Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
If Plato has a gun hanging on the wall, it is a distorted copy of the idea of a gun.
If Aristotle has a gun on the wall, there are four reasons why this gun is a gun.
If Sextus Empiricus has a gun hanging on the wall, then we must refrain from judging it and fall into ataraxia.
If a scholar has a gun hanging on his wall, then we know that it is a gun because Aristotle said so.
If Thomas Aquinas has a gun hanging on the wall, then this is another proof of the existence of God.
If Rene Descartes has a gun hanging on the wall, then this raises great doubts and needs proof. So, let's start with yourself…
If John Locke has a gun hanging on the wall, then we know it's a gun based solely on previous experience, and we can't invent our own gun.
If Thomas Hobbes has a gun hanging on the wall, it will be given to the sovereign to stop the ” war of all against all.”
If George Berkeley has a gun hanging on the wall, then it's not there, just like the walls, but God is there, so he sends these images.
If David Hume has a gun hanging on the wall, it's either an impression or an idea, but in any case, there's no need for it to hang there tomorrow.
If Immanuel Kant has a gun hanging on the wall, then we do not see the gun itself, we only see the phenomenon, and the gun itself is incomprehensible to us.
If Georg Hegel has a gun hanging on his wall and doesn't fit into his system, so much the worse for the gun.
If Karl Marx has a gun on his wall, it is a means of production, with which the bourgeois class exploits the working class.
If Friedrich Nietzsche has a gun hanging on the wall, then only by throwing it over the abyss can you get close to the superman.
Sigmund Freud has a gun hanging on the wall , which is, of course, a phallic symbol. A shot means the realization of desire, a “no-shot” means its suppression.
If Albert Einstein has a gun hanging on the wall, then it is far from a fact that the gun is hanging on the wall, maybe the wall is hanging on the gun, it all depends on what we take as the center of coordinates.
If Jean-Paul Sartre has a gun on the wall, then there is no gun: this is just a fragment of being-in-itself. As a gun, it is “determined” by my free consciousness, and only I, in my absolute freedom, choose whether it will shoot or not.
In Albert Camus: whether a gun is hanging on the wall or not, whether it goes off or not, one is no better than the other, it is still absurd.
If Ludwig Wittgenstein has a gun hanging on the wall, then we first need to clarify what we mean by the words “hang”, “wall” and”gun”.
If Gilles Deleuze has a gun hanging on the wall, it's one of the tubers of the rhizome of the war machine.
If Slavoj Zizek has a gun hanging on the wall, then the very act of hanging a gun symbolizes that the patriarchal power is deeply helpless at its core and is approaching impotence, and the indication of the manufacturer's brand on the gun symbolizes the crisis of capitalism.
If Michel Foucault has a gun hanging on the wall, then you need to understand whether this wall is the wall of a prison, a psychiatric hospital or a conscription center. It is important to analyze in which dispositive the “wall-gun” relation emerged and whether this relation is not part of a broader network of power-knowledge relations.
If Mao has a gun on his wall, it gives rise to power.
If Russell has a gun on the wall, then the current king of France is probably bald.
If Toffler has a gun hanging on the wall, it means that there is no need for it in a post-industrial society. What is valuable is who has information about the owner of the gun.
V. Rudnev, commentary to FI [60]:
“…the semantic whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. [ … ] Classical semantics of Frege and early Wittgenstein believed that an object should have one meaning and many meanings. A stick stuck in a brush is a paraphrastic description of the meaning of “mop”. Wittgenstein questions this fundamental principle, claiming it as his main principle in this work — the principle of use. If the use of “Bring me a stick stuck in the brush” seems ridiculous, then this expression cannot serve as one of the peripheral meanings of the meaning of “mop”. That's the pathos of this great example. Wittgenstein leaves the limits of propositional semantics, building his new semantics of language games. In it, all the meanings of a single meaning (from the point of view of propositional semantics) become independent meanings, as they enter into various language games.”
Schrodinger's shotgun fires simultaneously and is unloaded. It all depends on the observer in which quantum state he observes the gun.
Although a little off topic
If the gun:
Not beans
Does not lie on the floor
Then Pythagoras believes that you can do with it what you want. At least eat it or put swallows under it, for example. Just don't you dare stir the fire with them, under any circumstances.
If Martin Heidegger has a gun hanging on the wall, then this is a manifestation of machenschaft, which we have yet to think about and comprehend. It should also be noted that the pre-Socratics did not have any gun, so the gun only prevents us from seeing the thought in the lumen of thought.