ellauri033.html on line 632: Spinozalla on teoreemana might is right. Haanpää päätyi samaan lopputulemaan. Se on ratki axiomaattista. Oikein on pelisäännön mukaista, ja pelisäännöt ratkee voimasuhteista. Aristoteles ja Rawlskin sanoo niin. Ei se ole muuta kuin Newtonin laki voimien resultantista siirrettynä elolliseen maailmaan.
ellauri033.html on line 1093: Considérer sa propre destinée comme un corollaire dans cette géometrie vivante qui est la nature, et par suite comme une conséquence inévitable de cet axiome éternel dont le développement indéfini se prolongue à travers le temps et l´espace, tel est le unique principe de l´affranchissement.
ellauri072.html on line 477: What will happen when the age-old economy of scarcity gives way to the Age of Leisure? Professor Gabor, who won the 1971 Nobel Prize for physics offers a futuristic projection based on a static population and GNP, "classless, democratic, and uniformly rich." Fearful that total secruity "will create unbearable boredom and bring out the worst in Irrational Man," Gabor is anxious to retain "effort," "hardship," and the Protestant Ethic -- lest society dissolve in an orgy of anti-social, hedonistic nihilism (viz. the current drug explosion and the spoiled-brat students). To avoid such evils Gabor proposes that work and its attendant moral uplift be divorced from production and the service sector of the economy be vastly enlarged. But this is only the beginning -- enthusiastic about Social Engineering Gabor suggests using it to weed out potential misfits, trouble-makers and "power addicts"; supplementing I.Q. tests with E.Q. (Ethical Quotient) measurements; and modeling elementary and secondary education on the 19th century British public school which knew so well how to inculcate good citizenship, intellectual excellence and pride in achievement. The Third World, still wrestling with pre-industrial material want, is ignored -- since we can't afford any more industrial pollution presumably they will just have to adjust to their misery. Gabor's assessment of "the Nature of Man" shows a woefully naive Anglo-American ethnocentricity and complete ignorance of anthropology and his vision of post-industrial utopia operating on the moral axioms of the 19th century is as elitist as it is improbable.
ellauri109.html on line 461: Il me déplaît pour avoir mis en axiomes et pratique « la Poésie du cœur » (double farce à l'usage des impuissants et des charlatans). En voilà un qui a été peu critique ! Il me paraît avoir eu sur l'humanité le coup d'œil d'un coiffeur sentimental ! Toujours « mon pauvre cœur », toujours les larmes ! — je crois du reste que la mère Colet l'a reproduit assez fidèlement ? et il est facile maintenant de le bien connaître. As-tu remarqué ses affectations de noblesse ? Ses éternels bals aux ambassades ? Comme c'est beau cet homme qui porte sa douleur dans le monde ! — telle qu'un bijou rare, pour l'ébahissement de ces Messieurs et ces Dames !
ellauri111.html on line 387: The Bible says that nobody is good enough to get into heaven. We have all sinned. Each one of us has broken God's commandments--not one person is excepted. You have personally lied and committed other sins. Don't argue, it's an axiom!
ellauri119.html on line 688: From a philosophical viewpoint, Ayn Rand´s objectivism is an inconsistent pile of faulty axioms and absurd conclusions. Her tautological A = A and her invalid claim that all thought is verbal have been shown, long ago, to be either useless information or demonstrably false. Wittgenstein dismissed tautologies as telling us anything new about the world before Rand came to the USA and phenomenology had dismissed a verbal mentalese grammar of the brain. Noam Chomsky´s innate grammar is only true for words, but thoughts are far more than just words since all thought appears to be motor based. What you might need is a grammar of the body instead. Thoughts seem to be closer to the movements of an athlete than to the words in a sentence. For some reason most people ignore that all speech is base on wagging the tongue, and the vibrations in middle ear and cochlea, a motor based capability that we have learned to use to communicate with. Is there an isomorphism between the movement of the tongue and those of sign language that would show a fundamental grammar shared by both?
ellauri158.html on line 113: P. 1. axiom. 1. Omnia quae sunt vel in se vel in alio sunt. [in: P. 1. prop. 4., prop. 6. coroll., prop. 11., prop. 14. coroll. 2., prop. 15., prop. 28.]
ellauri158.html on line 117: P. 1. axiom. 2. Id quod per aliud non potest concipi, per se concipi debet. [in: Ep. 3. §. 4.]
ellauri158.html on line 121: P. 1. axiom. 3. Ex data causa determinata necessario sequitur effectus, et contra si nulla detur determinata causa, impossibile est ut effectus sequatur. [in: P. 1. prop. 27., P. 4. prop. 31., P. 5. prop. 33.]
ellauri158.html on line 125: P. 1. axiom. 4. Effectus cognitio a cognitione causae dependet et eandem involvit. [in:P. 1. prop. 3., prop. 6. coroll., prop. 25., P. 2. prop. 5., prop. 6., prop. 7., prop. 16., prop. 45., P. 5. prop. 22.]
ellauri158.html on line 129: P. 1. axiom. 5. Quae nihil commune cum se invicem habent, etiam per se invicem intelligi non possunt, sive conceptus unius alterius conceptum non involvit. [in: P. 1. prop. 3.]
ellauri158.html on line 133: P. 1. axiom. 6. Idea vera debet cum suo ideato convenire. [in: P. 1. prop. 5., prop. 30., P. 2. prop. 29., prop. 32., prop. 44., prop. 44. coroll. 2., etiam in: Ep. 66. §. 3.]
ellauri158.html on line 137: P. 1. axiom. 7. Quicquid ut non existens potest concipi, eius essentia non involvit existentiam. [in: P. 1. prop. 11.]
ellauri158.html on line 358: P. 2. axiom. 1. Hominis essentia non involvit necessariam existentiam, hoc est, ex naturae ordine tam fieri potest, ut hic et ille homo existat, quam ut non existat. [in: P. 2. prop. 10., prop. 11., prop. 30.]
ellauri158.html on line 362: P. 2. axiom. 2. Homo cogitat. [in: P. 2. prop. 11.]
ellauri158.html on line 366: P. 2. axiom. 3. Modi cogitandi, ut amor, cupiditas vel quicumque nomine affectus animi insigniuntur, non dantur, nisi in eodem individuo detur idea rei amatae, desideratae, etc. At idea dari potest, quamvis nullus alius detur cogitandi modus. [in: P. 2. prop. 11., prop. 49.]
ellauri158.html on line 370: P. 2. axiom. 4. Nos corpus quoddam multis modis affici sentimus. [in: P. 2. prop. 13.]
ellauri158.html on line 374: P. 2. axiom. 5. Nullas res singulares praeter corpora et cogitandi modos sentimus, nec percipimus. [in: P. 2. prop. 13.]
ellauri158.html on line 470: ---- axiom. 1. Omnia corpora vel moventur, vel quiescunt. [in: P. 2. lem. 3.]
ellauri158.html on line 474: ---- axiom. 2. Unumquodque corpus iam tardius, iam celerius movetur.
ellauri158.html on line 497: ------- axiom. 1. Omnes modi, quibus corpus aliquod ab alio afficitur corpore, ex natura corporis affecti et simul ex natura corporis afficientis sequuntur; ita ut unum idemque corpus diversimode moveatur pro diversitate naturae corporum moventium, et contra ut diversa corpora ab uno eodemque corpore diversimode moveantur. [in: P. 2. prop. 16., prop. 24., P. 3. postul. 1., prop. 17. schol., prop. 51., prop. 57.]
ellauri158.html on line 501: -------- axiom. 2. Cum corpus motum alteri quiescenti quod dimovere nequit, impingit, reflectitur, ut moveri pergat, et angulus lineae motus reflectionis cum plano corporis quiescentis, cui impegit, aequalis erit angulo, quem linea motus incidentiae cum eodem plano efficit. [in: P. 2. prop. 17. coroll.]
ellauri158.html on line 509: -------- axiom. 3. Quo partes individui vel corporis compositi secundum maiores vel minores superficies sibi invicem incumbunt, eo difficilius vel facilius cogi possunt, ut situm suum mutent, et consequenter eo difficilius vel facilius effici potest, ut ipsum individuum aliam figuram induat. Atque hinc corpora, quorum partes secundum magnas superficies invicem incumbunt, dura, quorum autem partes secundum parvas, mollia, et quorum denique partes inter se moventur, fluida vocabo.
ellauri158.html on line 694: Hence also it follows, that everyone thought out for himself, according to his abilities, a different way of worshipping God, so that God might love him more than his fellows, and direct the whole course of nature for the satisfaction of his blind cupidity and insatiable avarice. Thus the prejudice developed into superstition, and took deep root in the human mind; and for this reason everyone strove most zealously to understand and explain the final causes of things; but in their endeavor to show that nature does nothing in vain, i.e. nothing which is useless to man, they only seem to have demonstrated that nature, the gods, and men are all mad together. Consider, I pray you, the result: among the many helps of nature they were bound to find some hindrances, such as storms, earthquakes, diseases, &c.: so they declared that such things happen, because the gods are angry at some wrong done to them by men, or at some fault committed in their worship. Experience day by day protested and showed by infinite examples, that good and evil fortunes fall to the lot of pious and impious alike; still they would not abandon their inveterate prejudice, for it was more easy for them to class such contradictions among other unknown things of whose use they were ignorant, and thus to retain their actual and innate condition of ignorance, than to destroy the whole fabric of their reasoning and start afresh. They therefore laid down as an axiom, that God´s judgments far transcend human understanding. Such a doctrine might well have sufficed to conceal the truth from the human race for all eternity, if mathematics had not furnished another standard of verity in considering solely the essence and properties of figures without regard to their final causes. There are other reasons (which I need not mention here) besides mathematics, which might have caused men´s minds to be directed to these general prejudices, and have led them to the knowledge of the truth.
ellauri158.html on line 776: P. 3. prop. 7. Conatus, quo unaquaeque res in suo esse perseverare conatur, nihil est praeter ipsius rei actualem essentiam. [in: P. 3. prop. 9., prop. 10., prop. 37., prop. 54., P. 4. defin. 8., prop. 4., prop. 5., prop. 8., prop. 15., prop. 18., prop. 18. schol., prop. 20., prop. 21., prop. 22., prop. 25., prop. 26., prop. 32., prop. 33., prop. 53., prop. 60., prop. 64., P. 5. axiom. 2., prop. 8., prop. 9., prop. 25., etiam in: Ep. 66. §. 2.]
ellauri158.html on line 995: P. 4. axiom. Nulla res singularis in rerum natura datur, qua potentior et fortior non detur alia. Sed quacumque data datur alia potentior, a qua illa data potest destrui. [in: P. 4. prop. 3., prop. 7., P. 5. prop. 37. schol.]
ellauri158.html on line 1149: P. 5. axiom. 1. Si in eodem subiecto duae contrariae actiones excitentur, debebit necessario vel in utraque vel in una sola mutatio fieri, donec desinant contrariae esse. [in: P. 5. prop. 7.]
ellauri158.html on line 1150: P. 5. axiom. 2. Effectus potentia definitur potentia ipsius causae, quatenus eius essentia per ipsius causae essentiam explicatur vel definitur. [in: P. 5. prop. 8. schol.]
ellauri196.html on line 87: axiomaticum
29