Quicksilverscreen Does Not Work On Wii

THE LITTLE CATECHISM OF ATHEISM. Book Review, Upstairs, there is nothing. Anthology of unbelief and of free thought, Norman Bailey, Director, When philosophy is pop!, PUL, 2010.

In Quebec, the unbelievers, atheists, agnostics, and now the brights (1), can thank Normand Baillargeon enable them to finally cabinet. The director of this "anthology of unbelief and free thinking" is in his second book, after Happy without God , published last year in VLB, to give voice to those who too long, were stigmatized by their unbelief, their agnosticism or atheism them. As he had done to anarchist thought as well as Noam Chomsky, Bailey gives himself to this mission to spread the Good News: " say loudly that we can be happy without God " by discovering a great tradition of militant anti- marking out religious history of Western thought.

Some will rejoice at this company looks like a gospel announcing the Beatitudes for those excluded from yesterday and today. The moment, at least, appears synchronous with the establishment in Quebec new course for U.S. t hique and religious culture where the study of atheism is the poor relation of the program. It is clear that the author's intention in publishing these two books is to remind loud and the injustice is still victim of this part of human thought.

want to scream too loudly, however, so dazed that may move too quickly on the examination of theories and doctrines, even if everything seems to share this beautiful world which should be called the "disbelief." This word displease some. In reality, there are important differences among them, sometimes subtle. So is atheism as sexual orientation: the kaleidoscopic changes in the extreme.

In this regard, David Hume, who returns with the pen because of Baillargeon, is a scenario that is puzzling. Was he an atheist, agnostic, believer or unbeliever? Hard to say. Baillargeon, believes that "... perhaps Hume was an atheist ..." (p. 2). Yet, after shattering, piece by piece, all arguments Cleanthes in favor of the existence of God, Hume told to Philo in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion " Being a skeptic philosopher is a man of letters, the first step and not the more essential to the state of true believer and true Christian. Dan Dennett, in Darwin is it dangerous? , thinks, for his part, Hume certainly was agnostic and that had he known the theory of Darwinian evolution, it would surely have abandoned agnosticism and atheism married. In fact, on this point we know nothing and nothing can be said. The contrary argument is equally plausible, as Hume was not a skeptic of Sunday merely to be skeptical for the sake of it.

The foregoing points to the main defect of the report: it is clearly oriented and activist, therefore, partial and biased. It obviates retort since it is a defense of disbelief, atheism and free thought. Beware, however: although the book takes a bias reporting, we would have liked a neutral study, less oriented, objective. As proof, the very terms by which militants to designate themselves are numerous, covering various realities. They are "atheists" and "unbelievers", the "agnostic", the "humanist" and "secular", the "secular" and "skeptical" of the "naturalists" of "free thinkers", etc. . A slew of names for all concepts, or one concept denoted by different names? On this crucial point, no answer is given. Perhaps it would be best to speak of "family resemblances" as in Wittgenstein. Already there appear less dense forest.

The Romans rated the early Christians as "atheists" because they ADHERED their polytheism, of course, the latter returned the charge by describing in turn the Romans as "atheists". It is clear that for a Christian at the time, an unbeliever today would be something unbelievable, "sub-human" What! We, the world we live in "modern" - or "postmodern" by some - so that the debate of ours between theism and atheism is inherently modern. As written by Robert B. Stewart, in a remarkable introduction to The Future of Atheism :

It was not until René Descartes in the seventeenth century that rational arguments for God’s existence became the basis by which one would try to prove to skeptics that God certainly exist. The upshot, whether or not Descartes himself held to such a view, was that Western intellectuals began to think that religious conviction is based primarily upon rational beliefs. (2)

L’«athéisme», «l’incroyance» ou la «libre-pensée», peu importe le vocable employé, a donc une histoire; il n’a rien d’une doctrine monolithique qui surplomberait le temps and times. The anthology of Baillargeon does not her cup of tea. It is convenient for the militant atheist to represent atheism as a doctrine unique, timeless, respectable under the prerogative of a long tradition of "faith" than "non-faith." It should indeed never lose sight of that one objective of this publication is the struggle of atheism and secularism in Quebec against, among other things, the course Ethics and Religious Culture .

Other irritating: the fact that Bailey tendentious use in the introduction to the study by Phil Zuckerman (see p. 9 et seq.). Bailey maintains that the study of Zuckerman (3) shows " that atheism and unbelief are increasing in many countries ..." In fact, Zuckerman writes:

Is Growing worldwide atheism or Declining? This is a difficulty to answer questions simply. On the one hand, There Are Atheists more in The World Today Than Before. On the Other hand, worldwide atheism Overall May Be in decline due to Demographic Fact Highly Religious Nation That Have the Highest Birth Rates in the world, and highly irreligious nations have lowest birth rates in the world. As Norris and Inglehart observe, «the world as a whole now has more people with traditional religious views than ever before – and they constitute a growing proportion of the world’s population.» Thus, the picture is complicated, making predictions of the future growth or decline of atheism difficult .(p. 59)

La difficulté à laquelle est confrontée Zuckerman provient précisément de la définition donnée à «athéisme». Certains, par exemple, n’osant pas causer d’esclandre chez leurs proches, n’osent pas s’affubler tel; ils préféreront shut up and remain anonymous, or proclaim themselves free-thinker, or even non-religious, which is less powerful atheist. Moreover, the study of Zuckerman presupposes that religious belief is already foreshadowed by the family and social environment where one is born and lives. This is a sociological conception of questionable adherence to a religious belief qu'endosse implicitly Zuckerman and, consequently, Baillargeon.

Certainly, in the rich industrialized countries, the number of "atheists" is greater than in the Third World. However, the suicide rate is higher. One might ask: are we really happy being an atheist?, If one wants to play on the statistics as Baillargeon prompted. One can not also infer that the wealth and comfort of life in rich countries have reason atheism. Finally, says Zuckerman, " societal santé Seems to cause Widespread atheism, and societal Insecurity Seems To Widespread Belief in God because ." (Ibid.) This statement tends to confirm the gospel that keeps saying that wealth is a obstacle to faith: Talk to Haitians ... " Verily I say unto you, it will be difficult for a rich man to enter the United of Heaven. Yes, I repeat, it is harder for a camel to go through a hole of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven . "(Matthew 19 23-26). In fact, we do not accept the causal role of business in a way or the other on pain of committing the fallacy known as the Latin post hoc ergo propter hoc (after the thing, therefore because of it "). In fact, many rich people believe or disbelieve in God, regardless of their social level.

The militant approach, and therefore biased, so shadowing is at work. I do not recommend to my friends atheists.

I want to finish up another disturbing aspect of the book, whose title could be: UP, THERE IS NOTHING. BOTTOM, THERE IS THE BRIGHTS . I feel a violent dislike about the term "bright " stamped by Dawkins. I confess also feel an aversion to this author equally unspeakable. This British professor of biology, which combines philosophy and who do not belong, is a true pyromaniac. Everything he wrote stirs resentment rather than harmony. In the expression " bright - bright, intelligent - there is such condescension, such contempt for believers, even those who do not share the radical views of Dawkins, reject it.

As an epigraph to Happy without God , Baillargeon with Daniel Baril quote from For God Delusion where Dawkins wrote:

It is realistic, courageous and wonderful want to be an atheist. (...) Atheism is almost always the mark of a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind. (4)

This statement is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, there is no harm in telling someone that appears atheist that is a courageous and dignified. That, on the other hand, another matter to say that atheism is the mark of a healthy mind, because it then implies that one has nothing but contempt for those who are not atheists.

Dawkins never goes dead hand in his inflammatory statements. Thus, the he was in the New York Times (April 9, 1989, Section 7, p. 34.) " When you meet someone who does not believe in evolution, you run no risk by arguing that this person is ignorant, stupid or deranged (or malicious, but I do not want to get in these considerations) ". Dan Dennett is also not kind to those who doubt the theory of Darwinian evolution: "To put it bluntly , but without risk of being wrong, anyone today doubt that the variety of life on this planet is the product of evolutionary processes is simply ignorant - and no excuse in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write. " (5)

Dawkins is the leader of the movement the "New Atheism" ( New Atheism ). The New Atheism is particularly virulent. He describes the religious belief not only false or erroneous, but dangerous . This side is attacking militant repugnant and undermines any attempt at dialogue between believers and unbelievers.

studies that meet the harsh criticism of Dawkins are innumerable. In another post, I gave an account of one of these books, that of Edward Feser, The Last Superstition ( http://enquetedesensjl.blogspot.com/2010/01/la- new-feud-of-old-and-des.html ) which seems to be the most virulent of these attacks-cons. Feser mean debunking the secular vision of the world that has emerged in modern times, showing that the proposed "naturalism" in science and philosophy nullifies the exercise of reason and morality, so that it does is more religion (Christianity) must now be accused of irrationality and immorality, but the secular vision of the world. And like any religion is faced with the superstition, "the last superstition", which would be the mother of all others, is precisely what this vision secular naturalism.

I am doing my part analysis Feser, so, basically, all forms of unbelief are reducible to naturalism. Yet here we open a Pandora's box and the problems start. What in fact the naturalism? There is a serious problem for atheism because no definition of naturalism that makes consensus. Le Petit Robert tells us that naturalism in philosophy is the " doctrine that nothing exists outside of nature, which excludes the supernatural ." Bravo ... What are we to understand by this definition? Take culture: song, writing, traditions, customs, etc.. What looks like a devotee of naturalism? Culture is she or is not part of nature or did it just a supernatural status? What is supernatural, and what is not? The human mind, for example, is it supernatural?

Maybe the following definition of naturalism, derived from a volume addressing the philosophy of science, will be more helpful: " Naturalism is the doctrine that all phenomena are governed by natural laws, and / or the methods of natural science applied in any field of research. "(6)

us consider the" phenomenon "as follows: someone is lying. From the above definition, a supporter of naturalism should believe that the phenomenon in question is governed by natural laws. Is this true? In fact, it seems clear that the individual in question lying does not violate any law of nature, but rather to a moral rule. As Hilary Putnam writes, " if all that is asked of a naturalist that he believes there is no phenomenon that does not violate natural law, then who is not 'naturalistic "?" (7)

As Putnam notes also the definition of naturalism is constituted by a disjunction (and / or) which means that a naturalist is a philosopher who believes that "science methods of nature applicable in any field of research . "What can it mean exactly? Using the example of lying. A naturalist is he bound to believe that the methods of natural science applied to the case of lying? Or what if he is excluded from the research field of natural sciences?

Many philosophers who call themselves "naturalists" will also say - not all! - Materialistic. Darwin Was materialistic? Hard to tell in the absence of a precise definition of "materialism" beyond the usual definition that does not mean much: the Materialism is the doctrine that everything that exists is material. What we should hear exactly is "material". What then is matter? The Water Thales? The atoms of Democritus that nobody has seen? For this reason, some materialists are satisfied with the definition proposed by Descartes: the material is the largest ( Extensia res); brief space. The problem with the Cartesian definition is that a thing can exist over time without being in space. The mind, for example. According to Descartes, Indeed, the thinking thing (res cogitans the ) can exist independently of the body. Hard times for materialistic ...

To circumvent these difficulties, the materials · avid naturalist, prefers to talk about the physical rather than hardware. Wrap himself when he called physicalist, his doctrine, physicalism. Darwin Was physicalist without realizing it too? Unable to answer this question in the absence of a precise definition of physicalism.

In short, naturalism is in the same situation as when trying to define pornography: there is only when it sees.

No wonder Bailey is so hard to define atheism as the naturalism seems to play any definition. Up there, there's nothing checks so the popular saying that goes a ill hugs. The least we can say is that atheists have not yet done with God, and they have every incentive to rebuild their duty and check again if there is not actually there top someone. To do this, instead of the book Baillargeon, I suggested rather the work of Cyril and Roger Michon Pouivet, Philosophy of Religion. Contemporary approaches (Vrin, 2010) which brings together key texts of analytic philosophers on the existence of God. As the English say: that's food for thought .

_______________
NOTES

(1) word used by Richard Dawkins to describe "Those of us who adhere to no religion, those who view the world in terms natural and not supernatural, those of us that rejoices the truth and despise the false comfort of the unreal, to all those, it takes a word, a word to us, a word like 'gay'. You can say 'I am an atheist', but that's old fashioned at best and at worst perpetuates stigma (like: 'I'm gay'). (...) He needed a catchy word, we had the same catchy, as is 'gay'. And like him, it should be a positive word, warm, cheerful and bright. Brilliant? Bright ? Yes: bright. We are brights. The time is not it time to declare in the face of the world? "(quoted on page 52 of Baillargeon's book.

(2) Robert B. Stewart," Introduction: The Future of Atheism: An Introductory Appraisal ", publisher The Future of Atheism, A. McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue, Fortress Press, 2008, p. 4.

(3) Phil Zuckerman " Atheism. Contemporary Numbers and Patterns ", in Martin ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism , CUP, 2007, p. 65.

(4) On page 7 in the word Presentation director Daniel Baril and Normand Baillargeon.

(5) Daniel Dennett, Darwin is it dangerous? , Odile Jacob, 2000 52 .

(6) The Philosophy of Science , R. Boyd, P. Gasper and JD Trout Publishers, Cambridge Mass., The MIT Press, 1991, p. 778. my translation.

(7) I adapt the example of Hilary Putnam in "The Content and Appeal of 'Naturalism', in M. De Caro and D . Macarthur, publishers, Naturalism in Question , Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, p. 60.

Diabetes Type 1 And My Face Is Bright Red

How do you teach Nietzsche?

I am not a Nietzschean, far from it - and God forbid! - But I know that many of my colleagues are. This passage from the master, open by chance, challenged me, and raise my reflection. You, what do you think? How do you teach Nietzsche? That is from

Beyond Good and Evil (# 203). I quote:

"We who profess a different faith - we who hold the democratic movement not only a form of decadence of the political organization but a form of decadence, that is to say, shortening man, for his médiocrisation and lowering its value: what should we use with our hopes? - At new philosophers, there is no other choice to minds and strong enough to print from a movement leading to conflicting assessments and to reverse the "eternal values" to the precursors, to men who form the future in this strain and the node that will force the will of millennia to follow paths new . "

I Really Want An Owl Necklace

always Scoot ...

.

Hello, right now, I do not have much energy to maintain the blog.

So good, I'll let go and am going for a ride ... Soon

.

What Does Ff Mean On Sunbeam Blanket

Russell Williams: the cowardice of the soldier's atheism

I

In a remarkable article," Virtue and Happiness, " the British philosopher Philippa Foot, who died there recently dealt with a daunting question. Here it is.

A Nazi named Gustav Wagner said during his arrest in Brazil where he had been exiled: " I was perfectly happy, and I was not thinking about the past. "(1) Gustav Wagner had served as captain in the Nazi death camps. The question is: can we be happy after having actively participated in the extermination of thousands of human beings? The Nazi felt no shame and alleged that he had made at the time that duty, the objective to purify human beings Europe lower, that is to say the Jews.

There is a logical incompatibility between wickedness and happiness: a wicked man can be happy. Or so argues that Philippa Foot, and has, in my opinion, absolutely correct. The problem is that, firstly, we think rightly, that this was a Nazi bad person, though, on the other hand, it is his belief that the illusionist and were a bad person.

Some argue that in fact was not a Nazi bad person because he has done excellently his dirty work. We can not condemn him on that plane. It is assumed therefore that the Nazi could have done his duty perfectly, but he was mistaken about the cause for which he had so much trouble. In sum, it was a good person, but his beliefs about Jews were completely erroneous.

Say Gustav Wagner has forced a Jewish prisoners of death camps to carry out his fellow captives to save his skin. Clearly, we would call cowardly this prisoner torturer, although beautifully executed his deadly task.

The same ruling applies to Gustav Wagner: it was a coward, even if he has to make "an excellent job." His trial, which is to say his Nazi beliefs, was unfounded, he was naive, he let himself be fooled by the Nazi propaganda. Other Germans like him, at the time, smarter, have fully understood the wandering of Nazism and refused to take part in this, risking their lives.

A person must be brave to be as wise, that is to say conservative . Indeed, as Peter Geach writes: "Without the courage No Other moral virtues: In Particular, no courage Without caution." (2) A rash, for example, misjudge the danger inherent in the situation it is unwise. For its part, the coward exaggerates the danger, it also demonstrated carelessness or naivete. Gustav Wagner was naive and misguided. That's why its so-called "courage" that is cowardice. While he showed great determination, great zeal, resolution, everything you like, but certainly not courage .

The brave man is necessarily conservative, that is to say sagacious. Aristotle is the virtue of prudence (phronesis ) as the virtue par excellence. "Once man of prudence, it has all the other virtues ," he writes. (3)

II

This granted, let us the case of the former Canadian Forces colonel, Russell Williams. The courage to pass under the military of course, can be Brave other than on the battlefield. The former colonel was in his personal life a coward.

When you want to understand the conduct of a person, it should relate to its intentions. It is difficult if not impossible, to discern the intentions of the former colonel except that it was intended to satisfy the fantasies of sexual power. Mario Larivée-Side, clinical sexologist, says

are talking about a sexual sadist, a rapist and a serial killer. A fetishist who disguises herself, which, if one believes clothing girl he loved, was also a pedophile side ... (4)

Sexologist added:

What excited him was to kill, hurt , feeling that he was omnipotent face his victim. To feel he had the right to life or death over it probably did increase the pleasure he derived from his murders.

One might think that "the ogre in his underwear," as was so nicely named Nathalie Petrowski ( Press Wednesday October 20), is that evil, pure and simple flesh and bone, Kakos mentioned by St Augustine (City of God , Book 19). For Augustine, nobody wants evil for evil. So, strange as it sounds, Russell Williams sought a "good" through its criminal monstrosities: desire for power, sexual gratification, fetish, etc..

The author of the famous Confessions examine the possibility of the existence of evil in itself, regardless of the property. Impossible, Augustine concluded: good exist without evil, whereas evil can not exist without good. This is the doctrine of evil as lack of good ( privatio bonus). To support his argument, Augustine considers the existence of a fictional, Kakos (Greek evil (think of caco voice, best shit ... )). Imagine, then, Augustine asks, be a frightfully wicked " who perhaps because of her unsociable ferocity is called 'half-man, rather than men. "But that is Kakos insane by his own wickedness if any good? He certainly wants a "rest free from any molestation of any violence, all terror "from others. In sum, the most vicious creatures call all his wishes enjoyment and tranquility. The least we can say is that Kakos is awkward. His life is miserable and consequently unhappy.

Kakos illustration is spitting image of the infamous Russell Williams. What applies to first apply to another. The least we can say is that the "ogre in their underwear" was incredibly bad clever, it is of sortre deeply miserable and unhappy. He wanted the property, yet the least we can say is that it is badly made. Despite all his care methodical, Russell Williams was fundamentally imprudent and unwise. Do not confuse the above order maniac he took for his "trophies" with prudence and sagacity. He did not measure the suffering it inflicted unprecedented in its victims. The virtue of compassion for the suffering of his victims was sorely lacking. In short, he was deeply "vicious", incapable of any virtue. This is a monster half-man , in other words: it is inhuman.

Enjoy the suffering of her are caught up does not mean in any way that the infamous spinning perfect happiness. If, as suggested by Philippa Foot, happiness and humanity are measured by the degree of Under Russell Williams is most unfortunate and most inhuman of men. The vice principal of the former military remains the cowardice. This defect led to its loss, because the vice contrary, recklessness, led him to commit crimes always going one step further. Russell Williams was a coward because he had not the courage to confront his deviance. As in all cases of cowardice, Williams probably exaggerated the difficulty he faced and did not want to confide in his wife, a psychiatrist or even a contact person. Without doubt he was fleeing any questioning of himself. It is indeed necessary courage to confront his own monsters and acknowledge his weaknesses.

Socrates had the courage. In Phaedrus , Plato has Socrates say that: "... ignoring me myself ... I want to know if I am a monster more complicated and blinder than Typhon, or be softer and easier and takes a share of the nature of light and divinity. "(230a). For the master of Plato, wisdom is knowing what virtue, for Socrates longed to know who he was on this crucial point, as the inscription at Delphi required: Know thyself! ( Gnote seauton )

III

The lesson to be learned from the disastrous Russell Williams, is that virtue plays a central role in the pursuit of happiness. Aristotle never ceases to repeat that education in virtue is the key to happiness that is most desirable. The work of Philippa Foot, relaying to the wisdom of today's high school teacher, was not in vain. It will probably take many more unspeakable tragedy and unspeakable for us to understand further the importance of education to virtue. Because we live in liberal societies where freedom prevails over all, the virtue in particular. As "the ogre in his underwear" could enjoy quietly and peacefully at his home of his "trophies" without prejudice to anyone, is it not, as Mill wrote, " sovereign over himself, his own body and mind his own ? ( On Liberty Introduction) There will come a day that we have the courage to challenge those fine liberal principles, and stop accepting tack once and for all that there is nothing more beautiful and greater than virtue. ____________ NOTES



(1) Quoted in Philippa Foot, "Virtue and Happiness," in M. Canto-Sperber, British moral philosophy, PUF, 1994 134.
(2) Peter Thomas Geach, The Virtues , Cambridge, 1977, p. 160.
(3) Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , 1145a2.
(4) Quoted in Press Wednesday, October 20, p. A7.

Ic Butal-apap-325 Caff Tab

Foglia

On the occasion of the canonization of Brother Andrew Foglia returns on atheism, his in particular, in his column Tuesday, October 19 ( Around brother Andrew ). Honestly, I admit I was shocked to learn that the renowned columnist of The Press has never questioned the existence of God! Foglia What is an atheist, that's not the issue since it is not no secret to anyone. That, however, Foglia says it has ever questioned the existence of God, then confess fell off my chair. How can a man like him can never have asked such a question? I meet many young adults in my classes in college, and they are rare, very rare, those that are posed such questions "existential." That, however, a man of letters and culture as Foglia who has never questioned God, literally blows me away! I venture to think that it is once again a joke as well if Foglia Masters art. I do not doubt for a moment that the columnist was asked if God exists and he has probably answered no to such an extent that everything happened to him as if this question had never touched the mind. In sum, this is a way to affirm a hardcore atheist. Foglia is obviously a man of "faith" - that of 'non-faith. "

What troubles me Foglia quip is that, regardless of whether or not believing it, it seems that the question of the existence of God is an important issue any man worthy of the name should be a day or the other and be able to appreciate the richness of meaning. The teacher of philosophy I'm splits the soul to appreciate the young adult issues gnawing sense of man since time immemorial. If the question seems so awkward and embarrassing for the man of scrupulous non-faith Foglia what he considers that raised Leibniz in his Principles of Nature and Grace founded because (1714): "... why there something rather than nothing? ... also assume that things must exist, we must be able to reason why they should exist as well, and not otherwise. "In the opinion of many, this is the ultimate philosophical question. Thus, if God exists, why should there be? What is the rationale for its existence? Why God is there? That is what holds the question of Leibniz, and she deserves our attention and our respect. It I think the person who asks this question and attempts to answer realizes his true nature is that of being a man or a woman.

When young, I work with, teach me, without feeling any shame, they never listened to Bach or Beethoven, and that they never want to listen, I tell myself that 'there is the immense loss of a piece of the culture that shapes the beings we are and who gives value. This saddens me deeply. Prisoners of Plato's cave are far from being mere fictions. When a journalist patented, top of its platform, delivers his state of mind on an issue that has never had the audacity to ask and discuss its merits, and that the good people meekly acquiesces to his nonsense, you can not note that the state of degeneration of the general culture.

André Pratte also absolutely right: the miracle of a resurrection of the Catholic Church in Quebec will not take place (Editorial Press Monday 18 October). Not because, as suggested by Pratte, Andre's brother "belongs to another era" and that "philosophy of life advocated by the 'miracle worker Mount Royal 'finds little resonance today. " Simply because there are issues we no longer want to ask because it is realized now that they are outdated, obsolete. Foglia Pratte and are part of these destroyers of the Church.

Voltaire, who passes for the skeptic of the Enlightenment, wrote: "The world embarrasses me and I can not think / What are the clock and watchmaker has point." But the lights are behind us. The man of today goes far beyond anything that could have been imagined Voltaire - whose forget the great philosophical questions. The Age of Darkness is not the title of a film.

How To Find Bond Energy

stunt!

Hi all,

Thanks to the blog, I I was graciously invited to the ceremony "Sperian Woman of the Year" ... Nothing to do with the system you will say, however, I wanted to see ...

Sperian, a brand of protective clothing for risky jobs, nothing too sexy ... But as and when the ceremony, my feminist fiber started to tickle me:)

When I saw and heard the candidates, I thought they were models. They are all facing Trades traditionally masculine and participate in a ceremony of "Miss" ... Too loud!

T it out through a company that also feminine clothing. Feeling "lady" in jobs at risk, it does!

About on Sperian and women:
http://femme.sperian.com/ index.htm

http://www.facebook.com/femme.sperian


.

Whats A Good Lubricant For A Vibrator

Retire debate confiscated (Louis Philippe)

The debate on pensions is taking a new turn. Since the beginning, the government wanted to present its reform as a technical dossier, not to open a dialogue that would have given the floor to representatives of employees who by nature, he thinks, are unable to understand what is good for the country. Only experts can knowledge.

The debate has been confiscated by experts and unions rejected. Today, when the mobilization is not weakening, that young people join the movement, the government realizes the unfairness of his project for women and disadvantaged families (enough anyway to pass the amendments in haste that will mitigate the consequences of a late termination of activity), one begins to realize that retirement is a highly political issue that has a component of accounts, certainly, but also and above all the dimensions economic, social and societal impact the future of our country.

What society do we want for tomorrow? It is for Our answers to this question that we will be judged.

Logic would therefore decided that a moratorium and we establish the conditions for genuine tripartite dialogue. At the CFTC, that's what we've been saying all along. Pension reform is urgent for the financial markets and rating agencies that seek to impose their law on behalf of economic principles that have shown their boundary with the crisis.

Although, by his intransigence and rigidity, the government has been imposing a balance of power, we believe it is still possible to break the current conflict from the top.

long as a hope of reopening the dialogue, as thin as it is, exists, we will not call for renewed strike: we would all have much to lose to get into a conflict long after more uncertain.

Advantage To Steam Washer

TOWANDAAAA!

Tonight, a cult film will be released
at 20:40 on Arte ...

"Somewhere in Alabama. Evelyn Couch, bulimic and complexed visits with her husband obese a cantankerous old relative. In the hallway of the nursing home, she met another old woman, Ninny, who opened the doors to a wonderful world: that of Idgie and Ruth, two young women at any point opposite but loving love tender in the deep South of the 20s. They all end up opening a cafe in the town of Whistle Stop, where they cook, among other delicacies, green tomato fritters. At fifty years apart, inspire Evelyn to a healthy revolt ... "

Then Evelyn resume his life and body Started tonitruand with his battle cry:

TOWANDAAAA!

.

Which Is The Best Rotary Man's Shaver

THE LITTLE DOG OF ST JOSEPH. Aristotle about holy brother Andre

Alfred Bessette aka Brother Andre St
" I'm just the little dog of St. Joseph ."

Brother Andrew was canonized by the Catholic Church on October 17. Canonization is the solemn act by which the Church recognizes in the blessed practice heroic or extraordinary of Christian virtues. This small phrase deserves reflection. What do we mean exactly by "heroism or extraordinary practice of Christian virtues ?

The "Christian virtues" include, among others, the three virtues called "theological": faith, hope and charity. Thomas Aquinas, the "Angelic Doctor" of the church, will of faith, hope and charity, the three theological virtues with priority given to the cardinal virtues are saying (prudence, justice, courage and temperance). Why? Because, according to Thomas Aquinas, the purpose to which the virtues is blissful life with God. For Aristotle, virtue is the end of human flourishing or happiness (eudaimonia ), for Aquinas, bliss. From this point of view, the theological virtues are the full development of other virtues. If the theological virtues are called "supernatural", contrary to the virtues "natural" cardinal, because they come from God.

remains that just as the cardinal virtues, the theological virtues involve the usual practice. Faith, hope and charity, like all other virtues, therefore, require training at all times. It has beautiful arrangements to be born with faith, hope and charity, it is still necessary to develop them and ensure their vitality. The best athletes continue to train. So too does the saints. In fact, by the exercise of charity, according to Thomas Aquinas, that faith manifests itself as excellence (see Summa Theologica, 2a-2AE, Issue 4 Article 3 ) , so there no faith without charity event. St. Paul goes on to say that "when I faith (pistin) the fullest, one that moves mountains, if I lack charity (agapèn) I am nothing. " (1 Corinthians 13 2). Clearly, therefore, love (agape ) is greater than faith ( pistis ).

is the exemplary level of charity is the holiness. If faith is a necessary condition of holiness, it is not the sufficient condition only charity constituting such a condition. In short, I'm very hard to believe that God exists or that Jesus is the Son of God, if I lack charity, my faith is weak or fake.

Holiness is therefore a highly available practice. It does not in any way to be a genius to be a saint. Brother Andrew was fond of repeating that he was uneducated, " The good Lord took me to humiliate others. He took the most ignorant people and to humiliate the community of Sainte-Croix . " ( Brother Andrew would often say ... Collections of words of Brother Andre reported by his friends. Fides, 2010, p. 95) You sound like Socrates say in which Plato's Apology of Socrates " My wisdom - if there is wisdom - is that I know nothing ." As we know, Socrates was virtue consist in knowledge: can not commit evil in ignorance , he liked to say. Also, in the eyes of Socrates, brother Andre would not pass the test of virtue as the little brother was simply unable to verbalize or even theorize virtue, he was equally ignorant on this point that the Athenian citizens were for Socrates.

However, Andrew's brother, like Socrates, are believed to paragons of virtue, even if they were not able to define precisely what it is. Aristotle understood it, that virtue has nothing to do with knowledge, it is an acquired habit so that to become virtuous, we must get used to the practice. In his great treatise on morality, the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, Socrates and Plato without naming, rejects the terms of the design under his illustrious predecessors:

was therefore quite right to say that force to perform what is right and it just gets strength to perform what is tempering that is temperate. And without doing that, no one has the slightest chance to become good. But voila! Most do not act this way and seek refuge in theory, believing devote himself to philosophy and so can be virtuous. They are somewhat like those patients who listen attentively to their doctors' prescriptions, but do nothing. (Book II, 1105b7-18)

Today we would say that ethics advocated by Aristotle wants to "how-to", but it would be somewhat distorting because it has a lot of theoretical consideration as we shall see.

The word "ethics" still comes from the Greek ethos and means manners, conduct, character, habits or customs. Aristotle wrote: "The character ethics (ethos) takes its name from the habit (ethos). It is called ethics due to the fact that taking habits . " ( The great moral , 1186a) Ethics in the eyes of Aristotle, is not synonymous with "moral" in the sense that Aristotle would question on a theoretical level the rules of good conduct. In some ways, Aristotle takes the literal meaning of ethics, that is to say, the Greek sense of etho s: habits, customs, common practices, etc.. Aristotle never ceases to repeat, against Socrates and Plato, we may well know what is right without being right. On this point, education is crucial to virtue.

If virtue is not knowledge, it is an acquired habit, Is it? The word translated under the Greek arete . This word has since taken a very narrow sense of a sexual nature because when someone says it's a "vicious" is generally understood to mean that it is a depraved person sexually. Pedophiles are vicious. When Greek as Socrates or Aristotle speaks of arete, it designates not even chastity. The meaning of arete is much broader than we now understand by "virtue". A good translation of the word arete would excellence. Aristotle not hesitate to talk about "excellence" of a knife or a flute in that excellence is respectively cut out and produce music.

It is important then to understand the link between Aristotle happiness, defined as human flourishing (eudaimonia ) to excellence (arete ), so much so that being virtuous is be happy, and vice versa. This is where the concept "teleological" or finalist the master of the Lyceum. Indeed, very early in Ethics Nicomachean , Aristotle said: " good is the aim of any ." What do we mean by this bit of enigmatic?

is relatively simple, we just talked about. For Aristotle, a knife or a flute are good or excellent to the extent that these two objects produce this why they were manufactured. When the knife cuts well, he realized his end, so it is intended; a flute with a flutist is unable to produce sounds, the least we can say is that it does is not a good flute. For Aristotle, everything that exists, exists for a purpose (telos a), and this is good or perfect. That is what virtue is to say excellence: to achieve this for what it is made according to its nature.

The human being is no exception since it has its own end - the telos - which is to be happy. What to what, therefore, the human being is designed, its perfection, that is to say, his excellence is happiness (understood as flourishing (eudaimonia )). Everything he does, does so in humans to thrive, to develop their full potential. However, again according to Aristotle, excellence of the human being consists in its vitality, its own perfection, that is to say that living well, which does not consist in something other than the exercise of excellence - the virtues.

If we commit evil, so it's not because we are ignorant, but because we have not developed good habits that are the excellences. As some like to say, we are here to learn. Maybe one day, by dint of suffering, we learn to act well. Education excellence is therefore central. " This is not a negligible work, Aristotle wrote, contract from the earliest childhood any particular habit, on the contrary, of major importance, or rather, the capital. " ( Nicomachean Ethics, 1103b 24-25)

In fact, education for excellence for Aristotle is to find" a balance "between two extreme types of action and practice them. Excellence is that moderation and balance. This is the Aristotelian doctrine of "balance." Take courage as moral excellence. This excellence takes place between rashness and cowardice. Faith, too, as a theological virtue, is a middle ground: the trust is, firstly, between credulity and dogmatism, on the other. As one who feels absolutely no fear before the imminent danger is not courageous but foolhardy or insane, the religious fanatic is evidence of dementia but not of faith. In both cases, it is as if the means are disproportionate to purposes. As if we wanted kill a fly with a gun ...

courage is often confused with the determination. The thief who robs a bank certainly has the determination, but no courage . Courage operates as a term of appreciation when you rent the action taken; its opposite is madness or dementia which is blamed and condemned the action raised. Marc Lepine, to quote here a case of sad memory, showed great determination, resolution insane, but not courage. One could describe the action of Marc Lepine of "overkill "- As rightly said in English - as the medium used by Marc Lepine to achieve his end was disproportionate. It may well be anti-feminist, it is still necessary that the means chosen to make his point of view is correct, neither excessive nor inadequate. An anti-feminist who would always afraid to assert itself, would be a coward, he would sin, not by excess, but insufficient. In the case of Marc Lepine, his vice is excess.

retort is that courage is one of the simple determination to another. Voltaire, for example writes: "The courage is not a virtue, but a quality common to the villains and great men. But the real difference between the two lies in the fact that the former are clumsy in the exercise of virtue, unlike the latter who excel.

In everything he does, human beings always act for the good. Nobody wants evil for evil. Everyone is good. The problem is that most of the time we're doing it wrong. We act blindly, which is either an excess or a deficiency. Excellence lies between excess and deficiency.

Now back to our saint, brother Andrew, who was canonized, remember, because he practiced so extraordinary or heroic Christian virtues . If Aristotle is right, the saint is actually a master of excellence. It is said that Brother Andre practiced Christian love like no other. The excellence of charity lies midway between selfishness on the one hand, and lack of concern for self and others, on the other. If we love one another as we love, as prescribed by the greatest commandment Evangelicals, it is frankly not always easy to trace precisely the boundary between loving others while not forgetting no self. Love of neighbor is there a completely selfless love? No, says the advocate of egoism, because we love in each other's self. Yes, replies Christian altruism.

Anyway, as regards the brother Andrew, known to disappear completely before the glory of healings " This is not me, it was St. Joseph who got your healing ; thank St. Joseph. "

If it was not at all puffed up with pride and focused on itself, one might think that, in contrast, Brother Andrew did not like himself at all. It is reported the following anecdote:

I must say that Brother Andrew had no great opinion of himself. One day I asked him where he was buried after his death. He replied: "No matter, bury me, if you will, in a box manure for me, it's the same thing." ( Brother Andrew said often ... P. 90)

In fact, the balance lies between not seek pride and scorn. In the first case, one seeks to avoid the excessive pride, in the second, self-esteem is lacking. Be careful not to fall into excess boasting one hand, and not fall into the trap of not opposite enough love, that's what is excellence brother Andrew. But this excellence in his case, let us recall once again, is regarded by the Church heroic or extraordinary . Heroic indeed was excellent as brother Andrew, throughout his long life he was able to maneuver beautifully between Scylla and Charybdis is to say, avoiding all the pitfalls of pride mystical self-denigration to serve excellently his brothers and sisters.

historian of religions Mircea Eliade, has proposed the term " hierophany " (Greek hieros , sacred and phanein , manifest) to denote the arrival the sacred in everyday life. There is no doubt that the life of excellence - the holiness - of brother Andrew was "hierophanic. Excellence, indeed, is never far from sacred. For Aristotle, too, a man's life devoted to the practice of excellence is certainly the order of the divine in us. ( Nicomachean Ethics , X, 7) The saint's life so highly advanced toward God. The saint is a sort of icon of God. As Wittgenstein said, if God does not say it certainly shows himself. The excellence of the porter opens the gates of heaven. That is what is truly miraculous in this saint who was not devoid of humor as long as it being declared that "the dog of St. Joseph."

Skinny Legs And Fat Arms

CONSIDERATIONS Out of date. Book Review: Justice. What's the right thing to do? (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009, 301 p.) by Michael J. Sandel

People often ask me why I continue to publish my writings on the Internet in this blog when I could publish a book. I answer, much to the surprise of my interlocutors, that Quebec publishers are not interested in me publish it! I am told that since these texts are available free to anyone with Internet access, why then make them available in book form? In addition, retorts that the text of my e-book form in the ephemeral in that they address topics of current interest, tomorrow, will fall quickly into oblivion. It struck me with the argument that philosophy only deals with the universal, the reader wishing to know the mind of such a philosopher will not hear of Marc Lepine and the Montreal massacre, the heroism of Commander Piché of the Presidency of Barak Obama film by Bernard Emond, exploitation of shale gas or whatnot. No, the works of philosophy are serious, ever does is repeat myself: they are learned treatises where everything is special, unique, specific to a particular place and time, is irrelevant.

There is, obviously, a clear bias that would be "the true philosophy", namely that taught at the university and accessible only to a small coterie of austere scholars and scientists. Wittgenstein rightly stood against this design academic and puffy, after all, philosophy. In this regard, he once wrote to his friend Norman Malcolm

I wondered [...] what could well be the usefulness of philosophy, if we could learn to play more or less correct on abstruse questions of logic, etc.. if she is really unable to help us better judge the most important problems of everyday existence if it does not allow us to use more discernment that any journalist expressions dangerous than they use it for interested parties. (in Ludwig Wittgenstein, Norman Malcolm, Ludwig Wittgenstein in, The blue book and workbook brown, Gallimard, Tel, 1965, p. 351.)

There is no doubt that towards borrowing Michal J. Sandel, a professor of political philosophy at the prestigious Harvard University, is prescribed by Wittgenstein. His latest work, Justice , eloquently illustrated. The proponent of academic philosophy cry wolf before this mass of anecdotes, real or fictional cases, scattered throughout the book, where dimension theory appears in the background. Readers who appreciated the rigorous analysis and (say it) highly theoretical Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982), will no doubt disappointed by Justice. Not that Sandel has swapped the rigor for convenience since in some respects, Sandel's thought is equally rigorous. You should know that Sandel is intended primarily, not to his academic peers, but young people who begin their studies in philosophy at the undergraduate level. For over thirty years, in fact, Sandel teaches young university students a course called "Justice". "The race student exposed to sacrifice part of The Great Philosophical writings about justice, And Also Takes Up Contemporary Legal and Political controversies That Philosophical raise questions. ( Justice, p. 293). The philosophy teachers would do well to take a look at this book is full of lessons alive.

philosophy - political philosophy, in this case - seems remote from the concerns of Mr.-and-madame-all-the-world. Like it or not, however, one can not escape philosophy policy since, as written in the preface to Sandel Democracy's Discontent (1996). "For all We May Resist Such ultimate questions have The Meaning of Justice & the nature of good life, What We Can not Escape Is That We Live Some thesis to answer questions - we live Some theory - all the time. In other words, we realize it or not, our existence as citizens is shaped by a certain political philosophy and the philosopher's task is to highlight the concept that we are implicit in the organization of power in society. Hence the author's continual recourse to the many real or fictitious situations that punctuate the social, political and cultural details of which can identify the underlying political philosophy. The purpose of Sandel, which I also agree wholeheartedly, is to reveal the universal in the particular philosophy implicit in the news. The "universal individual" if you will lend me this oxymoron. I think Wittgenstein was something like that, and it seems to me that this was what Aristotle in his ethical treatises: " ... it's good, it seems, that 'we need to talk: not the property outright, but well for us. "wrote the master of the Lyceum (The g rande moral , 1182b 3-4; emphasis added). So, against his illustrious predecessors, Socrates and Plato, Aristotle will consist in the excellence of the highest good politician. We are far from cynicism that afflicts contemporary politics!

Sandel is well known as a prominent critic of John Rawls. As Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Walzer and Charles Taylor, Sandel was associated with the camp "communitarian" against the "liberals" in the debate that raged in political philosophy since the publication in 1971 the Theory of Justice Rawls. Ensures that Sandel is mistaken when he applies the label of philosopher "communitarian" if, "communalism" denotes the argument that "... the rights should be based on the dominant values of a given community at one point, then it is a concept that I am not defending . "( Liberalism and the Limits of Justice , p. 12) What is the theory of communitarianism to Sandel? Follows: good takes precedence over the right. basically the opposite of that of Rawls, namely: the priority of right over the good . Far from founding principles of justice independently or in a neutral manner with respect to citizens' conceptions of the good life, Rawls presuppose such a conception of the good life. The priority of the right over the good is only a smokescreen that Sandel managed to break out with remarkable lucidity. What is not there because our liberal society is, in essence, Rawls. Also unmasked the lures of Rawls, is unmasked, politically, the lures of our society.

Over time, Sandel said his communitarianism and was led to adopt a distinct Aristotelian or neo-Aristotelian political philosophy. This is what emerges most clearly from Justice and this is his greatest achievement . Already in 1998 the second edition of Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (published in 1982), Sandel wrote:

Insofar [...] the arguments in favor of rights does may be based on the moral purposes that these rights serve to promote, it would be better to say that this is a teleological (or, in the jargon of contemporary philosophy, doctrine perfectionist). The political conception of Aristotle is an example. Before you can define the rights of individuals seeking "the nature of the ideal constitution, he says, we must identify the nature of life's most desirable. Until this point we remain unclear, the nature of the constitution will also be ideal. "( Justice, p. 14; the author cites Policies Aristotle, 1323a 14)

This Only Justice that Sandel fully implements the design "perfectionist" inspired by Aristotle. In the last chapter, the author writes:

Over the course of this journey, we've Explored Three Approaches to justice. It says justice means clustering Maximizing welfare utiliy gold ... The second says Justice Means Respecting freedom of choice ... The Third says Justice Involves Reasoning about Cultivating Virtue and the Common Good. As you've guessed by now Probably, I Favour a version of The Third approach. ( Justice, p. 260)

Sandel has multiplied the cases and examples his thesis. Consider briefly the case of the policy itself. ( Justice, p. 192 to 195)

What is the end of politics, Sandel calls? The liberal answer is that the end of politics is to develop a procedure by which citizens themselves choose their own end. The state, as was fond of repeating Pierre Elliot Trudeau did not put his nose into our bedrooms, expressing the private nature of morality and religion of everyone. This follows from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982 under the initiative precisely Trudeau's Liberal government, which requires inter alia a right to freedom of conscience and religion.

For a "perfectionist" as Aristotle, it is different since it does not pose a human rights framework is wanting neutral point of view for the citizens. "Its to form writes Sandel, Good Citizen and to cultivate good character. ( Justice, p. 193) Aristotle wrote:

The political virtue and vice, that is, on the contrary, whereupon those who care about good legislation have their eyes. For this it is also clear that the city that really deserves the name [...] must deal with virtue, because otherwise the political community would become a military alliance differing only by the unit rather than the other military alliances between peoples who are distant from each other . While the law is pure convention [...] , it is a guarantor of justice in mutual relations, but it is not able to make citizens good and just . (Aristotle, 1280a )

The motto for the Liberals, they repeat ad nauseam , is "living together". That is the purpose "Liberal" politics. On the contrary, for Aristotle, it is well live together, to be happy . " But it is not only to live but for a happy life in a city that comes together ... We must therefore put it to good actions exists the political community, not to live together . "writes Aristotle.

Now consider a specific example of societal debate being considered by Sandel ( Justice, p. 253 to 260), that of marriage for same sex couples. You can not judge the homosexual marriage without determining what the goal or purpose of marriage, even when invoking the equality of all before the law, arguing that the denial of marriage between same sex is intolerable discrimination. However, the debate over gay marriage debate is fundamentally a moral nature as to whether unions gay and lesbians deserve the same recognition as heterosexual marriage state. The moral question is whether gay marriage deserves honorary recognition that the state confers to heterosexual marriage.

The Liberals, of course, circumvent the issue arguing that it is not to rule on the meaning or purpose of marriage, but to judge whether the rights of the people involved were injured. By banning marriage between same sex, the state appears to discriminate against some of its citizens. Their rights to equality before the law and the freedom of choice seem indeed violated. In short, people should have the right to marry whomever they want.

On reflection, however, this reasoning is not valid. The premise that says that people should exercise their autonomy and free choice , we can not conclude satisfactorily they should marry whom they want . In this account, indeed, we might as well admit that people can marry several spouses or even members of their own family or with animals or plants or minerals, to the extent that it is only to exercise their free choice.

The moral question remains: gay marriage is legitimate?, This type of union he deserves the recognition of the state? To break this impasse, the Liberals invoke the idea that marriage is an institution that changes depending on the time and place. They therefore call moral relativism. They argue that marriage can be considered as a commitment of fidelity between two partners - gay or straight, whatever. However, this type of reasoning takes the liberal position on the purpose or purposes of marriage, that is to say, he leaves his apparent neutrality to affirm the moral legitimacy of homosexual marriage. Farewell neutrality!

With Justice, Michael Sandel has finally mounted his warhorse. It's mine too. To repeat here the title of a book by Nietzsche is Justice new Untimely Meditations.