Lcd Prices Drop In January

NAO 2011: Presidency sets the tone "

Two meetings helped give the "the" in this negotiation:

Monday, November 22, meets the office of the CEC with the President and First Meeting Tuesday 23 of NAO 2011. In essence, cancellations of orders have stabilized, we continue to deliver the customers but the "backlog" is empty! On the military side we are still awaiting the decisions of customers, decisions that have been consistently rejected throughout this year 2010!

Side office, the Department announced a wage policy in 2011 with the most favorable return to the principle of AG for non-executives.

The CFTC said that employees who have invested to give any chances to get a firm export contract, do not understand why their work is not rewarded. There is a bitter taste that demotivates staff.

The company argues the fact that she was not ashamed of his salary policy, 2010 relating to those practiced in enterprises GIFAS.

communication side, the total absence of information from the Directorate General for the years 2008 and 2009 did not identify the real economic situation of the company, "trust us" was not enough!

And now? Everything is built and the Department will give its first trends at the next meeting on December 3.

CFTC negotiating team: Gilles Rousseaux, Sylvie Lefèvre (St. Cloud), Dominique Saliba (Istres) and Mounir Daïef (Argenteuil)

Uk Companies By Market Cap List

Socrates Pretend BELIEVING IT TO BE OR WAS IT Atheist? Roger Scruton

can certainly say that the religious dimension of Socrates thought very little of interest to philosophers today. This is due in large part because we live in a liberal secular society advocating religious tolerance. Although religion has been under state control at the time, the Athens of Socrates severely condemned the "crimes of impiety." About 430 BCE, following the decree of Diopeithès, anyone who does not believe in gods, or who taught the doctrines relating to celestial phenomena, were convicted of impiety. Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, among others, the master and the protege of Pericles, Athens will be banned for saying that the sun is a hot stone. These intolerant attitudes, some would call today "backward" are far from us. For us, therefore, Socrates is the secular thinker who has heroically opposed to the dictates of the will of the majority, opinion the large number, doxa to defend, even in death, philosophical activity, the ultimate expression of "freedom of conscience" (= the "Know thyself"). Socrates represents the model of enlightened liberal citizen. If you teach Socrates, it is likely that either the model of secular and liberal citizen that you present to your students. There is nothing surprising about that, each time having had its own Socrates.

There was even a "holy Socrates" as Christians to the Renaissance Socrates will make a "proto-Christian", a sort of prophet of Christ before the letter, basically a bridge between paganism and Christianity. Anyway, for us, Socrates is an atheist, an agnostic at worst, that when he talks about his famous daimon , it is ironic on the part of this great master. Basically, for many of us, Socrates is guilty of the charges against him, for Socrates simply pretending to believe in the gods of the city, then he was proposing to replace the amount of eccentric deities to the city by , so that the cult of Reason. But if this is the Socrates you teach, you probably have a hard time explaining some key passages of the Apology where Socrates says very emphatically believe in the gods (eg 35d " But, gentlemen of the court, I requested any favor because, perhaps more strongly than any of my accusers, I believe that gods exist. To them I leave it to decide, through you, the best award for me as for you. )

Elsewhere, Socrates wants to clear himself of charges of atheism that the Athenians have assimilated wrongly to the sophists and the philosophers of nature ( Apology 18b-c) which, themselves, say they do not believe in gods, or ignore them. We can try to put it all on account of Socratic irony, but the price becomes expensive because then the irony becomes a form of dishonesty , therefore contrary to virtue . must recall in this connection that Socrates tells his judges that they must judge fairly and they will hear from him the truth (18a and 17b) so that, if indeed ironical Socrates systematically it would violate the legal process he considers just, doing so would, in short, perfectly incoherent. We must therefore take seriously the text of the A anthropology of Socrates.

This premise is accepted, we must admit that Socrates believed in the gods, at least at the "god of Delphi, Apollo, which would have given a" divine mission ". One might think that Socrates is both a "traditionalist" and a "reformer" in matters of religion. As religious "traditionalists", Socrates would agree with the following theses: (1) gods exist, (2) the gods are kind and care about the welfare of humans, (3) they communicate with us the means of oracles, dreams and other signs, (4) piety requires us to respond to their benevolence means of prayers, sacrifices, festivals, etc.. Furthermore, Socrates is a reformer in his philosophical practice (A) becomes an exercise in piety, (B) because, like any virtue, piety requires a philosophical examination, so that (C) No person shall be piles unless you know what piety. Socrates is how he managed - whether there is actually succeeded - to solve the apparent conflict is to accept both proposals (1) to (4) and (A) (C)? How, in other words, Socrates has succeeded in reconciling religion and its traditional approach "rationalist"? Prayers, sacrificial rites, etc.. Are necessary components of godliness, but they remain insufficient. For Socrates, therefore, the vast majority of Athenians do not fulfill their obligations to the gods even though they apparently conform to traditional religious practices. It was imperative, according to Socrates - who was the spokesman of "the god" - every Athenian conducts a critical review on virtue (piety is only part of virtue). Socrates, condemned for impiety by the judge, failed to convince them that his philosophical practice dictated that the pious and god was it did not conflict with the religion of the city.

Personally, if I was one of 500 (or 501) judges, I probably would have found Socrates guilty of impiety. In a stunning article, "The Impiety of Socrates (Ancient Philosophy , 17, 1997, p. 1-12), the British philosopher specialist in ancient philosophy, Myles Burnyeat, drew strong objections to anyone who would exonerate Socrates charges Meletus, Anytus Lycon and, in particular the requirement that Socrates does not believe in gods of the city. Some of the reasons, in the eyes of Burnyeat, the condemnation of Socrates for impiety.

Suppose then that we are conscious that Athenian citizens at heart Let's take as our role as citizens and, therefore, judge. We seek to determine whether Socrates has harmed the city as claimed by his accusers. First Burnyeat points out a fact seemingly innocuous after which Socrates never mentions namely he believes to Athena, Zeus, Apollo, etc.., The gods believed that the city of Athens. Certainly, "said Socrates," ... probably stronger than any of my accusers, I believe that the gods exist (35d), but he did not name explicitly and precisely who those gods to whom he feels more confident that any What Athenian. Certainly Meletus goes too far in saying that Socrates does not believe in any god (26b). But the question remains as to how (s) god (s) just go to the allegiance of Socrates. Certainly, Socrates says he believes sincerely in his daimon - nobody disputes the legitimacy, not even Meletus - Socrates believed in the existence of gods (27c). But this does not prove that he still believes precisely the gods of the Athenian city. Moreover, when it comes to the oracle at Delphi, Socrates never speaks namely Apollo, but the Pythia, or he speaks the phrase using the singular impersonal "god ( o theos). This suggests that perhaps Socrates inclinations, not to shirk the Athenian religion, but a form of monotheism. Moreover, it is clear that in his defense of obedience "to the god," Socrates advocates a new "religious practice" - that is to say philosophy as critical examination - very different from traditional religion constituted after all, for sacrificial rites. Once again on behalf of "the god", he even accused his countrymen and his city to be in a deplorable condition on moral (29c). Socrates did not realize that by criticizing the morality of the city, he criticizes the same time the gods of the city. It seems that the god of Socrates stroked a systematic project of "moral rehabilitation". The "divine mission" that Socrates receives the service "to the god," is to enhance the virtue of its citizens (30a). However, there is nothing similar in terms of moral rectitude among the Greek gods. Socrates' wife therefore a different deity than the Athenian gods. Then, if the traditional religion was turned into a "philosophical practice", it would disappear altogether. It seems impossible to reconcile religious practice new Socrates and traditional practice.

The accusers were right to accuse Socrates to introduce "new gods" in the city, and that Socrates indeed formed youth to this new religious practice and, thus, the "corrupted" . Moreover, when Socrates says that "... probably stronger than any of my accusers, I believe that the gods exist " what Socrates meant not so much that it is more pious than his accusers, but he thinks differently to something other than what it believed its own accusers.

Finally, Socrates does not show it with pride (hubris ) saying that only virtue leads to happiness: "By becoming virtuous that may arise prosperity for individuals, as for the city. (30b)? It is clear that Socrates is attacking the national deities, they are not able to enable citizens to become virtuous. In fact, Socrates did not need the gods. Only the effort in her eyes. The only role left to the "god" is to protect the fair and informed by "signs" that certain situations are detrimental. In reality, after all, the virtuous man fears nothing, even if it is put to death (29a, 30d). In addition, the city has to fear that some misfortune should it spill over onto it condemns Socrates-the-right. Socrates is a gift "from God." Do not receive it, would be disastrous for the city and its gods. Faced with this accumulation of overwhelming evidence, one has no difficulty imagining that the court judges have ordered the Héliée Socrates.

Tan Tablets Before After

Here we go again! It melts but I

And yes, I must destocks reserves Switzerland .. .

fondue, cheese, mint tea,

chocolates, fried foods, jams ...

Arf was too good and prepared with so much love!

Thank Najet and Jean Marie for your warm welcome ...

A share it I benefits for do of the pub

for my small cousin and its DK CRE W

Here, his first clip, I'm so proud!

Everything was filmed with my aunt in Paris 13

My cousin said Faso is the great trio, and most beautiful!

To learn more about it here DK !

.

Balsa Wood Truss Bridge Designs

ABOUT legalizing euthanasia

It is ridiculous to run to death by disgust with life,

especially when death is made necessary by the kind of life we lead.

Epicurus

Roger Scruton

Sunday, November 20, 2010. The agency Crop poll reveals that 83% of Quebecers say they favor the legalization of euthanasia. Always those famous polls ... I wrote here a open letter to the Special Commission on the issue of dying with dignity is remained, as expected, a dead letter. I predict in my letter that said Commission will rule in favor of legalizing euthanasia. The survey precedes the hearse where rests the body of Article 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

However, in the course of my readings, I came across a remarkable text by the philosopher Roger Scruton, "Dying Quietly." (1) I thought at first to reach the Comission since it is only a very small text, but dense, very dense, which - I thought - still did not kill person.

They counted on the fingers of one hand the authors on the subject, do not repeat ad nauseam what is found elsewhere and which are actually fueling the polls. The British philosopher, well known for his "conservative" in art as in politics, takes a unique look at the question that bothers us so much now. Whether or not one agrees with his positions "right", "Quietly Dying" is a gem of philosophy and deserves a slow and meditative reading. At the outset, I announce that it is no question me to do the summary. However, to whet your appetite, I want to comment on one or two points of particular signifiers.

First, faced with clear cases of unspeakable suffering in end of life, our minds - that probe the polls - sanctions, without hesitation, a "utilitarian". More specifically, the vast majority of us - not only in Quebec but also elsewhere, in all liberal democracies in good part - taking a position "liberal", that is to say that law must be neutral on the various conceptions of the good life being adopted by citizens. Thus, in the case of suicide-assisted, Article 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada is seen by many of us as being discriminatory because the article goes against the right to freedom of conscience and belief enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, at this state of things, many in favor of the abolition of Article 241 advocate a "cost-benefit analysis, invoice clearly utilitarian, in favor of euthanasia.

The analysis handler type "cost-benefit" may seem perfectly justified in the case of euthanasia. Please note, however, warns us Scruton, since a big risk in the long term by marrying such an analysis. Indeed, the abolition of Article 241,

... O Will changes collective perception of death. It Will instilling a habit of calculation WHERE Previously only absolutes guided o conduite; and in general it Will Make Both Death and Dying Easier to Deal With and Easier to Bring about. (p. 68)

One might object that evokes Scruton a scarecrow, in this case the fallacy of the slippery slope. Maybe. However, argue that the only consequences are those provided by the cost-benefit analysis - basically, the patient is relieved and his family - is to demonstrate a serious naivete, if not a total blindness.

In sum, says Scruton, the utilitarian and liberal which we seem to agree then reconfigure considerably long term the meaning we give to life and death. However, traditionally, philosophy seeks to understand the meaning of things, including death that guides our lives. Scruton writes:

The task of philosophy to discover a meaning-IS in death, and to drift From That Meaning Some guidance as to how We Might Live o Mortality and Cease To Despair At The Thought of It.

We no longer accept death as an integral part of life, "said Scruton.

"The First Things That philosophy has IS Likely to remark upon That Is The great difference exists, a Society in Which Between Death Is Accepted and Duly catered for the dead, and one in Which Death Is taboo and the dead could out mind. (p. 72-73)

Scruton raises the prospect of "first person" distinct from the "third person". My death is always that of another, never mine, creating the illusion of the absence of death. Medical science and its spectacular advances reinforce this illusion.

Scruton does not address it, but the illusion in question is produced by the "I" First Person. The illusion of the current absence of death, that of "I" was reinforced - if not all created Parts-by what philosophers call "modernity" and the advent of the "subject". We design in effect the world around us in the third person as well as our own death, never the first person for whom death is inconceivable. Science describes the universe and what we are, biologically and physically always in the third person. This is the "he" or "him" suffering, deteriorating and dying, not "me" "I" has the final authority that "it" must cease to exist. We are dualists like Descartes was the father of modern philosophy. Science, as the author dreamed of Discourse on Method, we promised happiness, that is to say, among other things, deliver us from death. But the long-awaited Messiah does not always point in the distance.

Despite dramatic advances that prolong life, medical science is powerless to obtain immortality, so that death is always lurking, ready to strike without striking a blow. The wisdom of the religions of Christianity in particular, urges us to worry about death now. For his part, philosophy, Montaigne in mind, we invite philosophize is to learn to say die. Or, give meaning to life and death is learning to die.

What then do we give meaning to death today? It is primarily an event that is not part of life, which belongs to the prospect of the third person, "he" and not "I". It is inconceivable that "I" dies. It is intolerable that "he" suffers. The right to die would, in short, the law respecting the dictates of the "I". The illusion of "I" command so the illusory right to death.

As seen, Scruton is not an avid follower of the right to die. His arguments seem convincing, although qu'utilitaristes in their bill - which he also denounced. There was one who joined me in particular, that concerning the love which escapes me, apparently it, the charge of being utilitarian as it concerns the virtue of love. Scruton writes:

We Should not allow to The Law shield us from our mortality, Gold From The fragility Without Which We Could Hardly be loved. (p. 77)

What does this mean? Human love is the only real "cure" at the loss, degeneration and death. Prolonging life, as medical science leads us there, we could end up in worse than death, namely " The Living Death of the loveless . (P. 76). By putting everything in the hands of science and law, we run the risk of sacrifice, by depriving it of its meaning, the love between humans. There is no question that some people who call for their immediate euthanasia do not like them. It's not about that. The question is to amend the legislation, which may change our conception of love in the near end of life. Scruton apprehends that the legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide, has serious consequences and thereafter on the condition that we show vis-à-vis our loved ones end of life. Dying with dignity is first and foremost, to die knowing that we are highly valuable in the eyes of our loved ones. Beloved beyond death, and despite it, that is beautiful and great. (Think of love and has testified as further evidence Chloé Sainte-Marie Gilles Carle. The Quebec government should honor its great virtue by helping more helpers-natural. ") That's love . It is stronger than death. That is sublime, sacred.

Without realizing expressly Scruton calls made by these old theological virtues are faith, hope and charity, that we - wrongly, in my opinion - banned Affairs the city where modern science is now the top of the podium. It reflects either the Greek word agape by charity or love. Saint Paul writes: "When I faith (pistin) the fullest, one that moves mountains, if I miss the love (or charity) (agapèn) I'm nothing . "(1 Corinthians 13 2). That is why Thomas Aquinas is the agape - charity or love - the theological virtue par excellence, superior to the other two, and in this account, saying all the cardinal virtues. , (2)

Socrates said that what matters is not live but live well. (3) If Thomas Aquinas, taking St. Paul, right, so if I did not grow at During my life, love (or charity), I am the most despicable people and my life has little value. In this case, the death appear to me as the worst of calamities. But faced with such terrible agonies of dying, I claim, in desperation, the right to die - a bit like those unfortunates who, September 11, 2001, had no choice but to rush the Top of the Twin Towers. Instead, if I have grown to love (agape ), then I have lived and death or end of life might undermine in any way under the hard-won.

NOTES


(1) Roger Scruton, A Political Philosophy . Arguments for Conservatism , Continuum, 2006, Chapter 4, p. 64-80.
(2) Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica , 2AE-2, Question 4, Article 3.
(3) Plato, Crito , 48b.

Naughty America Hair Salon

swells! Operation Restore Hope

Above, detail of one ingredient among many more ...

In your opinion how many calories in a cheese fondue?

.

Amy Reid And Lilly Thai

RIGHTS TO LAMP SHADES AND THE ETHICS OF VIRTUE

Someone - I will not name and I will refer to as "the man with shades" - invited me one day at his home in Westmount. I attended the college at the time. He had lampshades made by the Nazis from using the skin of Jews killed in concentration camps! Seeing my astonishment and my dismay, I retorted: " What's wrong with having home lampshades that were offered to me as a gift from a friend whose father was a former Nazi? Yet I have not killed any of these Jews whose skin used to decorate these lampshades. Moreover, the kind donor has assured me that these Jews were peeled after death, not when they were still alive. Finally, note that I did not intend to expose these shades to the general public and I will show them to show you my friendship .. . "

I was frozen with fear and remained speechless. Although the man with the shades was very friendly and courteous, I could condemn it as immoral as well. Certainly, the man with shades does not contravene any duty regarding compliance of human life since it was not the author of horrible crimes from which the lampshades. Strictly speaking, the man with shades does not violate an ethical duty. Apparently, it does not decrease the amount of happiness for the greatest number, nor increase any, even if we may say, not without some cynicism that the lampshades in question found some use as furniture. A utilitarian would therefore agree with the fact that the man with the shades can enjoy these pieces troubling for its furniture in the privacy of his home.

A supporter of ethics virtues remain perplexed or even angry, as I was while I was a young adult. The man with shades is inherently immoral, that is to say vicious. Why? It's a good person refused categorically abhorrent present the granddaughter of ex-Nazi, knowing their origin. Indeed, accepting the man with shades endorsed and by endorsing the unspeakable monstrosities of the Nazis. It must be either naive or hypocritical to politely accept these heinous "present". Even if the man with shades is not a criminal nor a sadist of the worst Here, one can certainly say that he is a pervert . At least, what I thought at the time, and still do.

I know it is politically incorrect to utter a "value judgments" as the previous one. The meanest was he not a citizen like everyone else with respect to the rights and freedoms from the moment it leaves the womb? If I accuse him of perverse or vicious, he could probably sue me for libel ...

One serious criticism we regularly send to virtue ethics is that good and evil seem to have an independent existence of virtue. Thus, it thinks, the person "good", that is to say, "virtuous", condemns the man with shades as vicious because the property is not to dismember skin people to make lampshades . Basically, it seems that "good person" does little more than a moral rule allowed to start setting out what is right. We must, therefore - according objection to virtue ethics - the Prior to know what is right, before determining the virtue and vice. In sum, virtue ethics presupposes a certain conception of the good that exists independently of the exercise of virtue. The objection is therefore that if virtue determines what is good is a certain conception of the good that determines virtue.

The virtue ethics says that we must act like humans would act "good". But the good man seeks what is right. Since we must seek what is good man, we seem to aim a reality independent, objective, namely, good, independent somewhat of a good man. Thus, it seems we find ourselves here in a sort of vicious circle-. Moreover, asserting that man "good" is "good", does not already assume what "good"? At best, it would be a flat tautology that presupposes virtue ethics. I will show later that this is nothing, and the objection of circularity against virtue ethics does not.

For its part, the proponent of relativism will argue that the Nazi point of view, the lampshades in question were a good way to "recycle" Jewish corpses. We who do not share Nazi ideology, we see these forms of recovery as a horror pure and simple, so unspeakable and indescribable. You just know, relativism contends that Jews were not considered by the Nazis as humans but as subhuman - a bit like vermin. Where is the good and evil, if not in the eye of the judge?, Application relativism.

The problem with the relativist position is that the Nazis were wrong about the Jews. They do not need to exterminate vermin at any price they are beings humans, like the Germans are having their share of faults and their qualities. The Nazis were wrong then what is right and wrong.

It's the same in humans with lampshades. There's something wrong with it morally. By accepting the lampshades, approve indirectly, without realizing it too, the horrible crimes the Nazis committed against Jews. It demonstrates a clear lack of trial; in short, it lacks trial blatantly. That is the main source of his vice .

In the language Aristotle, the man with shades is unwise . At best, it is not a model of sagacity . It lacks what Aristotle takes as the virtue par excellence, phronesis: the sagacity . Today we would say it is not critical thinking or discernment and finesse trial. He knows, like all of us - except the wretched "deniers" - that six million Jews died in Nazi death camps under the pretext that they were Jews.

We all agree Indeed, the Holocaust is one of the worst humanitarian disasters committed by men. So we know all that the Holocaust was evil and that those who deny it are wrong and are irrational. So we know it is wrong to do what the Nazis did to the Jews. So we know what is right and wrong - at least with regard to the Holocaust. The man with the shades knows him well. So he knows what is right. In a sense, critics of virtue ethics are right to point out that the property exists in a certain way regardless of virtue. But it's not as simple because the property does not allow itself to reduce and only a simple knowledge. Well, in fact, is especially a coordinated manner appropriate to a knowledge . That is the virtue of "phronesis" and sagacity , which is so desperately needed to man the lampshades.

When asked if the Holocaust is wrong, surely he will answer yes, it is wrong: it was a calamity, etc.. However, accepting as he made the lampshades, using them to good use its personnel, the showing off to some as it did for me, he acts like he does not know that the Holocaust is wrong. His conduct is inconsistent and therefore irrational. Despite that there is no rule explicitly stating that it is not right making lampshades of human skin with , know that this is wrong and does not act accordingly, c is missing trial is to show blindness; in short, is being, somehow, hypocritical and vile. To be honest, is to be vicious . A good man would never have accepted such a "present", or if, despite all, he accepts, he would call on the field relevant to the Jewish authorities to ensure the memory of the Holocaust.

Critics of virtue ethics argue that it is vague and offers no guidance as to what we should do in specific situations and urgent. Aristotle has constantly stated that situations in life where we meet are so varied and different that no general rule or principle can specify what to do in each case. Certainly, one can always make simple rules such as "Be brave!" or "Be fair!". However, these rules are of such generality they are frankly unhelpful. This is the great defect of virtue ethics. But this defect is also one of the great modern ethics, deontology and consequentialism. The problem is that we believe that in formulating rules stipulating what is right, we will solve all the difficulties that arise. Unfortunately, this is an illusion.

can know what is good - or good - but that is another story to know the practice in circumstances and contexts, with specific individuals, when appropriate, etc. . One problem in this regard is that posed by so-called weakness of will (a krasia ): I do know - like Socrates and Plato argued - which is good, but I am often unable to put into practice. St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (7, 15-21), expresses the difficulty: " What I want, I do not do it, I do not want, I do ." . For Aristotle, knowledge of the property is intimately linked to will, that would not have understood his illustrious predecessors, Socrates and Plato. Without naming him, Aristotle rejects the terms of the design ethic of his master, who prevailed in the Academy:

was therefore quite right to say that by dint perform what is right and just that one becomes strong run this is that we become temperate temperate. And without doing that, no one has the slightest chance to become good.

But voila! Most act not 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. ( Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, 1105b7-18.)

C That is why Aristotle was led to define the property as inextricably linked to virtue. The Platonists may well believe that the Idea of the Good exists independently of men in the world intelligible. The man with the shades may know perfectly well by itself, mais cela ne fait en rien de lui un homme bon .

How To Make Dogs Stool

.

For months I have not made a cut between IVF

miscarriage, depression and divorce, moving,

health concerns, finance, and the gloom ... taf

I'll finally be able to change air, discovering my family

Switzerland, Geneva, Lausanne ... And

me a makeover:)

.

Shocked At The Size Of Cock

The CFTC is committed to new modes of action .. . Professional elections

November 9, 2010 - Paris

Pension Reform

The text on the pension reform is a bad text, but the law is passed and its publication is imminent. The CFTC will continue to denounce it, but the time for demonstrations and work stoppages is postponed. The conditions of the last engagement of the November 6 are an illustration significant.

is why we are not signatories to the joint statement of the Inter and not calling for new demonstrations for Tuesday, November 23 next.

read more ... Press Jacques Voisin

Famu Application Online

ADDITION TO THE INFAMOUS ! Book Review: Against Harper. In short philosophical treatise on the conservative revolution by Christian Nadeau (Penguin Books, 2010)

To criticize popular taste is to invite the charge of élitisme, and to defend distinctions of value – between the virtuous and the vicious, the beautiful and the ugly, the sacred and the profane, the true and the false – is to offend against the only value-judgement that is widely accepted, the judgement that judgements are wrong.

Roger Scruton, Philosophy: Principles and Problems (Continuum, 1996. p. 12)

To read the essay by Professor Christian Nadeau, one begins to wonder if the "liberals" in the broadest sense, philosophically, the term would not be more true conservatives. Moreover, the oxymoron of " conservative revolution" in the subtitle of the book is puzzling.

It should be noted at the outset the political camps in dispute. In political philosophy, "liberals" and "conservative" means two members of one great family, political liberalism, which does not share the same views on the role of the state in social life and its role. As said Nadeau, while the Liberals want a significant state intervention, the Conservatives want to " limited to what the state control " (p. 14).

The previous definition is sketchy or incomplete, because conservatism bears his name because of his opposition to automatically give any form of change, reform, and more to any form revolution in political institutions.

According to Nadeau's analysis of under the Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper of Canada, the Conservatives would, instead, undermining " slowly but surely ... the country's institutions to ensure the greatest flexibility in the field of citizenship and freedom security, freedom of conscience and social justice ... " (p. 16). Hence the impression that, deep down, the true conservatives, the Liberals, for whom the author does not hesitate to take up the cause. So, according to the author, the Conservatives under Stephen Harper would actually the "reformist " of Canadian political institutions. And the author of his shirt: "We are outraged because we see their actions reflected a company organized and very well against justice and democracy as we have designed so far." (p. 21)

Nadeau pulls no punches because, according to his analysis, the Conservative party would be nothing less than a new Leviathan: " Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have a Hobbesian conception of politics" (p. 39). The author establishes his thesis in accumulating a number of policy actions disturbing and shocking the Harper government. In fact, the Conservative government is like a steamroller, rolling Canadian democracy. On this point, I share the views of the author. It should however be treated with caution to the fatal fallacy, because to say that the election of the Conservative party leads straight to the grim prospect of a Big Brother State seems greatly overstated.

I also welcome the aim of the book which is an exercise in applied political philosophy (p. 10). It is important that philosophers are heard in the affairs of the city. Nadeau's essay remains, in this regard, a model of its kind. We strongly expect further tests by the author on topical issues.

That said, I do not share the views of any "liberal" Christian Nadeau. Long ago, I mistakenly thought I was a good liberal, a supporter of Rawls. Those who have the courage to read my blog know that I stand now the decidedly anti-liberal, political liberalism that Rawls is my enemy. Perhaps the title of "conservatism" it suits me. I do not know. In any case, if conservatism is a form of liberalism "right", I am not a conservative because I reject liberalism point line, it is "right" or "left" or even " center-right or-left ". What is certain is that I claim the political thought of Aristotle that can be called "conservatism." The American philosopher of politics, Michael J. Sandel, in his latest book Justice. What's the Right Thing to Do? (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009) - which I have the report here - seems to chart the way forward. Finally, I mention that in Roger Scruton, A Political Philosophy . Arguments for Conservatism (Continuum, 2007), is in the same direction. I am inclined to define conservatism by reversing the formula that Rawls has given the essence of liberalism: the priority of the right on the property. If being "conservative" is to adhere to the principle that the property has priority over the right , so I am.

What anathema to Nadeau highest point is that with the Canadian Conservatives "There then more room for pluralism: the differences of opinion are discouraged by the very people who should protect them." (p. 23). Indeed, for a liberal principles pluralism and neutrality regarding moral opinions are sacrosanct. Also, a liberal state, it is ruled by liberals or conservatives, or even the NDP, must remain neutral on questions of moral nature. Nadeau's indignation is that government intervention Harper is " based largely on a moral or a conception of the good life ... " (p. 28). This is the beating heart behind all the Nadeau test for here, conservatism at Harper picnic right in the heart of liberalism.

The first sentences of Against Harper evoke indignation that is the source of the test:

Like many people living in Canada, I am ashamed of this government. I am ashamed and I am appalled by all actions that were committed in our name and will continue to be. I've never been patriotic, but until further notice I have a Canadian passport and I pay my taxes to the Canadian state. (p. 9)

Despite the outrage, what you notice in this opening, the character "formal" detached, disengaged, so to speak, with respect to the country. The liberal, indeed, defines its identity by its adherence to democratic political institutions, end of story. The patriotic and other antics of the genre do not interest little. How could it be otherwise, since these are "values" regarding the good life, indeed it does absolutely not the author as citizen Liberal . is the ego politics "who speaks, the only reality that is of importance in the eyes of a liberal citizen. Also, the author does not understand how you might want to mix politics and morality, as anxious conservatives. This is outrageous! he exclaims loudly.

At the hearing, however, he who calls for neutrality, we can not help think it is by no means neutral. That is why the accusation of bias moral rightful like a boomerang in his face, and he is astonished amazement.

Regarding the famous liberal neutrality, I would like to conclude by showing that it is a lure with two examples. (For other examples, I refer the reader to the work of Michael Sandel cited.)

Take the case of marriage of same sex. You can not judge the homosexual marriage without determining what the goal or purpose of marriage. The debate on marriage gay is fundamentally a moral debate over 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 saying 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 full: gay marriage was legitimate, this type of union he deserves the recognition of the state? To break this impasse, the Liberal invokes the idea that marriage is an institution that changes with the times and places. They therefore call on moral relativism . No wonder the Conservatives accuse the Liberals of "relativism." The Liberals argue that marriage may also be considered loyalty as a commitment between two partners - gay or straight, whatever. Now, let us note well, this type of reasoning, the liberal takes the bottom position on the purpose or purposes of marriage, that is to say, he leaves his apparent neutrality to affirm the moral legitimacy of marriage homosexual.

Finally, consider the new course of Ethics and Religious Culture (RCT). This course originally Proulx Report on the place of religion in school. Again, we ask that public education must respect human rights, including equal fundamental citizens to freedom of conscience and religion. The conclusion of the said report runs, it seems, source: the State must refrain from taking a position for or against one or the other religions should not promote the teaching of any one denomination.

Again, let us note, we face a moral question that bypasses yet liberal when he pulled on the famous neutrality of the state. But he can not escape the moral question regarding the purpose of education religious service. By proposing that the school does not teach of religious beliefs but only religious knowledge without commitment or the teacher or students, the liberal state leaves its apparent neutrality laying in the end the purpose of this type of education. The austere and rigorous form of the Report suggests that Proulx is an objective decision based on established rules of art, and that no moral position is adopted. All is bathed in neutral most misleading. Therefore, on behalf of the absolute equality before the law, since September 2008, all young Quebecers must take the RCT.

What is the moral position taken by the Proulx report? - That the purpose of religious education must respect the right to freedom of belief and conscience of young people. In sum, another goal of religious education, other than education in the faith is imposed on the basis of the right to freedom of conscience and belief. So, education in faith is no longer desirable . Here we have a moral! Farewell neutrality!


should now to include the type of liberal thinking among the list of fallacies. I propose the term of "liberal fallacy" to describe this kind of fallacious reasoning.

As Voltaire liked to say, in the famous words attributed to him: I do not believe a word of what you say but I will do everything in my power so that you can express . It is the liberal creed. Strictly speaking, the Liberal vowed to respect the freedom of individual conscience, not their beliefs. It does not respect religion, only choice of the person in matters of religion. Indeed, for the liberal, the ability to choose defines the human person. That is why the Liberal think the truth value of belief the believer must be enclosed in parentheses. Instead, the truth of his belief is central to the believer, because without it, the belief loses interest. is like saying I believe in the sovereignty of Quebec, but Quebec will never sovereign, or even I believe in resurrection after death, but it is a belief among many other equally (or little) as valid as each other . As the philosophers say Analytical believe that p implies I think p is true. Strangled by order of neutrality, the liberal truth that obscures elementary logic.

Basically, the infamous need to decry it as much as the conservative Liberal.

Infiniti St950 Troubleshooting Guide

November 18: Professional elections on the establishment of St. Cloud. See
info by clicking on the link site of St. Cloud

Causes Of Food In Stool

The birth of rationality: invention or discovery?

The Greek philosophers did they "invented" or "discovered" rationality? I open a textbook of philosophy for the first course in college, that of Alain Bellemare (Genesis beyond Western rationality. From Thales to Plato. Gaétan Morin, 1997), and I quote:

"Rational thinking, rationality, (...) was invented by the Greeks in the sixth century BCE." (P. 32)

The thesis of the author wants life in democratic, political system invented by the Greeks and also introduced in the Greek cities, explains the invention of rationality. (The author writes well "invented" and not "discovered.")

This well-known thesis is taken from the French anthropologist and historian Jean-Pierre Vernant (1914-2007), a specialist in ancient Greece (see his classic The origins of Greek thought , PUF, 1962). She quickly became a dogma history of philosophy. No wonder then that a colleague's resume on his own, and is presented in a textbook. Yet it has serious flaws. I am just going to raise one of epistemological nature.

First, we must say it was fashionable, especially in France with the approach of May '68, to undermine belief in academic scholars showing that this venerable academic discipline is philosophy is explained, like any social phenomenon, for the humanities. Then we took consciousness that philosophy has an underbody historical, social and political. In sum, we thought back on land speculation puffy philosophers.

From the perspective of humanities, philosophy becomes an empirically observable phenomenon, as Mircea Eliade had done its part to religion.

But here's the problem epistemological arises. The humanities are passing presupposing a position epistemological knowledge, namely on historical knowledge. So that they can not claim complete neutrality in terms of philosophical justification they advance only "facts". In our case, that of the birth of rationality, it is an explanation of type empiricist. Alain Bellemare (containing roughly Vernant), for example, tells us that experience is what did the Greeks (not all, of course) of democracy who begat rationality. The same manual, I quote:

"... rationality is developed in Greece in the soil of democratic debate. And it seems normal [induction], having become accustomed to rational argument regarding issues of political life, the Greeks [not all] to incorporate this habit beyond the political sphere, in the study of nature, reflection on the meaning of human life. (P. 40)

The partisan empiricist history will conclude that rationality - the reason - was thus "invented" by the Greek thinkers. For reason follows from experience policy of the Greeks. In this empirical perspective, there is no question that the reason existed before the experiment. This would be a sacrilege. It is not question of admitting that the experience had "discovered" the reason to exist, so to speak before the experiment. Another curse of empiricist thought. The word "discovery" indicates that something in fact existed, was hidden or concealed, which was then "un-covered" or brought to light.

As we know, epistemology, rationalism is opposed to empiricism. Rationalism believes the reason is prior to experience. For a rationalist supporter of history, this is not experience that invented the reason, but reason itself is revealed to us. Rationalist philosophy of history of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) constitutes perhaps the most perfect model. In the rationalist perspective, the reason is not "invented" but "breakthrough" or, better, "revealed."

I conclude this too brief note on the strong desire that the followers of the humanities, whether historians, sociologists, anthropologists, etc.., Wonder about the epistemological to which they subscribe without too much achieve before declaring that they are the "facts" speak for themselves.

Sartre liked to say that we are condemned to freedom. We can also say that we are condemned to philosophy in the sense that whatever they say, whatever one thinks, one is no exception. You only realize it, and try to say.

How Can I Create A Custom Bmx Bike

'greed

The miser: Scrooge

Aristotle - he always ... - Argued that the state exists only for the good life. The Liberals rejected this argument to Rawls. The recent financial crisis in the U.S. shows, however, black and white that the cause is "greed" land bankers. Sorry to say it so bluntly, but call a spade a spade: greed is a vice . The generosity is the virtue. But as the liberal state does not wish in any way meddle in moral - even if Obama has roundly scolded the ugly American bankers in condemning their greed - no moral sanction to it was taken against the greedy bankers who continue to thrive the tax payers money and pay themselves salaries and bonuses Pharaohs - as Robin would say our national banks. Political liberalism is frankly the worst thing ever. It justifies the philosophical level, the system of "invisible hand" - capitalism - which is only perversion. If capitalism is wrong, liberalism is the source of this depravity is that of greed and greed. I therefore support what is wrong this is not capitalism as such but liberalism.

In The Duchess of Langeais , Balzac said the duchess before the court by too insistent of the Marquis de Montriveau " Shut up, do not speak well, you're feeling too big to fit the follies of liberalism, which claim to kill God . Nietzsche announced the death of God, and liberalism had already killed. Of course, by "God" should be hear the beautiful and great things, that is to say, the virtues. But the word "virtue" sounds wrong to our modern ears. It evokes a dark and distant past where there was the Inquisition. But we must return to virtue ethics as the dark ages, which is ours, not that the title of a film.

would we see a state get its citizens to practice generosity and to condemn the greed and avarice? Liberals we shouted out "indoctrination" morale! As another said: "Everyone is for virtue, but little practice. "

Cheat The Property And Casualty Test

PLFSS 2011: Planing intensive?

The National Assembly began on October 26 review of the draft law on financing of Social Security (PLFSS) for 2011.

To reduce the deficit to 21.4 billion euros, the project proposes strict control of health spending , a recovery of the debt by the Sinking Fund for debt reduction and social social niches (cf. LC No. 1323).

To achieve this, a commission chaired by Jacques Attali has made 27 proposals in a report to parliament on October 15. Among the proposals the most "unfair" retained in the PLFSS , is expected to seek "financial participation of patients in long-term illness-ALD" (cancer, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis ...) being taken 100% paid by Social Security without means. The project foresees the establishment of a fixed reimbursement for diabetes self-testing devices for some patients and the end of the integration systematic management of transportation expenditures for the latter. A delisting of drugs from 35% to 30% is also recommended.

The Attali report went further by advocating that the PLFSS to freeze certain social benefits and to means-tested family allowances. A hypothesis that Secretary of State for Family, fortunately squelched in the name of "family policy".

Another pleasant surprise: the proposed amendment in the Committee on Social Affairs on the basic allowance of home delivery of the young child (Paje) for a payment on the day of birth - and not from the month following the initial PLFSS as expected. An examination of the text is still in its infancy ... we must therefore expect further developments.