Бохеньский вообще не скупится на выражения. Приятно освежающий стиль:

I am often in doubt about many authors of the dialectical art, whether to accuse them of ignorance, vanity or malice, or all at once. For when I consider the numerous errors by which they have deceived themselves no less than others, I ascribe them to negligence or human weakness. But when on the other hand I see that everything they have transmitted to us in endless books has been given in quite a few rules, what other reason can I suppose than sheer pride? In amusing themselves by letting the branches of the vine spread far and wide, they have changed the true vine into a wild one. And when - this is the worst - I see the sophisms, quibbles and misrepresentations which they use and teach, I can only kindle against them as against people who teach the art of piracy rather than navigation, or to express myself more mildly, knowledge of wrestling instead of war.

8:40 — как же это стильно!

https://youtu.be/So80hc00lgA?si=FwLWXEUFACELFyeh

"Мыслящая материя" в русской поэзии. Эпиграмма Лермонтова:

"Душа телесна!" - ты всех уверяешь смело;
Я соглашусь, любовию дыша:
Твоё прекпамнейшее тело
Не что иное, как душа!..

Вам не послышалось:
https://youtu.be/VGCQZtbtN2Q?si=9LhT_pnf4s1sompB

Дорогие подписчики и не только, анонсирую чтения книги Альвы Ноэ "Varieties of Presence".

Книга знакомит нас с сенсомоторной теорией восприятия Ноэ, представленной им в "Action in Perception" в 2004 и доработанной им в течении последующих 8 лет. Она содержит 7 эссе, в которых Ноэ решает разные аспекты самой важной по его мнению проблемы восприятия:  проблемы перцептуального присутствия. Ноэ выделяется тем, что будучи энактивистом настаивает на концептуальности восприятия, формулируя свою теорию не-языковой концептуальности.

В ходе чтений мы также будем обращаться к критикам Ноэ и его поздним работам. У Ноэ достаточно простой английский, пишет он ясно, а книга не очень большая, так что о пороге вхождения не переживайте. 

Чтения мы начнем со следующей недели, собираться будем в дискорде. Время и дату определим в зависимости от возможностей участников. Кому интересно, добавляйтесь в конфу: https://t.me/+_1q3UROf0X5lZjI6

База:

This lack of interest of the philosophical community in some of the most truly philosophical parts of logic is of course partly inevitable. It is due to the difficulty of mastering a rapidly growing and in many cases highly technical field. What is really disconcerting is not so much the undiluted ignorance of some philosophers’ comments on such old subjects as Godel’s results as their failure (or reluctance) to follow Socrates and recognize the extent of their ignorance (Hintikka, Logic, Language Games, and Information, 2)

Какая жиза (не про исключительный ум, а про сложности с визуализацией)

Найдены истоки пропозициональной аберрации аналитической философии

Забавная история за книгой Рассела о Лейбнице:

The book came about by accident. Russell was spending the academic year 1898–9 in Cambridge. At the time he was a Fellow of Trinity College, but his Fellowship involved no duties. The regular lecturer on the philosophy of Leibniz at the time was John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart, who had been one of Russell’s teachers. McTaggart had a romantic interest in a young lady, later to become his wife, who had returned to New Zealand after a stay in England; he requested leave to visit her there and plead his case, which Trinity granted. Still the Leibniz lectures had to be given, so Russell was asked to deliver them. No doubt the authorities took into account in making their request the fact that Leibniz too had logic as one of his central interests. Russell took his new responsibility very seriously indeed; he wrote the lectures out and read them to his audience; <...> Writing out what he had to say not only produced better lectures; the resulting manuscript could also be submitted for publication, an important consideration for a young man in a hurry to make his mark as a writer.

In my student days I thought I was going to be a sculptor, and I addressed myself more energetically to blocks of wood and stone than to either philosophy or science. It occurred to me while working on this book that I have never abandoned the methods I developed in the studio, but simply changed media. Unlike the draftsman, who must get each line just right with the first stroke of the pen, the sculptor has the luxury of nibbling and grinding away until the lines and surfaces look just right. First you rough out the block, standing back and squinting now and then to make sure you are closing in on the dimly seen final product. Only after the piece is bulked out in the right proportions do you return to each crude, rough surface and invest great labor in getting the fine details just so.

Some philosophers are very unsympathetic to this method when they encounter it in philosophy. They have no patience with roughed-in solutions and want to see nothing but hard, clean edges from the outset. I aspire to the same finished product that they do, but question their strategy. It is just too hard getting off on the right foot in philosophy, and nowhere are the risks of their strategy more evident than in the philosophical literature on free will, which is littered with brilliant but useless fragments
(Dennett, Elbow Row, 3)