes, “Contemplating an animal body in its collective capacity, we cannot forget to notice, what a number of instruments are brought together, and often within how small a compass. It is a cluster of contrivances.”But Paley wasn't alone, nor was he the first. Both Descartes and Newton had already remarked as much. Newton once wrote, “like a watchmaker, God was forced to intervene in the universe and tinker with the mechanism from time to time to ensure that it continued operating in good working order."The confidence of spermists was buoyed when spermatozoa was discovered by the Dutch microscopist Antoine van Leeuwenhoek in 1677. But the seed of the idea dates all the way back to Pythagoras. He believed male semen is fluid that collects and stores different elements from the body like the bone and brain. He said, “semen is a drop of the brain.” The woman provided a host and nourishment so the male semen could unfold inside her body.Another Greek philosopher, Empedocles, refuted the Pythagorean claim 100 years later noting offspring often inherit characteristics of the mother. He proposed there was a blending of male and female root reproductive elements in plants and animals that has the potential to produce blended varieties as their offspring. Empedocles was on to something, but his theory was overshadowed by a more popular theory and powerful name, Aristotle.THE OVISTSAristotle believed both men and women provided different forms of reproductive purified blood in the form of semen and menstrual fluids. Because semen appeared more pure than menstrual fluids, he surmised it must have the advantage. Therefore, the male provided the instructions, design, or blueprint for formation and the woman provided the material. The ‘blood' metaphor is alive today despite our knowledge of genetics. J.K Rowling did her part in her Harry Potter series to perpetuate and popularize the blood metaphor with ‘pure-bloods' and ‘half-bloods' or the derogatory ‘mud-bloods'.Aristotle's ideas were brought to life in the 17th and 18th century by the spermists nemesis, the ovists. Ovists were rallying behind the discoveries of William Harvey (1578-1657) and Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) of female eggs in female bodies, the union of the sperm and egg, and the formation of an embryo which in turn unleashed the production of various parts of the body. Harvey called this cellular formation of individual parts in plants and animals epigenesis. An idea Aristotle also suggested.But one Dutch spermist, Jan Swammerdam (1637-1680), used this to further the preformation theory, but with a twist. Evidence of the union of egg and sperm, he suggested, must mean the future organism is embedded inside the head of the sperm in miniature form waiting to become whole with the help of the egg. A century later, this prompted a Swiss scientist, Charles Bonnet (1720-1793), to offer a counter ovist preformation theory. He suggested a Christian god planted future generations not inside the sperm, but inside the egg – like nested eggs within eggs.Meanwhile, a group of naturalist scientists opposed these Cartesian and Pythagorean, mechanistic preformation theories. The French naturalist, mathematician, and philosopher, Pierre Louise Maupertuis (1698-1759), further rejected theological explanations and believed both the male and female possess particles that come together to form unique characteristics in their offspring. He is credited with being the first to observe evolutionary hereditarian changes in organisms over time suggesting some characteristics are dominant while others are recessive.The German physiologist Caspar Friedrich Wolff (1733-1794) expanded on this work and revived Harvey's theory of epigenesis. By observing chick embryos, he discovered a supernatural action occurs once the sperm is implanted in the egg. This sparks what he called a vital action “vis essentialis” that culminates over the period of gestation creating a fully formed body. This is the origins of what we now call embryology.Those in the mechanistic and theological Cartesian camp weren't having it. They, like the church, rejected talk of indescribable, supernatural, and immaterial ‘vital actions.' It was not only heretical, but suggested science was going backwards to embrace medieval miracles of the occult. Either way, if there were forces at work on matter, the preformation mechanists believed it too would have been preordained by a Christian god. The co-inventor of differential calculus, German polymath and theologian, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), reasoned like this, “But if in truth an intelligible explanation is to be sought in the nature of the thing it will come from what is clearly apprehended in the thing…for the success of the whole system is due to divine preformation.”THE NATURALISTSToward the middle of the 18th century the French naturalist and mathematician, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788), began publishing his work on natural history, Histoire Naturelle – an opus that amassed 36 volumes that continued to be amended even after his death. By looking at the history and evolution of the natural world, Buffon was the first to articulate patterns of ecological succession – the successive structural change of species over time. He rejected Christian Creationism and theories of the preordained mechanistic unfolding of nature and provided vivid and expertly rendered illustrations to the contrary.He took elements of Aristotle's blood theories, qualitative approaches to inquiry, and aspects of both spermists and ovists to merge them with empirical evidence and compelling writing to make convincing arguments for unexplainable actions vital to the creation and evolution of the natural world.As the late professor of history and Director of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Studies at UCLA, Peter Hanns Reill, wrote, Buffon “emphasized the primacy of living over inanimate matter, asserted the existence of inner, active forces as central agents in nature, envisioned a world of new creation and leaps in nature, and proclaimed the ineffable quality of individuality and the manifold variety of nature.”Through “comparison”, “resemblance”, “affinity”, and “analogical reasoning” he “revitalized and historicized nature without denying the existence of a comprehensible order.” This provided a path for science to embrace qualitative reasoning without foregoing the rigor, language, and quantitative aspects of mathematics embraced by mechanists like Newton and Descartes.It wasn't only ecological communities that could be explained this way. Society and politics could too. This admission further worried mechanists and theologians. They feared any acknowledgement that mysterious random events, be it at a particle or societal level, that could lead to a ‘vital action' creating unforeseen mutations accuses the Christian god of not understanding his own creations. It would reject both ‘divine preformation' and ‘God's will'.This came at a time of social revolutions, debates, and contestations over human rights, freedoms of religion, and ‘we the people.' Mechanists married the certainty of mathematics with the certainty of their Christian god to explain the world. If nature and society lacked the linear precession of clocks, compasses, and mathematical calculations, they feared such uncertainty would unravel societal order and unleash chaos.Naturalists continued to point to ‘internal' vital forces that created perceptible ‘external' microscopic and macroscopic evolutions that countered the dominant inert, deterministic, and mechanical philosophies and beliefs. But the seduction of certainty remains with us to this day, even when we know it not to be true.The Scottish philosopher and historian, Adam Ferguson (1723-1816), suggested as much writing, “Our notion of order in civil society is frequently false: it is taken from the analogy of subjects inanimate and dead; we consider commotion and action as contrary to its nature; we think it consistent only with obedience, secrecy, and the silent passing of affairs through the hands of a few.”Ferguson goes on to use a brick wall as an analogy. He continues,“The good order of stones in a wall, is their being properly fixed in places for which they are hewn; were they to stir the building must fall: but the order of men in society, is their being placed where they are properly qualified to act. The first is a fabric made of dead and inanimate parts, the second is made of living and active members. When we seek in society for the order of mere inaction and tranquility, we forget the nature of our subject, and find the order of slaves, not of free men.” Buffon's new modes of inquiry transformed fields formally beholden to mechanistic dogma like medicine, physiology, and chemistry. But it seems economics remain seduced by the determinism of linear, mechanistic, mathematical approaches despite it being a branch of the social sciences. While it may have dropped religion, it has yet to fully embrace the “notion of order in civil society is frequently false.” It's time conventional economics acknowledge there are mysterious ‘vital forces' internal to nature and society resulting in external perturbations that propagate indeterminant permutations. Tune in next week as I explore what that might look like.Thank you for reading Interplace. This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io
Falls euch cogitamus gefällt, lasst bitte ein Abo da und/oder empfehlt uns weiter. Abonnieren könnt ihr uns auch auf YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@cogitamus Unterstützen könnt ihr uns ebenfalls: paypal.me/cogitamus oder cogitamus@posteo.de. Schaut auch mal auf UNCUT vorbei: https://www.uncut.at/. Das 18. Jahrhundert kommt mit großen Schritten auf uns zu: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) wirkt als letzter Universalgelehrter dieser Zeit in Leipzig und Hannover. Auf welchen Gebieten hat er seine Interessen entwickelt? Welche sind seine philosophischen Werke? Wie kritisiert er den cartesischen Substanzbegriff? Was sind die Monaden und welche Eigenschaften kennzeichnen sie? Löst Leibniz das Leib-Seele-Problem zufriedenstellend? Inwiefern nutzt Leibniz die berühmte Herkulesmetapher für die angeborenen Ideen, ist er eher Rationalist oder Empirist? Was sagt seine Theorie der „besten aller möglichen Welten“? Wie lässt sich damit die Theodizee-Frage beantworten und wie kann diese Antwort bewertet werden? Auf all diese Fragen werden wir eine Antwort finden oder ganz in philosophischer Tradition weiterführende Fragen entwickeln. Nächste Folge der Reihe Existenz & Sprache: Existentielle Grenzerfahrungen Nächste Spezialfolge: Pierre Bayle und der Deismus als Beginn der Aufklärung Timemarker 00:00 Intro & Rückblick Conway 03:47 Biographie & Philosophische Werke 13:25 Monadentheorie & Prästabilisierte Harmonie 29:35 Angeborene Ideen & Herkulesmetapher 33:01 Theodizee 39:11 Zusammenfassung & Abschlusszitat Literatur/Links/Quellen Vorlesungen Uni Wien Geschichte der Philosophie III: Neuzeit (David Wagner) Busche, Hubertus (2008): „Monade und Licht. Die geheime Verbindung von Physik und Metaphysik bei Leibniz“, in: Bohlmann, Fink u. Weiss (Hg.): Lichtgefüge des 17. Jahrhunderts. Rembrandt und Vermeer – Spinoza und Leibniz. München: Fink, 125–162. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1996): „Kritik der Philosophischen Prinzipien des Malebranche. Entrentien de Philarète et d'Ariste, suite du premier entrentien d'Ariste et de Théodore“ [1711], in: Ders.: Hauptschriften zur Grundlegung der Philosophie. Übers. von Buchenau. Hamburg: Meiner, 257–274. Philosophenlexika & Nachschlagewerke (Hans Joachim Störig – Kleine Weltgeschichte der Philosophie) Flasch, Kurt. (2009). Kampfplätze der Philosophie : Große Kontroversen von Augustin bis Voltaire (1. Auflage 2009.). Klostermann. Bild: https://image.geo.de/30146610/t/sN/v3/w1440/r1.7778/-/gottfried-wilhelm-leibniz-jpg--83509-.jpg Thumbnail & Videobild: https://austria-forum.org/attach/Wissenssammlungen/Essays/Literatur/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz_Theodizee/Gottfried%20Wilhelm%20Leibniz.jpg & https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6528777d/f13.highres
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
Hello Interactors,Beauty may be in eye of the beholder, but it’s also in the brain. We all seem to be drawn to balance, order, and predictable patterns which rulers, T-squares, protractors, and compasses have readily provided. It’s the stuff maps are made of. They’ve brought progress and good fortune to many over the centuries, but have they also lead to our decay?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…HIGH FASHIONI can’t deny it. I’m a sucker for grids. I’m drawn to music, art, and designs that are balanced, orderly, and intelligible. Give me a ruler, a protractor, a compass, and a pencil and I’d happily make art and designs all day. Growing up I’d handcraft lettering on cards using my Dad’s plastic flowchart stencils. What can I say, I’m a product of modernity. A neat and tidy aesthete.But that attraction was called into question last week as I was watching The Hobbit. The movie’s protagonist, Bilbo Baggins, lives in an organically shaped earthen home carved into the side of hill. There’s not a Cartesian grid or plane anywhere to be found. Every wall is curved as if bored into the hillside by a giant gopher. I was so smitten that I murmured out loud to my family, “I could definitely live in that house.” Has my planar proclivity passed me by, or has the curving complexity of nature caught my eye?Neuroscience has uncovered evidence that we humans, perhaps other animals as well, tend ‘like’ and/or ‘want’ aesthetic order and balance. Evidence of elements in oddities ordered by humans abounds in centuries of found paintings, carvings, jewelry, and even cities.But firm empirical conclusions of this gray-matter matter remain elusive. Although, neuroscientists do agree on one thing: there is no single ‘beauty center’ in our brain. When hooked up to brain imaging machines, scientists observe “activity in the frontal pole, left dorsolateral cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, temporal pole, motor cortex, parietal cortex, ventral stratum, and occipital cortex, among others.” And there is ongoing work trying to tease out the order in which these activities unfold betwixt the vast network of synapsis in a brain containing as many neurons as stars in the Milky Way. A task seemingly more complex than the identification of the regions themselves.If aesthetically pleasing ordered intelligibility is indeed a universal mammalian trait, getting to that cognitive state is complex – understanding it even more so. Some scientists believe another reason concrete evidence is elusive is because the visual stimuli used across studies varies considerably.Designing and administering cognitive research requires rationalizing inputs across studies to achieve more predictable outcomes. This ‘streamlining’ of the scientific method is not only applied to studies, but to the design and manufacturing of products, and the planning, mapping, and administration of our neighborhoods, cities, regions, and states.Political scientist and legal anthropologist James C. Scott once alluded to the similarities between designing observational studies and the design of our modern urban environments writing,“The builders of the modern nation-state do not merely describe, observe, and map; they strive to shape a people and landscape that will fit their techniques of observation.”Scott’s 1998 book, Seeing Like a State, is critical of what he calls High Modernism which is an over-reliance on Cartesian principles, the scientific method, and unfaltering faith in technology. While he admits these advances improved – and continue to improve – the human condition, he believes blind adherence to these aesthetic, bureaucratic, and technocratic principles may have also put us on a path toward what we now see as potential human extinction.The list of ‘High Modernists’ in art, science, design, and politics is long, but Scott created a “Hall of Fame” of geo-political modernists like former U.S. Secretary of Defense and Cold War strategist Robert McNamara known for his ‘scientific management’ style, New York commissioner-cum-urban planner and power broker Robert Moses, founding head of Soviet Russia and dictator of the proletariat Vladimir Lenin, the Shah-of-Iran who sought to modernize and nationalize his entire country and industry, and the influential architect and urban designer Le Corbusier who advocated for standardized inhumane design and erasure of historical and cultural tradition – especially in the aftermath of war.Scott’s full list includes people of not any one political persuasion. He reveals how both conservatives and progressives are capable of “sweeping, rational engineering of all aspects of social life in order to improve the human condition.” He notes they all use “unrestrained use of the power of the modern state as an instrument for achieving these designs.” And he observes the public really has no recourse, nor often the desire, to resist it. He says,“The ideology of high modernism provides, as it were, the desire; the modern state provides the means of acting on that desire; and the incapacitated civil society provides the leveled terrain on which to build (dis)utopias.”That ‘desire’, as it were, I suspect is partially driven by the aesthetics found in the uniformity, balance, and order of ‘High Modernists.’ Parsimony, the reductive removal of redundancy, is what persuades people to purchase overpriced but simplified products like Prada. It’s what spurred Tom Wolfe to observe in his book From Bauhaus to Our House that elite modernists want to fill cities with “row after row of Mies van der Rohe.” The German architect was known for his stark rectilinear buildings made of what he called ‘skin and bone.’In addition to fashion and architecture, modernist desire was (and still is) embodied in many elements of society and popular culture from literature, to industry, to transportation. Much of this progress occurred during the Industrial Age of the 19th century. I can imagine the exhilaration of high speed movement through space over time on a bike, car, or train surely began with fright but ended in delight. Even desirable.As Scott points out, the state provided the means for this desire to manifest. He invites us to,“imagine that what these designers of society had in mind was roughly what designers of locomotives had in mind with ‘streamlining.’ Rather than arresting social change, they hoped to design a shape to social life that would minimize the friction of progress. The difficulty with this resolution is that state social engineering was inherently authoritarian.”FROM CRAWLING TO SPRAWLINGIt was locomotives that brought many colonizers to my home town, Norwalk, Iowa in the late 1800s. But the first was Samuel Snyder in 1852. He built a log cabin near an area called Pyra. He was likely on the land of the Báxoje (Bah-Kho-Je) people, or as neighboring tribes called them ayuhwa “sleepy ones” otherwise known as Iowa. Pyra was a few miles south of the state capital, Des Moines (Hartford of the West) that was incorporated just one year earlier.By 1856, four years later, Pyra had a post office and a new resident, George Swan, who made his presence known by “putting up a pretentious edifice, to be used as a hotel.” Swan was a politician and newspaper publisher who moved from Norwalk, Ohio but was born in Norwalk, Connecticut. He became postmaster in part to change the name of the town from Pyra to Norwalk.The renaming of Indigenous place names to Western names is another common act of the ‘High Modernist’, as is laying out a town in your vision. Which was the next thing Swan did.The county and the township had already been gridded and platted as part of Thomas Jefferson’s squaring of a nation, but it was Swan’s ‘authoritarian’ vision that allowed for the ‘social engineering’ of the town I grew up in. He was aided by a handful of settlers including Jesse Huff and Mary Huff. One of my best friends came from the Huff family, his uncle was our baseball coach, and his grandpa was the long time Norwalk city manager. That’s three generations of city administration aided by the modern state’s ‘means of acting on the desire’ to ‘level terrain’ so they may build their ‘utopia.’It took until the 1950s and 60s before Norwalk become a true suburb of Des Moines – an expansion beyond what Swan could ever have imagined. Its population sputtered growing modestly between 1900 and 1950 from 287 to 435, but then grew 205% between 1950 and 1960 to 1,328. The town didn’t expand beyond Swan’s initial footprint until 1969 and it’s been sprawling ever since. It’s now hard to discern the border between Des Moines and Norwalk. When I lived there in the 60s, 70s, and 80s corn and soybean fields provided a visible gap.Despite these well-intentioned ‘High Modernists’ sprawling attempts around the world at carefully planned and engineered social utopias, scholarly literature reveals what Scott suspects. Research across economists, geographers, and planners suggests this general consensus:“urban sprawl as a multidimensional phenomenon [is] typified by an unplanned and uneven pattern of urban development that is driven by a multitude of processes and which leads to the inefficient utilisation of land resources. Urban sprawl is observed globally, though its characteristics and impacts vary.”The words ‘uneven’ and ‘multitude of processes’ and ‘inefficient utilization’ resulting in ‘varying impacts’ don’t fit the exacting premise promised by enlightened ‘High Modernists.’ This study I’m quoting was done in reaction to the fact that despite the populations of European cities declining, their footprints have continued to sprawl since the 1970s. They say, “There is no sign that this trend is slowing down and, as a result, the demand for land around cities is becoming a critical issue in many areas.” This is the essence of urban sprawl.The ordinal origins of sprawl are synonymous with their historic modernist and economic origins – the Central Business District. The shape and pattern of the impending sprawl in the United States and Europe is like a spider spinning it’s web from the center out. Causes are often oversimplified by a focus on the economic trade-off between housing prices and commuting costs. Importantly, this economic function is a result of the modern state’s role in ‘providing the means of acting on the desire’ of select individuals to live ‘elsewhere.’There are other factors that determine the shape, resolution, and scale of sprawl. A 2006 study determined that“sprawl in the USA between 1976 and 1992 was positively related to groundwater availability, temperate climate, rugged terrain, decentralised employment, early public transport infrastructure, uncertainty about metropolitan growth and the low impact of public service financing on local taxpayers.”Other studies include another big factor in the United States, ethnicity: that same 2006 study found “that increases in the percentage of ethnic minority populations within cities and rising city centre crime rates both led to a growth in urban sprawl.” Curiously, a similar study focused on Europe “confirmed the positive impact of higher crime rates on sprawl, but observed the opposite effect for the impact of ethnic minority populations.”I HAVE A CITY IN MINDSprawl isn’t just happening in the U.S. and Europe, but in developing countries as well. Since opening up in 1979, China has seen unprecedented sprawl in conjunction with their rise in socioeconomic development. Urbanization increased “17.92% in 1978 to 59.60% in 2018, and scholars predict it will reach 70% in 2035 and 75% in 2050.”As is the case in the United States and Europe, “the expansion of urban land mainly sacrifices rural land, especially cropland, which produces negative effects such as ecological degradation, water and land loss, and soil pollution.” This study concludes that “urban land expansion has garnered much attention, and studies have focused on land transition monitoring, effects analysis, and mechanism identification. However, discussions on suburban development and its subsequent effects remain insufficient.”These researchers draw attention to three commonly used dimensions in studying sprawl:Administrative - Administrative boundaries such as towns close to a city.Spatial - Location, Density, and Spatial Activity adjacent and within commuting distance of the city.Social - Attributes such as classes, races, and ethnicities of residents that distinguish cities and suburbs.A primary thrust of ‘High Modernism’ are found in those first two dimensions. ‘High Modernists’ seek to ease the ‘administrative’ costs through the reduction of ‘spatial’ complexity. There’s actually nothing modern about that, really. Unless you consider the 5th century BC Greek polymath Hippodamus ‘modern’. He is considered the ‘father of European urban planning’ beginning with his grid plan of the Greek port city Piraeus that remains today. But being a mathematician, he no doubt was seeking spatial parsimony for city administrators.The economist Herbert Simon (who studied decision making in large organizations) describes the ‘administrative man’ this way:“Administrative man recognizes that the world he perceives is a drastically simplified model of the buzzing, blooming confusion that constitutes the real world. He is content with the gross simplification because he believes that the real world is mostly empty – that most of the facts of the real world have no great relevance to any particular situation he is facing and that most significant chains of causes and consequences are short and simple.”Simon elucidates how the first two dimensions of the effects of ‘High Modernist’ urban sprawl, – ‘administrative boundaries’ and remote measures of ‘spatiality’ – are ‘gross simplifications’ of the ‘buzzing, blooming confusion that constitutes the real world.’ This ‘real world’ may be better evidenced in the third dimension of measures, ‘social attributes such as classes, races, and ethnicities of residents that distinguish cities and suburbs.’But even these attributes can remain removed the real world if viewed from a map or table of data. We need only look at Redlining as an example of how ‘social’ dimensions can be used to negate, subjugate, frustrate, dictate, alienate, arbitrate, automate, and attempt to eliminate certain classes, races, and ethnicities through actuated, calculated tax rates, interest rates, and loan rates through a slate of mandates from magistrates of the city-state, state-state, and nation-state.The French Philosopher, Michel de Certeau, observes in his book The Practice of Everyday Life how Walking in the City, despite its gridded plans, results in people defiantly deploying practical and tactical shortcuts despite attempts by centuries of ‘High Modernism’ to control them. He writes that ‘the City’,“provides a way of conceiving and constructing space on the basis of a finite number of stable, isolatable, and interconnected properties.”But he also wonders if this concept of the city is decaying. He reflects on the strength, resiliency, and tenacity of humanity despite the potential erosion of ‘High Modernism’ and asks,“Does that mean that the illness afflicting both the rationality that founded it and its professionals afflicts the urban populations as well?”He invites us to not turn our “bewilderment” of ‘High Modernism’ in ‘catastrophes’” of its undoing but instead,“analyse the microbe-like, singular and plural practices which an urbanistic system was supposed to administer or suppress, but which have outlived its decay…”As much as I like the ordered, gridded aesthetic, I’ve come to better appreciate the beauty in our ‘microbe-like’ natural world. Modernity may be defined by the analytical geometry of Descartes, but I can’t help but wonder if the work of another 17th century mathematician may come to shape our future.His name is Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, the German mathematician who invented, perhaps along with Isaac Newton, calculus. Leibniz is also credited with discovering self-similarity which forms the bases for Benoit Mandelbrot’s fractals. Mandelbrot’s geometry, his ‘Art of Roughness’, describes the mathematics behind branching systems found in fern leaves, cauliflower, trees, and coastlines as well as our circulatory system, nervous system, bronchial system, and maybe even Bilbo Baggin’s hobbit home in the hill. If it wasn’t for the fractal-like nature of the gray-matter of our brain, it wouldn’t be able fold upon itself to fit within the small cavity of our cranium. Even its network of neurons, and the synaptic patterns they form as we fawn over beauty, follow the mathematical laws of Leibniz and Mandelbrot. Our world may not need be ordained by Cartesian order because it’s already organized. We just need to understand it and follow its lead.As neuroscientists continue to map the brain in search of what draws us to order and balance in objects as well as cities, perhaps they could consider the conjecture of British physicist and distinguished professor of the Santa Fe Institute, Geoffrey West when he writes:“…because the geometry of white and gray matter in our brains, which forms the neural circuitry responsible for all of our cognitive functions, is itself a fractal-like hierarchical network, this suggests that the hidden fractal nature of social networks is actually a representation of the physical structure of our brains. This speculation can be taken one step further by invoking the idea that the structure and organization of cities are determined by the structure and dynamics of social networks……In a nutshell: cities are a representation of how people interact with one another and this is encoded in our neural networks and therefore in the structure and organization of our brains.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io
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!
„Die beste aller möglichen Welten. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in seiner Zeit“, so lautet der Titel einer jüngst erschienenen Biografie über den Universalgelehrten Leibniz. Vorgelegt hat sie der Historiker und Leiter der Leibniz-Forschungsstelle Hannover Michael Kempe. Er taucht ein in die Tiefen der Theorien, Experimente und Erfindungen, wie: Summenzeichen, Monadenlehre, die Welt gedacht in Einsen und Nullen oder die Wasserkunst in den Herrenhäuser Gärten in Hannover. Michael Kempe erzählt das außergewöhnliche Leben eines Genies des Denkens und eines Tausendsassas.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) ist neben Descartes und Spinoza der dritte der großen rationalistischen Philosophen der Neuzeit. Kein Spinozanischer Monismus und kein Cartesischer Dualismus, sondern eine Metaphysik der unendlich vielen einzelnen Substanzen wird in seinem Denken expliziert. Die Dinge sind ihrem metaphysischen Wesen nach Monaden, fensterlos, aber, wie in barocken Spiegelsälen, einander ins Unendliche spiegelnd. In ihrer Fluchtlinie verweisen sie auf die Zentralmonade, die Darstellung des Gottesgedankens. Keine zwei Dinge unter der Sonne gleichen einander. Nicht einmal ein Blatt gleicht dem anderen. Ähnlichkeit, also das Zusammenspiel von Identität und Differenz bestimmt die Ordnung der Dinge, die immer wieder auf die philosophische Grundfrage zurückgeführt wird, vor der auch Schelling und Heidegger staunend und erschreckend stehen bleiben werden: Warum ist Seiendes und nicht vielmehr nichts?
Il suffit d'allumer la télévision à 20h ou de naviguer sur le net pour s'en rendre compte : le mal qui sévit dans le monde est bien réel et a de quoi nous démoraliser. Au point de se demander, comme Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, si nous vivons vraiment dans le « meilleur des mondes possibles »… Retrouvez le Moment Philo avec Aziliz Le Corre chaque lundi !
Isaac Newton bol veľký frajer. No veľký frajer bol aj Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, preto sa ich sporom zaoberá svet až dodnes. Kto objavil diferenciálny kalkulus? Koho nápady boli plagiát? A načo sú vlastne dobré derivácie a integrály? O tom všetkom diskutujú Jozef a Samuel. Podcast vzniká v spolupráci so SME. Podcastové hrnčeky a ponožky nájdete na stránke https://vedator.space/podporte-nas/ Vedátora môžete podporiť cez stránku Patreon https://www.patreon.com/Vedator_sk Podcast môžete počúvať aj cez Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/V-spotify Apple: https://tinyurl.com/V-applePodcast Podbean: https://tinyurl.com/V-podbean Google Podcast: https://tinyurl.com/V-GooglePodcast YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/V-YouTube-kanal Vedátora nájdete aj na FB: https://www.facebook.com/vedator.svk IG: https://www.instagram.com/vedator_sk/ web: https://vedator.space/
Isaac Newton bol veľký frajer. No veľký frajer bol aj Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, preto sa ich sporom zaoberá svet až dodnes. Kto objavil diferenciálny kalkulus? Koho nápady boli plagiát? A načo sú vlastne dobré derivácie a integrály? O tom všetkom diskutujú Jozef a Samuel. Podcast vzniká v spolupráci so SME. Podcastové hrnčeky a ponožky nájdete na stránke https://vedator.space/podporte-nas/ Vedátora môžete podporiť cez stránku Patreon https://www.patreon.com/Vedator_sk Podcast môžete počúvať aj cez Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/V-spotify Apple: https://tinyurl.com/V-applePodcast Podbean: https://tinyurl.com/V-podbean Google Podcast: https://tinyurl.com/V-GooglePodcast YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/V-YouTube-kanal Vedátora nájdete aj na FB: https://www.facebook.com/vedator.svk IG: https://www.instagram.com/vedator_sk/ web: https://vedator.space/
In the 1960s, mathematician and computer scientist Gregory Chaitin published a landmark paper in the field of algorithmic information theory in the Journal of the ACM – and he was only a teenager. Since then he's explored mathematics, computer science, and even gotten a mathematical constant named after him. Robert J. Marks leads the discussion with Professor Gregory Chaitin on… Source
Pat and Jim continue their series on Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's On The Ultimate Origination of Things, which presents an argument for the existence of God based upon the principle of sufficient reason applied to contingent things. What is the argument, exactly? And does it still hold up today? Leibniz's response to the problem of evil will be explored, as well. Please visit our new website at http://www.philosophyforthepeople.com
Pat and Jim continue their series on Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's On The Ultimate Origination of Things, which presents an argument for the existence of God based upon the principle of sufficient reason applied to contingent things. What is the argument, exactly? And does it still hold up today? Leibniz's response to the problem of evil will be explored, as well.
Enlightenment. The European Age of Reason....Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Cesare Beccaria, Denis Diderot, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, John Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Hugo Grotius, Baruch Spinoza...#Enlightenment, #Age of Reason, #Europe, #History Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Mandelbrots. Math proofs and selfless Catholicism. It’s Monday. Let’s do this.
Heute geht es um die Frage: "Kann es in einer chaotischen Welt voller Leid Gott geben?" Der Käptn wird jedenfalls vom Zustand dieser Welt in den Wahnsinn getrieben: „Ich kann diesen Scheiß nicht mehr länger mit ansehen." Kann ich so von Gott reden? Ich denke Klage und Wut und Zorn haben ihren Platz. Und schon Hiob geht mit Gott hart ins Gericht und Gott sagt dazu: es ist in Ordnung. Es gibt auch Klagepsalmen die deutlich sind. Und immer kommen in der Bibel der Zweifel und die Verlassenheit vor. Wenn ich aber Gott zu einem Monster mache, was ich nur noch ablehnen kann – dann wird es schwer in Kontakt zu kommen, dann verbaut diese Ablehnung den Gehörgang für einen Dialog. Wie kann das aufgelöst werden? Das komplizierte Wort, um das es geht, lautet „Theodizee“. Dieses Wort hat sich Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ausgedacht – es geht dann darum, wie hängen Allmacht, Gerechtigkeit und der Wille Gottes mit dem Zustand unserer Welt zusammen. Leibnitz hatte im 17.Jahrhundert das Gefühl in der besten aller möglichen Welten zu leben. Wenn es dann üble Dinge gab, dann kann ich daraus lernen oder Dinge relativieren. Aber ist es so einfach? Falls es eine perfekte Welt gibt, wird sie durch unser Gezerre um Macht und Einfluss manchmal sehr ungemütlich. Außerdem gibt es auch schlimme Dinge, die wir nicht erklären können. Und wir erleben derzeit ja eine aus den Fugen gehende Welt, nix funktioniert so richtig, die Natur spielt verrückt, die Pandemie ist nicht zu kontrollieren und zu diesen Sachen kommt dann noch das, was Menschen anderen Menschen einfach so antun – da könnte uns Gott doch echt einmal in unserer Ohnmacht helfen. Im Song hört sich das so an: „Tret' ich irgendwann mal in dein Himmelreich ein, pack ich dich, und zerr dich zu uns runter! Leb' diesen Scheiß selbst, geh darin unter!“ Für mich beschreibt Käptn Peng hier die Geschichte von Jesus Christus. Jesus kann sagen „Mein Gott mein Gott warum hast du mich verlassen.“ Einsam und verzweifelt, lassen ihn die Menschen hängen. Er ist in unserem Scheiß untergegangen. Er hat sich so richtig in unser Lebensmuster verstricken lassen. Aber in ihm gibt es die Idee, wie der Ausstieg aus dem Scheiß funktionieren kann. Auch wenn es ganz hart ist, es ist nicht das Ende, da gibt es die Idee und sogar das Gefühl des „unendlichen Jetzt“. Foto: ©Philip Wölke Homepage: https://7tage1song.de Playlist Podcast und Song: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/20KHRuuW0YqS7ZyHUdlKO4?si=b6ea0b237af041ec Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/7tage1song/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pg/7tage1song/ Kontakt: post@7tage1song.de Link zum Song: https://songwhip.com/shaban/von-form-zu-form Spotify Playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0M5tOXTC0lM8RVycUBQnjy?si=idKC-CFaRp2ZD992gvWvsQ
It has been a long time coming… I don’t think we fully appreciated what we getting ourselves into here. Unfolding, with intervals, over the coming months, the buddies begin their three-part reading of Gilles Deleuze’s 1988 book The Fold. Beginning with a quick look at the life and times of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, each ofContinue reading "Episode #07: The Fold (Part 1)"
This is the best of all possible worlds. - Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz In this episode, we introduce Leibniz. We begin speaking of his many achievements and contributions to the world, and also give some background to the other rationalists with whom he was a part of. We consider his principles, theory of monads, and how his faith was instrumental in both his rational thought and his thoughts of metaphysics. We briefly discuss free will and his thoughts on God's role in the world. In the next episode we will consider Voltaire and his view on Leibniz's thoughts, as well as discuss critiques of Leibniz by Plantinga, Bertrand Russell, and Kant. Always feel free to let us know what you think, or any episode requests. We would love to hear from you! Thank you for listening and we'll see you next time as we search for truth on the road that never ends!
La Asociación Española para el Avance de la Ciencia (AEAC) desarrolla tertulias Científicas para dar a conocer a los Grandes Personajes de la Historia de la Ciencia. El personaje de hoy es: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
Today’s ID the Future episode features excerpts from a lively conversation with Frank Turek as host and Stephen Meyer as guest. The focus: Meyer’s new USA Today bestseller, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe.* The two discuss the new book, and Meyer fields questions from the audience. The conversation originally appeared on Turek’s national radio show, CrossExamined, and the excerpts from that longer interview are used here with permission. (*As an Amazon Associate, Discovery Institute earns from qualifying purchases.) Source
"Elke eenvoudig substantie heeft relaties die alle andere substanties uitdrukken en daarom is elke eenvoudig substantie een levende, eeuwige spiegel van het universum.” Op deze manier drukte de Duitse filosoof Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz uit dat het universum niet bestaat uit ontzielde materie en verder niets, maar organisch en bezield is. Hoe integreerde Leibniz wiskunde, natuurkunde, psychologie en metafysica in zijn denken? Welk verhaal plaatste hij tegenover het atomaire wereldbeeld van Descartes en Newton? En hoe toonden 200 jaar na zijn dood de relativiteitstheorie en de kwantumtheorie zijn gelijk aan? Te gast is Paul Schenderling De denker die centraal staat is Leibniz
Listen in as Robert J. Marks picks the mind of Professor Gregory Chaitin about Chaitin’s number – a number that has been called “mystical and magical”. How does this number work? Why do some people call it “Chaitin’s constant”? What is the usefulness of philosophizing in mathematics? Show Notes 00:27 | Introducing Gregory Chaitin and Chaitin’s number 01:32 | Chaitin’s… Source
Listen in as Robert J. Marks picks the mind of Professor Gregory Chaitin about Chaitin’s number – a number that has been called “mystical and magical”. How does this number work? Why do some people call it “Chaitin’s constant”? What is the usefulness of philosophizing in mathematics? Show Notes 00:27 | Introducing Gregory Chaitin and Chaitin’s number 01:32 | Chaitin’s… Source
What does it mean for something to be unknowable? Is creativity non-computable? Do all things have a level of consciousness? Jump into today’s podcast, where Robert J. Marks continues his discussion with Gregory Chaitin about mathematical theory and philosophy. Show Notes 00:23 | Introducing Gregory Chaitin 00:40 | What is unknowability? 06:07 | Does non-computable mean unknowable? 09:43 | A… Source
What does it mean for something to be unknowable? Is creativity non-computable? Do all things have a level of consciousness? Jump into today’s podcast, where Robert J. Marks continues his discussion with Gregory Chaitin about mathematical theory and philosophy. Show Notes 00:23 | Introducing Gregory Chaitin 00:40 | What is unknowability? 06:07 | Does non-computable mean unknowable? 09:43 | A… Source
------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Kateřina Lochmanová is currently finishing her postgraduate studies of philosophy at the University of Ostrava, where she graduated with a diploma thesis entitled Iracionality of a Wager on Life in the Context of Benatar's Antinatalism. She is one of the coorganisators of conferences on antinatalism in Ostrava as well as in Prague (with Vlastimil Vohánka, Filip Svoboda, David Černý and Tomáš Hříbek). At present, she is primarily concerned with geometry and metaphysics of space by a German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, but peripherally she is still interested in the subject of antinatalism too, especially in (the history of) Benatar's asymmetry argument. She is the editor of History of Antinatalism: How Philosophy Has Challenged the Question of Procreation. In this episode, we focus on History of Antinatalism, and aspects of its philosophy. We start with the history, and then get into topics like the philosophy of Schopenhauer and David Benatar; the human condition; promortalism; abortion; human extinction; pronatalism; homicide; euthanasia; and nihilism. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, BO WINEGARD, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, ANJAN KATTA, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, MAX BEILBY, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, OMARI HICKSON, PHYLICIA STEVENS, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JOÃO ALVES DA SILVA, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, MIRAN B, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, MAX BEILBY, AL ORTIZ, NELLEKE BAK, AND KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, SERGIU CODREANU, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, AND NIRUBAN BALACHANDRAN! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, AND MATTHEW LAVENDER!
Hypothetically Are We Fixated On Culture? © 2021 PODCASTIn this ambience abstractly speaking this question becomes the platform in time, the cultural geographical space of focus and the act of fixating. At this abstract level Hypothetically Are We Fixated On Culture? © 2021 if indeed and in fact we are then this becomes a presupposition question that is very “complex"; that being the case, it is also logical to assume that Culture in this context is not a fixed subject but may be comporting itself as a conditional proposition.William Anderson GittensAuthor, Cinematographer Dip.Com., Arts. B.A. Media Arts Specialists’ License Cultural Practitioner, Publisher,CEO Devgro Media Arts Services®2015,Editor in Chief of Devgro Media Arts Services Publishing®2015WORKS CITED "Guinness Book of Baseball World Records". Guinness World Records, Ltd. Archived from the original on 6 June 2012. Retrieved 7 July 2012. “The record for the fastest time for circling the bases is 13.3 seconds, set by Evar Swanson at Columbus, Ohio in 1932...The greatest reliably recorded speed at which a base-ball has been pitched is 100.9 mph by Lynn Nolan Ryan (California Angels) at Anaheim Stadium in California on 20 August 1974.” "Oxford Dictionaries:Time". Oxford University Press. 2011. Archived from the original on 4 July 2012. Retrieved 18 May2017. “The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole” Burnham, Douglas : Staffordshire University (2006). "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) Metaphysics – 7. Space, Time, and Indiscernibles". The Inter-net Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 14 May 2011. Retrieved 9 April 2011. “First of all, Leibniz finds the idea that space and time might be substances or substance-like absurd (see, for example, "Correspondence with Clarke," Leibniz's Fourth Paper, §8ff). In short, an empty space would be a substance with no properties; it will be a substance that even God cannot modify or destroy.... That is, space and time are internal or intrinsic features of the com-plete concepts of things, not extrinsic.... Leibniz's view has two major implications. First, there is no absolute location in either space or time; location is always the situation of an object or event relative to other objects and events. Second, space and time are not in themselves real (that is, not substances). Space and time are, rather, ideal. Space and time are just metaphysically illegitimate ways of perceiving certain virtual relations between substances. They are phenomena or, strictly speaking, illusions (although they are illusions that are well-founded upon the internal properties of substances).... It is sometimes convenient to think of space and time as something "out there," over and above the entities and their relations to each other, but this convenience must not be confused with reality. Space is nothing but the order of co-existent objects; time nothing but the order of successive events. This is usually called a relational theory of space and time.” Duff, Okun, Veneziano, ibid. p. 3. "There is no well established terminology for the fundamental constants of Nature. ... The absence of accurately defined terms or the uses (i.e., actually misuses) of ill-defined terms lead to confusion and proliferation of wrong statements." Fixate | Definition of Fixate by Merriam-Webster www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › fixate Gittens,William Anderson, Author, Cinematographer Dip.Com., Arts. B.A. Media Arts Specialists’ License Cultural Practitioner, Publisher,CEO Devgro Media Arts Services®2015,Editor in Chief of Devgro Media Arts SeSupport the show (http://www.buzzsprout.com/429292)
Heute geht’s um eine weitere Runde im Kampf zwischen Dialektik und Positivismus, sowie um den elektronisch geführten, virtuellen, öffentlichen Diskus. Nee, Diskurs. Es treten auf: Tilo Jung, Steven Pinker, Sir Karl Popper, Banksy, Hans Jessen, Thomas Hobbes, Mad Max, Jürgen Habermas, Andreas Rosling, Galileo Galilei, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Aristoteles, Heinz Strunk und der ideale Uhu. Folge abspielen
Feeling stuck and not sure how to get on track? If you've ever wanted a complete breakthrough in your life, then do we have the show for you! Today I'll be talking with Dr. John DeMartini human behaviour and personal development specialist, the bestselling author of over 40 books, and the creator of The Breakthrough Experience A Revolutionary New Approach to Personal Transformation. That is just what I want to talk with him about today, about how to get unstuck, get on track, and have a complete and total breakthrough in your life. That plus, we'll talk about Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Paul Dirac, Ludwig Boltzmann, positive and negative particles and anti-particles, and what in the world philias and phobias have to do with anything! Are you ready to shine? To find out more visit: https://drdemartini.com/ https://drdemartini.com/breakthrough-experience/ https://www.amazon.com/Breakthrough-Experience-Revolutionary-Approach-Transformation/dp/1561708852 ……. Follow Michael and Jessica's exciting journey and get even more great tools, tips, and behind-the-scenes access. Go to https://www.patreon.com/inspirenation For free meditations, weekly tips, stories, and similar shows visit: https://inspirenationshow.com/ We've got NEW Merch! - https://teespring.com/stores/inspire-nation-store Follow Inspire Nation, and the lives of Michael and Jessica, on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/InspireNationLive/ Find us on TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@inspirenationshow
Well we are on the verge of a new year. I know a lot of you are going to be really sad to say goodbye to 2020. We’ve all really bonded with this year and as we say goodbye, we might experience some detachment, mourning and grief associated with genuine loss. But with a stiff upper lip we’ll try our best to move forward and not just live in the nostolgia of covid and masks, rioting, political debate.Now in all seriousness, 2020 will be part of your story. You will look back and tell future generations who did not live through it, what it was like. These events shape us. The STORY of 2020 will be a shared experience that will forever be part of your life. Telling our story and knowing how our story fits into the greater story is one of the most fundamental aspects of being human.Story is so ingrained in us. It’s so fundamental. You prove this just by how our culture is structured.You turn on TV and you watch stories.Video games are not challenges, they are stories.Live theater.Our brains are hardwired to ingest stories. An often cited clinical study shows that experiencing an event and hearing a story about the event is almost identical in terms of brain activity.Why is that? Because stories, more than perhaps anything else, help us understand and discover meaning. I begin with the concept of story because today we begin a new study in the book of John entitled “The Story of Amazing Love.”And this is the story of all stories because this story CLAIMS TO solve two of humanities greatest problems. The story as told in the gospel of John gives you answers to two of the biggest human problems you EXPERIENCE in life whether you are actively asking the question or not. These problems are so enormous, 99 percent of people have given up trying solve them. These questions are so giant, so significant, most people don’t even think they are solvable and so they just try to find a way to cope, to manage, to shove the problems.So I’m going to introduce the two problems. Here’s the first one.How can I be both known and loved? Here’s how this problem goes. Let start with the first half: I want to be known. Solving this problem is definitely possible. I can start letting people in. And at first it feels good to disclose who I am and tell my story and divulge things I’ve never told anyone else. And that feels great doesn’t it.It’s incredible freeing to just disclose our deepest secrets and finally tell someone that thing that we’ve been carrying around like a ball and chain. It just feels completely liberating! But as we do that we discover something not so great. When people see who we really are, they begin to withdraw. They don’t like what they see. We see the shock in their eyes and the horror on their face when they see who we really are. And that causes us to freeze.You see we want to be known but we also want to be loved. We solve this problem in this exact opposite way. In our desire to be loved, we don’t disclose who we really are; instead, we project a more loveable image in hopes of that being received. We manipulate our image. We post pictures to instagram or Facebook that look very attractive. We hide the failures, project the success and now suddenly we are loved but it’s fake. It’s pretend. We are loved but not known. How do we get both? How can we be BOTH known and LOVED. That’s a hard problem to solve and most don’t think it’s solvable.That’s the first problem the gospel of John claims to solve. The problem of being known and loved - that’s a pretty tough nut to crack. But you think that’s a tough problem, try this one.Now I say it that way, not to be crass but to awaken us to the reality that we too often forget about. It’s a physical problem that has to do with blood pressure and oxygen levels and tissues and DNA and organs. Our lives are coming to a end and as amazing as modern medicine is, there is nothing that can be done to fix this problem. And that’s kind of significant: whatever meaning you discover in life will be stripped away from you in death.So how do I not die? You want to talk about a fundamental problem to the human race? Try death. Death is the problem of problems. Death is the ultimate destroyer. It’s the grand daddy of all problems.So in my estimation, these are the two greatest problems that humanity faces. Ones a spiritual problem and the other is a physical problem. Here in the gospel of JOHN there’s content here that solves both these problems. It solves the problems by telling us a story that is simultaneously both meaningful and true.Some stories are meaningful but not true. Chronicles of Narnia. They don’t deal with reality but they do help you with meaning.Other stories are true but are not meaningful. A newspaper article four weeks ago about gas prices. They deal with reality but they don’t help you with meaning.This story is meaningful because it’s true. In other words, it solves the meaning problem by dealing with a reality problem.The gospel of John, this story of amazing love, tells you how you can be known and loved and how you can have eternal life. As we get into the book you will see how it deals with the problem of unworthiness and how it deals with the problem of death.The answer isn’t short or simplistic. It wll take us 21 chapters to do that. But here’s the thing you need to realize for our purposes today - it can only solve those problems if you believe that the story is true. You must believe that it’s true.If it’s just a story then it certainly can’t solve the death problem because nothing in reality has changed. The cells that break down, the physical aging process, the brain cell loss - all of that is still happening.If it’s just a story, it can’t solve the loved and be known problem either. Because nothing materially has changed - The deep dark unflattering, unloveable secrets are still there.In order for this story to solve those problems it MUST BE TRUE. It must be history.But now we introduce a third problem. The claim that this is a true story is a problem. We are being asked to believe something, that at first blush, seems rather unbelievable. Being asked to believe this story is history is for some a difficult pill to swallow. We have giant claims that a man born of a woman is in fact part of a triune God, water to wine miracles, blind people seeing, people rising from the dead. That sounds like a great story but it can’t possibly be true.Nobody is expected to easily believe that, right? If you believe it too quickly, you wouldn’t be respected. It has many, many elements that are not easily believable. But, here’s the deal, the fact that you are asked with a straight face to believe it, suggests, that maybe it’s worth investigating.The story of amazing love is very hard to believe. But guess what? Here’s the good news. This is why the gospel of John was written. There are four gospels, and each gospel has a unique purpose. Did you know this? Here’s some interesting facts about each of the gospels.Matthew was written to Jews to present Jesus as Messiah to a Jewish audience waiting to receive their Messiah.The Gospel of Mark emphasizes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and comes at it from the perspective of three groups of people that didn’t understand Jesus.Luke was a historian and he wrote Luke/Acts to Theopholis to provide an accurate account.Now while these gospels differ in their content, there is a large amount of overlap. Compare this to the book of John.John writes a gospel in which 90% of it is unique. This is to make the point that John has a very unique purpose in the book.This was the last gospel written and it was written very intentionally not primarily to describe what happened. That’s what the other gospel writers have already done. John writes for a purpose. And he states that purpose very clearly at the end of his book.Now do you see? John was written so that you might BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, that the story is history, and do you see the connection. THAT BY BELIEVING YOU MIGHT HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME.IT IS THE BELIEF THAT IS THE PREREQUISITE FOR LIFE!It’s the prerequisite for spiritual life and the prerequisite for physical life.Belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living is the prerequisite for your DEEPEST spiritual need and your deepest physical need.John was written so you might believe this unbelievable story. So everything we read in the book was written with this purpose in mind for you to believe that this story is true. To believe that this is in fact history.So I want to talk to you today if you do not yet believe this. Maybe you are watching online. Either way, I’m glad you are here.I’m glad your not just biting this off hook line and sinker. That shows critical thinking. It shows that you are a person who is seeking truth. I want to warn you. This story has convinced millions of people. It is very convincing! And I want you to be convinced because look at the benfits. Truth believed is incredibly life changing. Feel free to talk to me at any point if you have questions. I’d love to help you get answers!The Concept of NothingNow today we are only going to cover the first five verses. Now interestinglyJohn’s gospel doesn’t begin with a genealogy or the Christmas story or the early boyhood of Jesus.Thankfully, we have just come off the Christmas season and so that is all fresh in our minds.John begins with the eternal non-beginning of a pre-created universe and a non-created God. Here’s how John starts his gospel.This is intended to transport us not to the beginning of Jesus’ earthly life, but to the beginning of the space/time continuum of our physical universe. This transports us right back to Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."Now I want to stop right there. Now we are so familiar with this but try to not be for a moment. In terms of philosophical grounding or in terms of worldview cornerstones, this is massive. To say that God created the heavens and the earth is like being lost in a snowstorm and pulling out your spiritual compass and finding north. The fact that God, the eternally existent one, created everything we see is the bearing off which everything else is oriented. In the beginning God was. In the beginning was the pre-incarnate Word. That totally orients us so we can begin making sense of what we see.This is strictly the point he’s making. God always was. In the beginning God was wasing. In the beginning God.Here’s what John is doing here,We will soon be introduced to this person who appears very human. We will be reading about JESUS, this very human man,this flesh and bone being who drinks water,and talks with people,and gets tired and needs to sleep at the bottom of a boat,and who weeps when friends dieHe’s connecting that man with the eternally existent triune God.In the Beginning GOD.Now to appreciate this, I want you to try to imagine nothing. The best illustration of nothing that I can think of is darkness. Have you ever been in a cave and turn off the flashlight? In most other situations when you turn off the lights, your eyes adjust and you can make out faint sources of light (maybe starlight or an led off a device or a pinprick of distant light from a lamp.) But when you are in a cave deep underground, there’s just nothing. You can stay there two days or two years. There’s zero light.That’s darkness, but we still haven’t arrived at the concept of nothing. You have to take away all objects. So take away the cave. Take away the rocks. Take away the grass and trees, the land, the water, the cows, the goats, the hamsters, the earth, and all the planets. We are getting closer.That’s still not enough. We now need to take away the air. So no air which of course means no sound since sound has to travel through a medium.And finally we need to take away the heat. So your body chills to a frigid absolute zero temperature of -459.67 degrees F.No sun. No stars. Which means no light waves, no energy waves. The darkness, the nothingness is now complete. You are suspended in space, in absolute absence of light, absolute absence of heat, absolutely absence of movement because after all motion has to be in reference to something else.There’s nothing to stimulate sight, sound, taste, touch or smell. You are a frozen block existing in nothing. That sounds cheery.What existed at this moment?Well the text says that the WORD existed. Now we know that the WORD spoken about here is representative of Jesus because down in verse 14 it says:So just tuck that away, that the Word = Jesus Christ.That’s where we are headed, but we aren’t there. John 1:1 is talking about the pre-incarnate word.This is the pre-incarnate Jesus. What does that word incarnate mean? We get our word carnivore from that root. A flesh eating animal. So pre-incarnate means pre-enfleshed. Before Jesus had a body.In the beginning, before Jesus had a body and was just spirit, was the word. We are not talking about the Jesus with flesh and blood. It’s not talking about a man with legs and arms and flesh and a heart. He became that. Jesus’ life did not begin like our life did at BIRTH. Jesus had not beginning. That’s the point the author is making.In the Beginning, if you could be there at that moment, there would be nothing to see, nothing to smell, nothing to taste, nothing to touch, but there would be something there. In the beginning was the Word. In dimenesions totally other, God existed.Now why do I mentally back us up to this point? To make the point that if you are going to change from a state of nothing to a state of something, energy has to be injected into the equation. 0 + 0 is always going to equal 0.Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz the father of Calculus and the binary system said over 300 years ago, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" That’s a pretty good question. If you look around and see something. If you look around and discover anything other than absolute zero nothingness, then logically you must have a SOURCE of energy, power, and life to infuse something into nothing.The Bible likes the logic of Leibniz. Which is why John after saying that the Word was with God from the beginning, goes on to say,Notice that it is not said that all things are made by him. We take things in the universe and manipulate them. Works of art are made by humans. Houses are made by builders.But the universe was made through God. To bake a pizza you have to send it through the oven. The source of power is the oven. The world was created through Jesus.So all the energy, power the life that we experience here on planet earth is a result of the energy, power and life that comes from the pre-existent God who eternally exists.This GOD-Man Jesus Christ, existed before all times and was in fact the creator of all things. We don’t tend to think of the 2nd person of the trinity, the Word, as the creator but the Bible makes it explicit on many occasions.Here we are told that all things are created through him and that they were created for him. That is means and purpose. So clearly, we are told that JESUS CHRIST is the creator of ALL THINGS.That means that Jesus is really powerful. Really powerful. Try to geek out with me for a moment. He can speak a word and the entire universe spins into existence. Now let’s think about what exactly that means. Can we just pause a moment and think in concrete terms about the CREATIVE ABILITY of Jesus.One of the ways to conceptualize this incredible act of creating all things is to just think in terms of raw power. Power is what is needed to do work. So if you need to turn on your mixer, you need power. If you want to run a mile, you need power. If you want to drive your car, you need power. This is essential to get out of the state of nothing. You need power. Think about power.Here is a chart explain the energy output of various things in the universe.The chart is in Joules of energy. I can’t picture a joule of energy, so I put this little dot on 1 calorie which very, very close to 1 joule. 4 joules = 1 calorie so it’s a very small amount of energy.As we work our way around the chart, every increment is a power of ten.10^8 (10 with 8 zeros) joules of energy represents the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline. 1,000,000,000. To give you an idea of how much power is in a gallon of gas. If you convert that to calories, that’s about 30 million calories or 300,000 bananas. If you could drink gasoline, you’d only need about 4 gallons to fuel your entire life.10^9 is the amount of energy in a ton of dynamite10^11 is the amount of energy in a ton of hydrogen10^13 is the first atomic bomb10^18 is the annual energy production of the U.S.10^21 is all the energy since the invention of the tesla coil10^32 is the daily output of the sun10^47 is all the yearly output of the milky way10^55 is the yearly output of the universe10^70 is all the energy in the universe.Those are eye watering amounts of power.Jesus Christ is POWERFUL. John 1:1 is connecting the MAN JESUS with this CREATIVE POWER. That’s amazing. Now the text goes further. Not only is Jesus Christ the source of all power. He is the source of all LIFE. You get this astounding two sentences that will become the entirety of our remaining meditation.Not by him, not through him, but IN HIM was life.Here’s the incredible point that is being made here. God is life in himself. God is the source of life. He is life. So to have life, you must be IN the source of LIFE in the same way that to be wet you must be IN WATER. It cannot be any other way.This is why when you read the NT one of Paul’s favorite ways to reference a Christian is those who are “in Christ.”In HIM was LIFE. Spiritual life and physical life the same.The ApplicationSo I want to come back to it and help you see where John is going in this book. The book of John claims to answer some of the greatest questions known to man.How can I have spiritual life? How can I be known and loved? How can I have physical life? How can I live forever?John begins by saying, this life that we all are longing for can only be found in Jesus Christ. And let me try to explain what a bombshell this would have been.Our English translations say, “In the beginning was the Word.” That’s the Greek word logos and it’s a highly loaded philosophical term in the 1st century. Greek philosophers talk about it, the stoics talked about it, Philo writes entire books about it. It meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people. But the core idea was that this was the ultimate expression of meaning, fulfillment, purpose. It was the highest ideal.And so these ancient philosophers after debating this idea for centuries came to recognizing something very important. They recognized that for that to even make sense, for there to even be a concept of purpose or meaning, there had to be a God.For example, I could show you this object and say, “Hey can you tell me if this is a good trinandoid?” How can you possibly answer that question?You have to first ask, "What’s a trinandoid? What’s it supposed to do." Only after you know what it is supposed to do, can you then evaluate whether it is operating according to it’s design. This is not a trinandoid. I just made up that word. This is actually a mechanical calculator. So is this a good one?Now you can start evaluating. What are features of a good calculator.it calculates correctly,quicklyconvenientlyeasilySo you’d test it by punching in a math problem on the keypad to the right and then you’d see if it printed the right numbers on the roll of paper. You evaluate it based on it’s design. It’s a good calculator if it calculates.Ancient philosophers realized this. We can’t evaluate if a life is good or bad unless of course we know what the purpose of that life is. And so that was the quest. What is the logos? That’s why the concept of logos was closely linked with the concept of God.What is the ultimate meaning behind life? You need a God to even have a category for meaning. And from plato to the present you have had all these attempts and philosophical theories to say, “What is the logos”.Confucianism says the logos of life is to achieve harmony.Buddhism says the logos of life is to remove desire.Zoroastrianism says the logos of life is to bring happiness into the world to combat the battle against evil.The reason it’s so important to find the logos, and presumably the reason so many people are miserable is that they aren’t operating according to their design. What if I tried to use this mechanical calculator as a hammer? Not only would it not be very effective at sinking nails, it would destroy the calculator such that it could not function any longer according to it’s design.You’d be smashing and smashing and saying, “This thing is a piece of junk.” It’s not a piece of junk. You haven’t been using it as it was designed.Here’s the horror and tragedy of the Bible. We have been using the calculator as a hammer. We thought that the goal of life was to make everything revolve around us and our happiness. We thought the goal of life was to build a kingdom in which we are king. And because we were not designed to be fulfilled in that way, it means not only are we miserable because we are operating outside of our design, but we have permanently destroyed ourselves so that even if we did want to operate in our design, out souls are wrecked such that we could never experience it.We can never experience the perfect design because we are wrecked! The gears are smashed flat by repeated hammering and all the keys are broken off. The thing doesn’t work any longer. Things are permanently damaged and irreparable.And I’m not overstatign: We sense that problem in the two greatest problems mankind faces.How can I have spiritual life?How can I have eternal life?Now here’s where John just comes in a drops a bombshell. I mean this is like a philosophical nuclear warhead.“Guess what? There is a logos to life, but it’s not a truth brought by a person; it is a truth that is a person.The logos is not an abstract principle.The logos is not a theorem.The logos is not something you can find in a book.The logos is a human being, God come to earth. The logos became flesh and LIVED among us and we beheld his glory.”When you know this One and when you behold his glory and when you serve this One and when you worship this One, you find your reason for life. Now there’s meaning and purpose and LIFE. This is what the book of John is about. It’s what Christianity is about. It’s solving these massive problems.Christianity, is not a philosophy. It’s true that you can develop a philosophy from Christianity. You can talk about philosophy that rises out of Christian belief, but it’s not a philosophy; it’s life; it’s power.It’s being connected to GOD who is power and life.Christianity is a person.Christianity is Christ.Jesus is going to say later on in the book, I am the way, the truth and the LIFE. No man comes to the father except through me.That’s what it’s talking about right here. Jesus Christ is not an abstract bit of truth; he is your Alpha and he is your Omega. He is the thing you were created by, and he is the thing you’re created for. That’s what gives you meaning. Jesus CHRIST GIVES YOU LIFE AND GIVES IT TO YOU ABUNDANTLY.Church ThemeEvery year we have a church theme as a way to really drive home a concept we feel like is important for us as a church body.In 2020 God providentially guided us through two sections of Scripture that were so incredibly helpful, Ecclesiastes and the story of Joseph. And we learned about the meaning of life, how to think about suffering, how to think about pleasure, how to think about the sovereignty of God through it all.Change what you love. Hopefully what you ended up loving in 2020 was God and particularly the love of God for you. Well this year we want to build on that. Last year we wanted to focus on taking our eyes off the trinkets of the world, we want to encourage you through the book of Ecclesiastes to stop loving money, sex, power, pleasure and instead fear God and keep his commandments. Love the God of love. Love the fact that God loves you!So this year we build off that idea.Life in his LOVE.So now in 2021 we want to explore what it looks like to have Life in His Love.
Is the concept of God useful at a time of crisis? German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and French writer and philosopher Voltaire had different views on that question.
Cerramos el racionalismo moderno con Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, hablamos de las Mónadas, lo que opino sobre el entendimiento humano y sobre su optimismo metafísico
La question de Leibniz. Il y a de nombreuses années, un penseur et écrivain allemand du nom de Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz s’est demandé quelle était probablement la question la plus fondamentale et la plus fondamentalement possible: « Pourquoi y a-t-il quelque chose au lieu de rien? » Emission présentée par Murielle Victoire et le Pasteur Héry Daunès Crédit (Habillage audio) : Musique proposée par La Musique Libre Nicolai Heidlas - Drive : youtu.be/-4sbuID9fwM Nicolai Heidlas : @nicolai-heidlas
Le philosophe Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz écrivait que l'existence du mal n'était pas la preuve de l'inexistence de Dieu, mais au contraire le signe de sa bienveillance. Mais comment résoudre ce paradoxe ? En quoi le mal peut-il nous conduire au bien ? Si cet épisode vous a plu, alors je vous encourage à soutenir le podcast : En faisant un don ponctuel sur PayPal : http://paypal.me/leprecepteurpodcast Ou en donnant une petite somme régulière sur Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/leprecepteurpodcast Pensez à laisser une note et un avis sur Apple Podcast/iTunes ou Spotify. Cela prend quelques secondes, et c’est un geste très utile pour le référencement du podcast ! Et bien sûr, continuez à partager les émissions que vous préférez sur vos réseaux sociaux. Le Précepteur Podcast a été créé pour vous et continuera d’exister grâce à vous. Du fond du cœur : Merci ! (Pour toute demande, vous pouvez contacter l’équipe du Précepteur Podcast ici : leprecepteurpodcast@gmail.com)
The Turing test, developed by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour indistinguishable from a human. Many think that Turing’s proposal for intelligence, especially creativity, has been proven inadequate. Is the Lovelace test a better alternative? What are the capabilities and limitations of AI? Robert J. Marks and Dr. Selmer Bringsjord discuss… Source
The Turing test, developed by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour indistinguishable from a human. Many think that Turing’s proposal for intelligence, especially creativity, has been proven inadequate. Is the Lovelace test a better alternative? What are the capabilities and limitations of AI? Robert J. Marks and Dr. Selmer Bringsjord discuss… Source
Von der Schönheit des Unvollständigen, posthumanen Politiken und der Notwendigkeit einer Syntechnisierung – Gedanken weben mit Paul Feigelfeld. Shownotizen Paul bei Twitter: https://twitter.com/paulfeigelfeld Friedrich Kittlers TAZ-Artikel über die NSA "No Such Agency" (aus dem Jahr 1986): https://taz.de/taz-Artikel-von-1986-ueber-NSA/!5050644/ Beitrag von Paul Feigelfeld und Jussi Praikka zu Kittlers "No Such Agency": https://theoryculturesociety.org/kittler-on-the-nsa/ Beitrag zu Bezos' Idee, die Schwerindustrie in All zu verlegen: https://www.fastcompany.com/90347364/jeff-bezos-wants-to-save-earth-by-moving-industry-to-space Benjamin Bratton Artikel "Outing Artificial Intelligence. Reckoning with Turing Tests" (Bezug zu kopernikanischen Kränkung im Gespräch): https://mediarep.org/handle/doc/3016 Anekdote zu Gödels amerikanischer Staatsbürgerschaft; in "Kurt Gödel: Collected Works: Volume I: Publications 1929-1936" (Oxford University Press, 1986): https://books.google.at/books?id=5ya4A0w62skC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=g%C3%B6del+morgenstern+dictatorship&source=bl&ots=FnM13l97ot&sig=ACfU3U2I4D-D5DU-ot5bjfCnqewZC5ToIQ&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwih58GPjvzpAhXssosKHc9dA0cQ6AEwA3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=g%C3%B6del%20morgenstern%20dictatorship&f=false Homepage epicenter.works: https://epicenter.works/ Homepage DLD-Conference: https://dld-conference.com/ Homepage Decode Project: https://decodeproject.eu/ Jaromil Roio on how some work of the Decode Project got snatched by Facebook for their Libra Project: https://www.theinternetofthings.eu/denis-jaromil-roio-reported-wired-our-work-eu-funded-decode-project-being-used-facebook-its-new Homepage of the think & do tank Dyne: https://www.dyne.org/ "Kritik der Polizei" von Daniel Loick (Hrsg.): https://www.campus.de/buecher-campus-verlag/wissenschaft/politikwissenschaft/kritik_der_polizei-15111.html Audiomitschnitt der Buchpräsentation von Daniel Loicks "Kritik der Polizei" (Mosaik Blog-Podcast): https://mosaik-blog.at/polizei-loick-podcast/ "Das Manifest für Gefährten" von Donna Haraway: https://www.merve.de/index.php/book/show/504 Homepage IFK: http://www.ifk.ac.at/index.php/home.html Wiki zu Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz Wiki zu Kurt Gödel: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del Wiki zu Georg Cantor: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor zu kritischem Posthumanismus siehe z.B. die Arbeit von Rosi Braidotti: https://rosibraidotti.com/ Weitere Episoden Future Histories zum Thema: S01E05 von Future Histories mit Marlies Wirth & Paul Feigelfeld zu künstlicher Intelligenz: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01e05-marlies-wirth-paul-feigelfeld S01E12 Daniel Loick zu Anarchismus: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01e12-daniel-loick S01E05 mit Felix Stalder zu Machtausübung durch Algorithmen: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01e04-felix-stalder S01E02 zur Socialist Calculation Debate: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01e02-socialist-calculation-debate Wenn euch Future Histories gefällt, dann erwägt doch bitte eine Unterstützung auf Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories? Schreibt mir unter office@futurehistories.today und diskutiert mit auf Twitter (#FutureHistories): https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast oder auf Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/FutureHistories/ www.futurehistories.today
Kurt Gödel toppled a tall tower of mathematical reasoning with publication of his work showing no formal system of math could be both complete and consistent. He also gave a mathematical proof of the existence of God. Is Gödel’s proof valid? Robert J. Marks and Dr. Selmer Bringsjord discuss mathematics, Kurt Gödel, and the ontological argument. Show Notes 01:05 |… Source
Kurt Gödel toppled a tall tower of mathematical reasoning with publication of his work showing no formal system of math could be both complete and consistent. He also gave a mathematical proof of the existence of God. Is Gödel’s proof valid? Robert J. Marks and Dr. Selmer Bringsjord discuss mathematics, Kurt Gödel, and the ontological argument. Show Notes 01:05 | Read More › Source
Im November 2016 jährte sich zum 300. Mal der Todestag von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Er war Philosoph, Mathematiker, Historiker, Diplomat, Jurist und vieles mehr. Leibniz gilt als das letzte Universalgenie. Seine Entdeckungen und die Revolutionierung des Zahlensystems haben Computer, Internet und soziale Netzwerke erst möglich gemacht. Seine visionäre Kraft zum Guten für "die beste aller möglichen Welten", wie er sie beschreibt, hat ihn zeitlebens angetrieben. Ohne seine grundlegenden Überlegungen zum binären Zahlensystem, von Null und Eins, und der Infinitesimalrechnung wären die Online-Imperien von Google und Facebook vermutlich nicht möglich. Dreihundert Jahre vor einer globalisierten Kommunikation und lange vor Facebook und Instagram hat Leibniz "Freunde" in aller Welt - mehr als 1300 Briefpartner. In Hannover, wo Leibniz vierzig Jahre lang am Hof des Herzogs als Bibliothekar und Berater tätig ist, liegt ein Großteil seines Nachlasses. Leibniz hat in seinem Leben so viel geschrieben, dass bislang nur ein Teil der insgesamt 200.000 Blatt erfasst und herausgegeben wurde. Voraussichtlich erst im Jahr 2055 wird alles ediert sein. (Online-Signatur Medienzentren: 4986823)
Why does anything at all exist? Why does the universe exist? Why isn't there just nothing? Originally formulated by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and developed and defended by modern-day apologist Dr. William Lane Craig, The Argument from Contingency argues that the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is to be found in the creative will of God. It is this theistic argument that Evan Minton will be talking about in this episode. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/evan-minton/support
Roll up, roll up, roll up, or if you are in Queensland and melting in this heat wash up instead. Wow, this week we have an awesome and exciting show full of fun and laughter for you to enjoy. We also have a special guest joining us to recap the fabulous Supanova Brisbane!!! That’s right folks, Supanova again (we need Kermit the Frog here running off waving his hands). We talk about some of the cool things we saw, some of the things that made us laugh, and why Buck seems to fear lycra, although to be fair it is a valid point.We also announce the winner of the Nerdy Bag of holding competition. Congratulations to Jessica on winning our inaugural Supanova competition. We hope to have it again next year so, make sure you listen to get involved, also next year we will make entry available for our international listeners. Now I can give you no more spoilers or teasers on this week’s episode as there is just sooooo much to look forward to other then yes, Buck did argue with some people at Supanova.Oh, we do have the games being played, the regular shout outs, remembrances, birthdays and special events for the week. We also wish to give a special thank you to some awesome people, the legends at Sons of Obiwan, the heroes at SuperTee, and the Rockstar Shaun at Comics2Movies, they all contributed gear to the Nerdy Bag of Holding. Thank you so much for helping to make this happen. Also a huge thank you to the all-powerful Podfather (All hail the Podfather) for helping us be at Supanova and the Baroness for all her hard work in organizing the event, also her patience when we were misbehaving like little boys with all the excitement.Professor, Buck & DJ - Nerds Amalgamated Supernova review featuring Shaun from Comics2moviesGames currently playingBuck– Call of Duty : WW2 - https://store.steampowered.com/app/476600/Call_of_Duty_WWII/Prof– Call of Duty : WW2 - https://store.steampowered.com/app/476600/Call_of_Duty_WWII/DJ– DNPShaun– Star War Jedi Fallen Order - https://store.steampowered.com/app/1172380/STAR_WARS_Jedi_Fallen_Order/Other topics discussedNerds Amalgamated episode 82 (Last time Shaun appeared)- https://thatsnotcanon.com/topshelfnerdspodcast/episode82Changes to Supanova 2020 Gold Coast- https://www.supanova.com.au/events/gold-coast-2020/about/Fanboy vs Zombies (comic book series)- https://comicvine.gamespot.com/fanboys-vs-zombies/4050-47586/John Travolta (American actor)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_TravoltaChris Hemsworth (Australian actor)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_HemsworthDaredevil (Netflix TV series)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(TV_series)Kit Walker (also known as the 21st Phantom)- https://ghostwhowalks.fandom.com/wiki/21st_PhantomDeborah Ann Woll (American actress)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Ann_WollSons of Obiwan photo with Deborah Ann Woll- https://www.instagram.com/p/B4oubOyBHcr/Adam Tuominen (Supanova Brisbane 2019 guest)- https://www.supanova.com.au/guests/adam-tuominen/- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_TuominenJulie Benz (Supanova Brisbane 2019 guest)- https://www.supanova.com.au/guests/julie-benz/- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_BenzSupertee- https://www.supertee.com.au/Sons of Obiwan Saber Academy- https://www.sonsofobiwan.com/The Fandom Zone (formerly known as the Fortress)- https://www.youtube.com/user/swayzo14John Jarratt (Australian actor)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_JarrattWolf Creek (2005 Australian horror thriller film written, co-produced, and directed by Greg McLean)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Creek_(film)Wolf Creek (2016 Australian horrorweb television series)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Creek_(TV_series)What about Sal (Australian movie starring John Jarratt)GoFundme page - https://au.gofundme.com/f/what-about-salTNC Podcasts- Floof and Pupper podcast - https://thatsnotcanon.com/floofandpupperpodcast- And Then They Fked - https://thatsnotcanon.com/attfpodcast- Musicals Taught Me Everything I Know - https://thatsnotcanon.com/mtmeikpodcastBrisbane Hackerspace (HSBNE inc)- https://hsbne.org/Other Supanova stalls- Airbrush Tatts N Caps - https://airbrushtattsncaps.com/- Shoot it First Jewellery - https://shootitfirstjewellery.square.site/- ZQRacing - https://www.zqracing.com.au/Kimberly Clark (author of Infernum)- https://www.facebook.com/KimberleyClarkNovels/Infernum (written by Kimberly Clark)- https://www.amazon.com.au/Infernum-Kimberley-Clark-ebook/dp/B07767FSMFComics2movies- http://www.comics2movies.com.au/Drunk guys playing darts- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHkwINR5490Tolkien and C.S. Lewis: The Gift of Friendship (Book about the friendship between C.S. Lewis and Tolkien)- https://www.amazon.com/dp/1587680262/?tag=christtoday-20Sir Christopher Lee (English actor)- https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Sir_Christopher_Lee- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_LeeShoutoutsCongratulations to Bag of Holding winner Jessica9/11/2019 - Thanks to Sons of Obiwan, ComicstoMovies & Supertee for their contribution to the Bag of Holding9/11/2019 - Thanks to the musicals podcast for the headphones9/11/2019 - Thanks to the Podfather and Baroness for helping us at Supanova11/11/2019 - QLD Bushfires - https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/severe-fire-conditions-expected-to-heat-up-today/live-coverage/a04e2dfd0e3a13a4aa8e3aeb482cf79eRemembrances11 Nov 1918 - George Lawrence Price, Canadian soldier. He is traditionally recognized as the last soldier of the British Empire to be killed during the First World War. He was fatally shot in the left breast by a German sniper as he stepped out of the house into the street. He was pulled into one of the houses and treated by a young Belgian nurse who ran across the street to help, but died a minute later at 10:58 a.m., November 11, 1918. His death was just two minutes before the armistice came into effect at 11 a.m. He died at the age of 25 in Ville-sur-Haine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lawrence_Price11 Nov 1918 - Henry Gunther, American soldier and likely the last soldier of any of the belligerents to be killed during World War I. Gunther's squad approached a roadblock of two German machine guns in the village of Chaumont-devant-Damvillers near Meuse, in Lorraine. Gunther got up, against the orders of his close friend and now sergeant, Ernest Powell, and charged with his bayonet. The German soldiers, already aware of the Armistice that would take effect in one minute, tried to wave Gunther away. He kept going and fired "a shot or two". When he got too close to the machine guns, he was shot in a short burst of automatic fire and killed instantly. He was killed at 10:59 a.m., about one minute before the Armistice was to take effect at 11:00 a.m. He died at the age of 23.11 Nov 1973 - Artturi Ilmari Virtanen, Finnish chemist and recipient of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Chemistry "for his research and inventions in agricultural and nutrition chemistry, especially for his fodder preservation method". He invented AIV silage which improved milk production and a method of preserving butter, the AIV salt, which led to increased Finnish butter exports. He died from pneumonia at the age of 78 in Helsinki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artturi_Ilmari_VirtanenFamous Birthdays11 Nov 1951 - Kim Peek, American savant. Known as a "megasavant", he had an exceptional memory, but he also experienced social difficulties, possibly resulting from a developmental disability related to congenital brain abnormalities. He was the inspiration for the autistic savant character Raymond Babbitt in the movie Rain Man. Although Peek was previously diagnosed with autism, it is now thought that he instead had FG syndrome. He was born in Salt lake City, Utah - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek11 Nov 1948 - Vincent Schiavelli, American character actor and food writer noted for his work on stage, screen and television, often described as "the man with the sad eyes." He was notable for his numerous supporting roles. He often linked his unique facial appearance and tall stature to Marfan syndrome. Schiavelli gained fame as a character actor. His best-known roles include Fredrickson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the Subway Ghost in Ghost, Organ Grinder in Batman Returns and Dr. Kaufman in Tomorrow Never Dies. Schiavelli also performed in a few video games, including Emperor: Battle for Dune as Harkonnen Mentat Yanich Kobal. He was born in Brooklyn, New York - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Schiavelli11 Nov 1907 - Joseph Gilbert Hamilton, American professor of Medical Physics, Experimental Medicine, General Medicine, and Experimental Radiology as well as director of the Crocker Laboratory, part of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Hamilton studied the medical effects of exposure to radioactive isotopes, which included the use of unsuspecting human subjects. He was born in Waverley, Massachusetts - https://www.onthisday.com/people/joseph-gilbert-hamiltonEvents of Interest11 Nov 1675 - German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz demonstrates integral calculus for the first time to find the area under the graph of y = f(x) function. - http://scihi.org/leibniz-integral-calculus/11 Nov 1930 – Patent number US1781541 is awarded to Albert Einstein and Leó Szilárd for their invention, the Einstein refrigerator. Its an absorption refrigerator which has no moving parts, operates at constant pressure, and requires only a heat source to operate. The three working fluids in this design are water, ammonia and butane. The Einstein refrigerator is a development of the original three-fluid patent by the Swedish inventors Baltzar von Platen and Carl Munters.- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator- Patent - https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf11 Nov 1954 - Publication of "Two Towers", 2nd volume of "Lord of the Rings", by J. R. R. Tolkien by George Allen and Unwin in London. Tolkien wrote, "The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 and 4; and can be left ambiguous." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Towers11 Nov 1961 - Molotov, Malenkov and Kaganovich expelled from USSR's communist party. As a result, and all lived mostly quiet lives from then on. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Party_GroupIntroArtist – Goblins from MarsSong Title – Super Mario - Overworld Theme (GFM Trap Remix)Song Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GNMe6kF0j0&index=4&list=PLHmTsVREU3Ar1AJWkimkl6Pux3R5PB-QJFollow us onFacebook- Page - https://www.facebook.com/NerdsAmalgamated/- Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/440485136816406/Twitter - https://twitter.com/NAmalgamatedSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/6Nux69rftdBeeEXwD8GXrSiTunes - https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/top-shelf-nerds/id1347661094RSS - http://www.thatsnotcanonproductions.com/topshelfnerdspodcast?format=rssInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/nerds_amalgamated/General EnquiriesEmail - Nerds.Amalgamated@gmail.com
Fue protagonizada por unos diagrama de los hexagramas de I Ching enviados a Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz de parte de Joachim Bouvet. Una revelación acerca de los chinos que particularmente llamó interesó a Leibniz llegó en 1700 cuando el jesuita Joachim Bouvet atrajo a la atención de Leibniz enviándole antiguos diagramas chinos que representaban lo que parecía ser una filosofía perdida vital. Estos fueron los hexagramas de I Ching que incluían líneas continuas y discontinuas con progresos en una secuencia que era inconfundiblemente binaria. De hecho, Leibniz había estado desarrollando dicho sistema después de que expresó un gran interés en las bases de números no decimales un tiempo antes.. Meditemos sobre el relato…
Nihil est in intellectu quod prius non fuerit in sensu. Nihil? Nisi intellectus ipse! —trochu latinčiny na úvod a v dnešnej dávke sa dozviete presný preklad a význam týchto dvoch slávnych výrokov vo svete filozofiu. V 79. dávke sme sa pozreli na Lockeovu teóriu ľudského chápania a v jej závere nám vyvstala jedna kľúčová kritická otázka: ak je ľudská myseľ nepopísaný čistý papier a všetko poznanie prichádza na úplnom začiatku z našich zmyslov, metaforicky ale tento obraz nesedí. Ak je myseľ nepopísaný papier, a teda je úplne prázdna, predsa len prázdna nie je, pretože sa v mysli nachádza samotná myseľ. Aj nepopísaný papier je stále papier! A toto je klasická námietka proti Lockeovu empirizmu, s ktorou prišiel jeho súčasník, nemecký filozof Gottfried Leibniz a túto námietku si poriadne rozpitváme. ----more----Použitá a odporúčaná literatúra: Mark Kulstad a Laurence Carlin, „Leibniz's Philosophy of Mind", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(2013 ), https://stanford.io/2ktLS6D Daniel N. Robinson, „No matter. The Challenge of Materialism“, videokurz Great Ideas of Philosophy (2nd Edition),https://bit.ly/2m79xKl Basketbalový experiment, 1999, https://bit.ly/1gXmThe Hank Green, „Newton and Leibniz: Crash Course History of Science #17“, YouTube(2018),https://bit.ly/2lOonoP Viac o monádach: Brandon Look, „Metaphysics: Leibnizian Idealism“ v „Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(2017), https://stanford.io/2kBUesE Súvisiace dávky: PD#77: Intro do rozmýšľania o realite, https://bit.ly/2lULT3DPD#79: John Locke o ľudskom chápaní, https://bit.ly/2kD51TA ***Dobré veci potrebujú svoj čas. Pomohla ti táto dávka zamyslieť sa nad niečím zmysluplným? Podpor tvoj obľúbený podcast sumou 1€, 5€ alebo 10€ (trvalý príkaz je topka!) na SK1283605207004206791985. Ďakujeme! Viac info o podpore na pravidelnadavka.sk/#chcem-podporit
This episode we discuss Optimism/Pessimism and the philosophy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Jana has beef with Isaac Newton. Diane is full of cake. Music by Kevin MacLeod: https://bit.ly/2re87wC. Contact us at aovpodcast@gmail.com.
Sir Isaac Newton PRS was an English mathematician, astronomer, theologian, author and physicist, who is widely recognized as one of the most influential scientists of all time and a key figure in the scientific revolution. His book “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica” "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", first published in 1687, laid the foundations of classical mechanics. Newton also made pathbreaking contributions to optics, and he shares credit with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz for developing the infinitesimal calculus. Newton's Principial formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation that dominated scientists' view of the physical universe for the next three centuries. By deriving Kepler's laws of planetary motion from his mathematical description of gravity, and using the same principles to account for the trajectories of comets, the tides, the precession of the equinoxes, and other phenomena, Newton removed the last doubts about the validity of the heliocentric model of the Solar System and demonstrated that the motion of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies could be accounted for by the same principles. Newton's theoretical prediction that the Earth is shaped as an oblate spheroid was later vindicated by the geodetic measurements of Maupertuis, La Condamine, and others, thus convincing most Continental European scientists of the superiority of Newtonian mechanics over the earlier system of Descartes. Newton also built the first practical reflecting telescope and developed a sophisticated theory of color based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into the colors of the visible spectrum. Newton's work on light was collected in his highly influential book “Opticks”, first published in 1704. He also formulated an empirical law of cooling, made the first theoretical calculation of the speed of sound, and introduced the notion of a Newtonian fluid. In addition to his work on calculus, as a mathematician Newton contributed to the study of power series, Generalized The Binomial Theorem To Non-Integer Exponents, developed a method for approximating the roots of a function, and classified most of the cubic plane curves. Newton was a fellow of Trinity College and the second Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian, who privately rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and who, unusually for a member of the Cambridge faculty of the day, refused to take holy orders in the Church of England. Beyond his work on the mathematical sciences, Newton dedicated much of his time to the study of alchemy and biblical chronology, but most of his work in those areas remained unpublished until long after his death. Politically and personally tied to the Whig party, Newton served two brief terms as Member of Parliament for the University of Cambridge, in 1689–90 and 1701–02. He was knighted by Queen Anne in 1705 and he spent the last three decades of his life in London, serving as Warden (1696–1700) and Master (1700–1727) of the Royal Mint, as well as president of the Royal Society (1703–1727). Information Sourced From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton Body Sourced From: https://youtu.be/oakEOK9GJcM Public Access America PublicAccessPod Productions Footage edited by PublicAccessPod producer of Public Access America Podcast Links Review us Stitcher: goo.gl/XpKHWB Review us iTunes: goo.gl/soc7KG Subscribe GooglePlay: goo.gl/gPEDbf join us on YouTube goo.gl/xrKbJb
Leibniz (1646 - 1716) war Universalgelehrter. Er forderte, verschiedene Kulturen sollten ihre Erkenntnisse aus Medizin, Physik und Ethik zusammenführen. (Produktion 2010)
Ein weiteres Mal beschäftigen wir uns mit der Wissenschaftsgeschichte und richten den Blick auf einen wahren Forschergeist: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz - dessen Todestag sich in diesem Jahr zum 300. Mal jährt - war als Universalgelehrter in seiner Zeit eine der herausragenden Persönlichkeiten und hat die moderne Wissenschaft in technischer, wissenschaftlicher, philosophischer und auch politischer Hinsicht stark geprägt. Wir sprechen mit dem deutschen Mathematik- und Wissenschaftshistoriker Eberhard Knobloch, einem der führenden Kenner von Leibniz' Gesamtwerk, der für uns Werdegang, Schaffen und Bedeutung von Leibniz beleuchtet.
Hva er greia med filosofen, matematikeren, vitenskapsmannen og diplomaten Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz? Bortsett fra at han hadde samme sveis som Amy Winehouse? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Dave Anthony stops by to discuss Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz with Danny. The talk flys, monards and parenting. They also uncover one of the greatest controvercies in Math History! Enjoy!
Dem Philosophen Leibniz verdanken wir die Behauptung, dass unsere Welt "unter allen möglichen die beste" ist. Wie aber lassen sich dann Kriege und Katastrophen erklären? Diesen scheinbaren Widerspruch versucht Leibniz in seinem Theodizee-Argument aufzulösen. Schließlich ist Gott für ihn der größte Rechenkünstler überhaupt.
An exhibition on the statesman and art patron Prince Eugene of Savoy-Carignan is currently open at Vienna’s Belvedere gallery.
14.11.1716 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz stirbt: 1646 kommt Leibniz in Leipzig zur Welt. Er lernt mit 8 Jahren Latein und entwickelt mit 12 Ansätze einer mathematischen Zeichensprache. Mit 15 immatrikuliert er sich an der Universität seiner Heimatstadt und mit 20 meldet er sich zum Doktorat, doch erklärt man ihn hierfür als zu jung...
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
