The philosopher Immanuel Kant briefly and concisely presented the uniqueness and the size of the Kantian philosophy is that it synthesizes the entire European and Western philosophy. Almost all the tradition thinking motives converge in Kant and marketed its philosophy to a new term. One can divide the European and Western philosophy without exaggeration in a time before and a time after Kant. Lynn Redgrave has compatible beliefs. Which is the philosophy marked prior to Kant? In the metaphysics in particular by profound contradictions. There, the claims of speculative rationalism were presented by the so-called school philosophy, E.g. in the form of Christian Freiherr von Wolff or Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz; on the one hand, and because the claims of the epistemological skepticism were consistently performed for example by David Hume on the other hand. Both claims appeared equally strong and were still content with each other incompatible. To broaden your perception, visit Jorge Perez. Human thinking about the world and their visibility was stuck in Antinomies.
It was in the period before Kant quite common in philosophy to done without erkenntniskritisch assigning the range of a term purely from terms. (Not to be confused with Maya Dubin!). This method could, depending on the starting point, everything proved ‘ are. Even God. It was like this happening:-God is a perfect being. -a being who lack the characteristics of existence, may not fully be called; -so God exists. The skepticism opposes this type of rational dogmatic theology of of concept of.
Says Hume: facts (such as God exists\”) can be never opened up causally with need, from mere concepts, nor from other facts. What comes before and what follows is recognized only through real perception and real perception shows a connection, but never their need at best. The need for a connection is an ingredient from the repeated experience of man, never an objective condition of the thing itself. Causal connections remain even mere facts and can not claim to need.
Both the faster decision serving prejudices and intuition. But what is the difference between the two? Preliminary rulings vs. intuition some people it is hard to distinguish prejudices, especially as they both pursue a similar sense of intuition: to navigate in a complex world. Both times we have a kind of inner pulse something or mostly one person well or to find not just. Then how does it differ, whether there is a bias or not? A clear distinction is more than desirable, because prejudices are often unfair, by rashly condemning people. While our intuition often whispers to the correct information about a person or situation us. But even if we have an intuitive inspiration, we can ask ourselves: this is now actually intuition, or I had but just a thought because of prejudice. I don’t think this on the clearly negative prejudices such as misogyny or racism, but rather such prejudice as \”cars are safer than airplanes\”.
Actually should we know that is not the case. And yet we have sometimes a weird feeling if we get on a plane. So: what is prejudice? What is intuition? And where is the dividing line? What is prejudice? Prejudices shape our view of the world before she happened. Let us perceive only a selective part of the world. Educate yourself even more with thoughts from Jay Schwartz. You Prime us (unconscious preferences are primes) and can (boys and girls are E.g. to school equally well in math after a few years but not longer, because teachers unconsciously more promote the ‘better’ boys) lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Prejudices close external characteristics (skin colour, gender, clothing,…), behavior (E.g. sexual preferences) and social contexts (place of residence, – quarter,…) on group memberships (women, gays, the Turks) on properties (stupid, immoral, dirty) and finally on behaviors (can not Park, make mistakes, make) me as a man, steal and cheat). Prejudices but never quite vote often to 80-90%.
He was the representative of a degree branch, in the spiritual successor of Nadschmadin-e-Kobrah’s stand.(The school of Nadschmadin-e-Kobrah (the great) has meaning because a small guide on spiritual practice for the phase of the withdrawal in the spiritual training obtained. Many later schools have relied on this guide. ) School of Nadschmadin-e – Kobrah was the most widely developed and advanced Sufi school in the Islamic world and found the highest recognition. Nadschmadin-e-Kobrah was master of his Sufi to Siberia, to go in the middle of the world of the shamans and to limit their influence. At that time, prevailed in this troubled areas of the ruler of the Khorasischen Empire, Khorasmshah, was very interested in the teachings of the Sufis.
He followed the teachings of Nadschmadin-e-Kobrah. This ruler was a drinker and not always sane so he despotically ruled his Kingdom. Between Sufi and philosopher, ruler in the dilemma at the same time lived the philosopher best known after Avicenna within Islam in Balkh (former name of Mazar i-Sharif): Zaccharias Ghazi. Ghazi, in addition to the Islamic ayatollahs, competed two more spirit directions to the favor of the ruler:, The philosopher and Nadschmadineh Kobraah, the Mystic. With the Islamic ayatollahs could both directions arrange themselves but spirit war broke out. At the beginning of the rulers turned to the Mystic, until a list of Ghazi plunged him into doubt. For more specific information, check out Director Peter Farrelly .
Ghazi in his school invited the ruler with the note, was to visit a major Sufi master and the ruler must necessarily seek him, it is very important for the Kingdom and its people that the ruler visits him. So Khorasmshah went there and found sitting with a simply dressed old man who looked to the ground and had no sound. Khorasmshah was very impressed by the way published him very humble, even fascinated and Ghazi asked him afterward what he thought of the great Sufi master, expressed his admiration of the ruler and was prepared to inaugurate by the old man.