# data[].attributes.body
Hannah Arendt

Simone de Beauvoir

Judith Butler

Simone Weil

Mary Woolestonecraft

Martha Nußbaum

arendt

aynd

shotwell

Jaegii

Anscombe

Murdoch

cojocaru

paganini

de beauvoir

stein

graneß

dhawan

hypatia

Weil

Audre Lorde

Angela Davis

bell hooks

Anupam Yadavs

bratu

Hänel

puddifoot

Sally Haslanger

Hildegard von Bingen

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Decolonize the History of Philosophy

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Decolonize the History of Philosophy

# data[].attributes.body
accept history is flawed but this doesn'T mean we have to give up philosopy

To focus on the act of Rememberance and how is it social organised

Put the human more in focus than the Theorie and focus more on the negativ Side Part

Try to give some room the the people who are excluded so they can tell their story and we can learn of it

stop thinking of history as neutral and accept our complicity, but not just accept our guilt but try to change the reason of our complicity,

Reflect, where my view is coming from. Detect the Structers around us

Education has to be changed

New technologies could be implented to decolonize the history of philosophy.

The winners write history. Prewar persepctives have to be taken into consideration.

How do we ask the questions concerning the history of philosophy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Movies - Matrix, The Oracle's Vase Scene

# data[].attributes.body
For curiosity. For better understanding of the world.

# data[].attributes.body
to understand the non-physical part of us and our surroundings

by questioning our fundamental beliefs about the world and our thinking we can build a better understanding of our theories and actions; it helps us to understand where we can start philosophy

it enhances the critical way of thinking   and skepticisms    about the world around   and having question about the Postulates things around us

practical (what is real, what causalities work...)
ethical (what is right > Plato)

because we are the only beings which can work on this question

For a better understanding of the world

because our understanding of it influences how we view the world and interact with it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trinity's kiss revive Neo in The Matrix Movie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Analyzing Knowledge #1 (The Gettier Problem) [HD]

# data[].attributes.body
Perception

Reason

Intuition

Imagination

Experince

# data[].attributes.body
gut feeling

family stories

history books

journals

senses

discussions

experiences

logic

# data[].attributes.body
Maybe there does not only have to be one truth (compare Newton and Einstein)
Our experience can be a source of Knowledge, reasoning can also be a source of knowledge

# data[].attributes.body
There is no absolute truth we can access, but we can get close to it. Depending on the question and methodology, we assume to get varyingly close.

# data[].attributes.body
We can never know, because we don't have an objective access to true knowledge

Our position defines already what we answer.

True knowledge is depending on the context.

# data[].attributes.body
Why did the Axial Age come about?

traveling

development of technology & science

Globalization

Ethics of new technologies

Change to Agricultural lifestyle

Infrastructure

Writing

# data[].attributes.body
Philosophy is not emotion.

# data[].attributes.body
•Is philosophy a continuum, because philosophers do the same thing?

not only a game of language

not a therapy method

a system of (final) answers for questions

a natural science

life advice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is The Matrix? | The Matrix [Open Matte]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blue Pill or Red Pill - The Matrix (2/9) Movie CLIP (1999) HD

# data[].attributes.headline
“It’s the question that drives us. It's the question that brought you here.”

# data[].attributes.subject
“It’s the question that drives us. It's the question that brought you here.”

# data[].attributes.body
“Yes,” he said, “I think that he would choose to endure anything rather than such a life.” “And consider this also,” said I, “if such a one should go down again and take his old place would he not get his eyes full¹ of darkness, thus suddenly coming out of the sunlight?” “He would indeed.” “Now if he should be required to contend with these perpetual prisoners  in 'evaluating' these shadows while his vision was still dim and before his eyes were accustomed to the dark—and this time required for habituation would not be very short—would he not provoke laughter, and would it not be said of him that he had returned from his journey aloft with his eyes ruined and that it was not worth while even to attempt the ascent? And if it were possible to lay hands on and to kill the man who tried to release them and lead them up, would they not kill him?” “They certainly would,” he said. likening the region revealed through sight to the habitation of the prison, and the light of the fire in it to the power of the sun. And if you assume that the ascent and the contemplation of the things above is the soul's ascension to the intelligible region, you will not miss my surmise, since that is what you desire to hear. But God knows whether it is true. But, at any rate, my dream as it appears to me is that in the region of the known the last thing to be seen and hardly seen is the idea of good, and that when seen it must needs point us to the conclusion that this is indeed the cause for all things of all that is right and beautiful, giving birth in the visible world to light, and the author of light and itself in the intelligible world being the authentic source of truth and reason, and that anyone who is to act wisely in private or public must have caught sight of this.” “I concur,” he said, “so far as I am able.” “Come then,” I said, “and join me in this further thought, and do not be surprised that those who have attained to this height are not willing to occupy themselves with the affairs of men, but their souls ever feel the upward urge and the yearning for that sojourn above. For this, I take it, is likely if in this point too the likeness of our image holds” “Yes, it is likely.” “And again, do you think it at all strange,” said I, “if a man returning from divine contemplations to the petty miseries of men cuts a sorry figure and appears most ridiculous, if, while still blinking through the gloom, and before he has become sufficiently accustomed to the environing darkness, he is compelled in courtrooms or elsewhere to contend about the shadows of justice or the images that cast the shadows and to wrangle in debate about the notions of these things in the minds of those who have never seen justice itself?” “It would be by no men strange,” he said. “But a sensible man,”  I said, “would remember that there are two distinct disturbances of the eyes arising from two causes, according as the shift is from light to darkness or from darkness to light, and, believing that the same thing happens to the soul too, whenever he saw a soul perturbed and unable to discern something, he would not laugh unthinkingly, but would observe whether coming from a brighter life its vision was obscured by the unfamiliar darkness, or whether the passage from the deeper dark of ignorance into a more luminous world and the greater brightness had dazzled its vision. And so he would deem the one happy in its experience and way of life and pity the other, and if it pleased him to laugh at it, his laughter would be less laughable than that at the expense of the soul that had come down from the light above.” “That is a very fair statement,” he said. What they aver is that they can put true knowledge into a soul that does not possess it, as if they were inserting vision into blind eyes.” “They do indeed,” he said. “But our present argument indicates,” said I, “that the true analogy for this indwelling power in the soul and the instrument whereby each of us apprehends is that of an eye that could not be converted to the light from the darkness except by turning the whole body. Even so this organ of knowledge must be turned around from the world of becoming together with the entire soul, like the scene-shifting periact in the theater, until the soul is able to endure the contemplation of essence and the brightest region of being. And this, we say, is the good, do we not?” “Yes.” “Of this very thing, then,” I said, “there might be an art, an art of the speediest and most effective shifting or conversion of the soul, not an art of producing vision in it, but on the assumption that it possesses vision but does not rightly direct it and does not look where it should, an art of bringing this about.” “Yes, that seems likely,” he said. “Then the other so-called virtues³ of the soul do seem akin to those of the body.  For it is true that where they do not pre-exist, they are afterwards created by habit¹ and practice. But the excellence of thought, it seems, is certainly of a more divine quality, a thing that never loses its potency, but, according to the direction of its conversion, becomes useful and beneficent, or, again, useless and harmful. Have you never observed in those who are popularly spoken of as bad, but smart men, how keen is the vision of the little soul, how quick it is to discern the things that interest it, a proof that it is not a poor vision which it has, but one forcibly enlisted in the service of evil, so that the sharper its sight the more mischief it accomplishes?” “I certainly have,” he said. “Observe then,” said I, “that this part of such a soul, if it had been hammered from childhood, and had thus been struck free of the leaden weights, so to speak, of our birth and becoming, which attaching themselves to it by food and similar pleasures and gluttonies turn downwards the vision of the soul¹—If, I say, freed from these, it had suffered a conversion towards the things that are real and true, that same faculty of the same men would have been most keen in its vision of the higher things, just as it is for the things toward which it is now turned.” “It is likely,” he said. “Well, then,” said I, “is not this also likely and a necessary consequence of what has been said, that neither could men who are uneducated and inexperienced in truth ever adequately preside over a state, nor could those who had been permitted to linger on to the end in the pursuit of culture—the one because they have no single aim and purpose in life to which all their actions, public and private, must be directed, and the others, because they will not voluntarily engage in action, believing that while still living they have been transported to the Islands of the Blest.” “True,” he said. “It is the duty of us, the founders, then,” said I, “to compel the best natures to attain the knowledge which we pronounced the greatest, and to win to the vision of the good,  to scale that ascent, and when they have reached the heights and taken an adequate view, we must not allow what is now permitted.” “What is that?” “That they should linger there,” I said, “and refuse to go down again among those bondsmen and share their labors and honors, whether they are of less or of greater worth.” “Do you mean to say that we must do them this wrong, and compel them to live an inferior life when the better is in their power?” “You have again forgotten, my friend,” said I, “that the law is not concerned with the special happiness of any class in the state, but is trying to produce this condition in the city as a whole, harmonizing and adapting the citizens to one another by persuasion and compulsion, and requiring them to impart to one another any benefit."

# data[].attributes.body
““Next,” said I, “compare our nature in respect of education and its lack to such an experience as this. Picture men dwelling in a sort of subterranean cavern with a long entrance open to the light on its entire width. Conceive them as having their legs and necks fettered from childhood, so that they remain in the same spot,  able to look forward only, and prevented by the fetters from turning their heads. Picture further the light from a fire burning higher up and at a distance behind them, and between the fire and the prisoners and above them a road along which a low wall has been built, as the exhibitors of puppet-shows have partitions before the men themselves, above which they show the puppets.” “All that I see,” he said. “See also, then, men carrying past the wall implements of all kinds that rise above the wall, and human images and shapes of animals as well, wrought in stone and wood and every material, some of these bearers presumably speaking and others silent.” “A strange image you speak of,” he said, “and strange prisoners.” “Like to us,” I said; “for, to begin with, tell me do you think that these men would have seen anything of themselves or of one another except the shadows cast from the fire on the wall of the cave that fronted them?” “How could they,” he said, “if they were compelled to hold their heads unmoved through life?” “And again, would not the same be true of the objects carried past them?” “Surely.” “If then they were able to talk to one another, do you not think that they would suppose that in naming the things that they saw they were naming the passing objects?” “Necessarily.” “And if their prison had an echo from the wall opposite them, when one of the passersby uttered a sound, do you think that they would suppose anything else than the passing shadow to be the speaker?” “By Zeus, I do not,” said he. “Then in every way such prisoners would deem reality to be nothing else than the shadows of the artificial objects.” “Quite inevitably,” he said. “Consider, then, what would be the manner of the release and healing from these bonds and this folly if in the course of nature something of this sort should happen to them: When one was freed from his fetters and compelled to stand up suddenly and turn his head around and walk and to lift up his eyes to the light, and in doing all this felt pain and, because of the dazzle and glitter of the light, was unable to discern the objects whose shadows he formerly saw, what do you suppose would be his answer if someone told him that what he had seen before was all a cheat and an illusion, but that now, being nearer to reality and turned toward more real things, he saw more truly? And if also one should point out to him each of the passing objects and constrain him by questions to say what it is, do you not think that he would be at a loss and that he would regard what he formerly saw as more real than the things now pointed out to him?” “Far more real,” he said.

“And if he were compelled to look at the light itself, would not that pain his eyes, and would he not turn away and flee to those things which he is able to discern and regard them as in very deed more clear and exact than the objects pointed out?” “It is so,” he said. “And if,” said I, “someone should drag him thence by force up the ascent which is rough and steep, and not let him go before he had drawn him out into the light of the sun, do you not think that he would find it painful to be so haled along, and would chafe at it, and when he came out into the light, that his eyes would be filled with its beams so that he would not be able to see even one of the things that we call real?” “Why, no, not immediately,” he said. “Then there would be need of habituation, I take it, to enable him to see the things higher up. And at first he would most easily discern the shadows and, after that, the likenesses or reflections in water of men and other things, and later, the things themselves, and from these he would go on to contemplate the appearances in the heavens and heaven itself, more easily by night, looking at the light of the stars and the moon, than by day the sun and the sun's light.” “Of course.” “And so, finally, I suppose, he would be able to look upon the sun itself and see its true nature, not by reflections in water or phantasms of it in an alien setting, but in and by itself in its own place.” “Necessarily,” he said. “And at this point he would infer and conclude that this it is that provides the seasons and the courses of the year and presides over all things in the visible region, and is in some sort the cause of all these things that they had seen.” “Obviously,” he said, “that would be the next step.” “Well then, if he recalled to mind his first habitation and what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow-bondsmen, do you not think that he would count himself happy in the change and pity them?” “He would indeed.” “And if there had been honors and commendations among them which they bestowed on one another and prizes for the man who is quickest to make out the shadows as they pass and best able to remember their customary precedences, sequences and co-existences, and so most successful in guessing at what was to come, do you think he would be very keen about such rewards, and that he would envy and emulate those who were honored by these prisoners and lorded it among them, or that he would feel with Homer and “‘greatly prefer while living on earth to be serf of another, a landless man,’” and endure anything rather than opine with them and live that life?”

# data[].attributes.body
Through the astronaut's experience, the presentation recalls the three fundamental questions of philosophy: What is real? What can we know? And how should we know? These questions preoccupy the four branches of philosophy mentioned: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. In so far as one lives, one cannot avoid philosophy. Knowingly or unknowingly, we philosophize in our daily lives. The difference is whether we allow emotion or reason to guide our everyday lives. While other sciences “deal with only particular aspects of existence, philosophy deals with the universe which partakes to everything that exists,” and while “special sciences are the trees, philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.”

# data[].attributes.headline
"There is no philosophy outside the western tradition..."

# data[].attributes.subject
"There is no philosophy outside the western tradition..."

# data[].attributes.body
There is only one access to truth (the western one)

Historical/geographical argument: invented in Greece; Greece etymology

Only written philosophy is real philosophy

Oral philosophy inferior

(European-) logic as a foundation of all philosophy

# data[].attributes.body
·         Just one word for Wisdom and Philosophy  in AKAN philosophy

·         Wisdom ist Thinking and not to have knowledge; theoretically everyone can learn that

·         Aim ist to understand practical everyday problems of people and to find solutions für them

·         Therefore philosophy is a longterm project. The objective is a system of beliefs people can live by it

·         Analytical philosophy is just for his own sake and therefore useless

·         A wise man talks in sayings and has the intellectual capability to decode this

·         A wise man can also be called a speculativ philosopher because he talks normative about values and how to live

# data[].attributes.body
Chinese philosophy

Questions:

Is there a Chinese philosophy?

How do we define the concept of "philosophy" in general to approach the question "What is Chinese philosophy?" Which frame of reference do we use?

Thought vs philosophy? (Derrida)

Religion vs philosophy?

Literature vs philosophy?

Eastern vs Western philosophy?

Academic discipline vs practical activity?

Influence of perspective: agenda/ideology, historical, geographical and discursive context

Introduction of the term zhexue (from Japan) to define the (academic) discipline of Chinese philosophy at the turn of the 20th century.

How about the religious and intellectual traditions before the introduction of zhexue? (e.g. Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Kanji-Schriftzeichen für das Wort "tetsugaku"

# data[].attributes.body
In the Meiji period Japanese intellectuals included and recognized more and more Western philosophy. The term "tetsugaku" was importat - referring firstly to Western philosophy as it has been practiced and taught in European and North-American geographies.

It continues to be also a political question whether or not Japan had philosophy before that. The term "Japanese philosophy" was coined as a nationalist notion, to strengthen the Japanese identity. At the same time, buddhist, conficianist and hindu texts were/are named "shiso" (thought) or else, implying a fundamental difference to Western philosophy. What most post-Meji philosophers thought was that Western philosophy alone managed to transcend the "cultural-linguistic

particularities in its search for universal truth" (p. 17).

Bret Davis offers a deep dive into historical contexts of Japanese philosophy. He starts, however, with the remark that the question "what is Japanese philosophy" is initself impreinted by Western, Greek philosophical tradition, asking for the essence of something. What answers to this questions are possible? Which realities are neglected in the moment we ask the question like this?

# data[].attributes.body
Due to globalization, in modern Indian languages as well as in modern Sanskrit, the word “darśana” is widely used/has been adopted as translation of the word “philosophy” (as in the Greek sense, which is currently widely used)

However, for Western historians the correlation between “darśana” and “philosophy” is not normally accepted; it’s maintained that in India a philosophy as the one developed in ancient Greece didn’t exist.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Term "Philosophy" in an Intercultural Perspective

# data[].attributes.subject
The Term "Philosophy" in an Intercultural Perspective

# data[].attributes.body
African Philosophy

Chinese Philosophy

Indian Philosophy

Clio's input: Darsana is used as an Indian term for philosophy, but it has different meanings in different texts. I found the following description of the word interesting: There is a threefold scheme for drasana:

1.       Knowledge - jnana

2.       Conduct – caritra

Which both describe the soteriological path of the Jainas, Darsana also has the meaning of “attitude”, “outlook” and “orientation” and it is explained as sraddhana, “faith”. As “right outlook”, it leads to “right knowledge” and opens the way to salvation or liberation.

It is also can be defined by Bhartrhari as the sense of “view” and “perspective” and then also of “way of thinking” and doctrine.

Korean Philosophy

Strong link between the living and the dead that is nourished and held alive by specific traditions and rituals

honoring ancestors and hegemonial beliefs play a big part in this

Growing influence from China:

'Three Teachings' = different pathways to assist and enable the individual (as part of a greater whole) to become the best person they can become

Buddhism

Confucianism

Daoism

-> Religion and Philosophy converge in East Asia, rather than diverge

Shamanism has been practiced on the Korean Peninsula before Chinese traditions gained importance there and continues to have an important place in the 21st century

Japanese Philosophy

"We have seen, rather than looking for an eternally unchanging and homogeneous essence of Japanese philosophy, we need to ask: What was, is, and will be Japanese Philosophy, and for whom?"

japanese culture developed by means of cultural synthesis (example: Kyoto School - synthesis between western style universities and Zen monasteries)

Japanese Philosophy as set of approaches to universality, drawing on the sources of Japanese Language, Culture, tradition --> sources continually formed + reformed in historical movement of intra- + intertraditional interaction + dialogue

# data[].attributes.headline
 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, London 2010 (1859), pp. 77.

# data[].attributes.subject
 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, London 2010 (1859), pp. 77.

# data[].attributes.body
“First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions, that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Group c. John of Damascus, Writings, Washington 1958, pp. 11.

# data[].attributes.subject
Group c. John of Damascus, Writings, Washington 1958, pp. 11.

# data[].attributes.body
“Philosophy is knowledge of things which are in so far as they are, that is, a knowledge of the nature of things which have being. And again, philosophy is knowledge of both divine and human things, that is to say, of things both visible and invisible. Philosophy, again, is a study of death, whether this be voluntary or natural. For life is of two kinds, there being the natural life by which we live and the voluntary one by which we cling lovingly to this present life. Death, also, is of two kinds: the one being natural, which is the separation of soul from body, whereas the other is the voluntary one by which we disdain this present life and aspire to that which is to come. Still again, philosophy is the making of one’s self like God. Now, we become like God in wisdom, which is to say, in the true knowledge of good; and in justice, which is a fairness in judgment without respect to persons; and in holiness, which is to say, in goodness, which is superior to justice, being that by which we do good to them that wrong us. Philosophy is the art of arts and the science of sciences. This is because philosophy is the principle of every art, since through it every art and science has been invented. Now, according to some, art is what errs in some people and science what errs in no one, whereas philosophy alone does not err. According to others, art is that which is done with the hands, whereas science is any art that is practiced by the reason, such as grammar, rhetoric, and the like. Philosophy, again, is a love of wisdom. But, true wisdom is God. Therefore, the love of God, this is the true philosophy.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Group b. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

# data[].attributes.subject
Group b. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

# data[].attributes.body
“Language disguises the thought; so that from the external form of the clothes one cannot infer the form of the thought they clothe, because the external form of the clothes is constructed with quite another object than to let the form of the body be recognized. The silent adjustments to understand colloquial language are enormously complicated. (4.002) Most propositions and questions, that have been written about philosophical matters, are not false, but senseless. We cannot, therefore, answer questions of this kind at all, but only state their senselessness. Most questions and propositions of the philosophers result from the fact that we do not understand the logic of our language. (They are of the same kind as the question whether the Good is more or less identical than the Beautiful.) And so it is not to be wondered at that the deepest problems are really no problems. (4.003) All philosophy is “Critique of language”... (4.004)"

# data[].attributes.headline
Group a. Michel de Montaigne, The Essays (I.20)

# data[].attributes.subject
Group a. Michel de Montaigne, The Essays (I.20)

# data[].attributes.body
“Cicero says that to philosophize is nothing more than to prepare for death. It could be because study and meditation come close to taking our soul away, keeping it occupied outside of the body, as if rehearsing and mimicking death. Or it could be that all the wisdom and reasoning in the world ultimately come down to this: teaching us not to fear death. In truth, either philosophy is a waste of time or its purpose really is our happiness and it should, in everything it does, bring us closer to living well, at our ease, as Holy Writ says.”

# data[].attributes.body
“Writing, Phaedrus, has this strange quality, and is very like painting; for the creatures of painting stand like living beings, but if one asks them a question, they preserve a solemn silence. And so it is with written words; you might think they spoke as if they had intelligence, but if you question them, wishing to know about their sayings, they always say only one and the same thing. And every word, when [275e] once it is written, is bandied about, alike among those who understand and those who have no interest in it, and it knows not to whom to speak or not to speak; when ill-treated or unjustly reviled it always needs its father to help it; for it has no power to protect or help itself.”

# data[].attributes.body
“But when it came to writing Theuth said, 'Here, O king, is a branch of learning that will make the people of Egypt wiser and improve their memories; my discovery provides a recipe for memory and wisdom.' But the king answered and said, 'O man full of arts, to one it is given to create the things of art, and to another to judge what measure of harm and of profit they have for those that shall employ them. And so it is that you, by reasons of your tender regard for the writing that is your offspring, have declared the very opposite of its true effect. If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.'”

# data[].attributes.headline
The Analects, VII.20 (Confucius, & Watson, B. (2007). The Analects of Confucius. Columbia University Press.)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Analects, VII.20 (Confucius, & Watson, B. (2007). The Analects of Confucius. Columbia University Press.)

# data[].attributes.body
“The Master said, I was not born understanding anything. A lover of antiquity, I have diligently worked to acquire understanding.”

# data[].attributes.headline
A History of Philosophy (with Gaps) Puzzle

# data[].attributes.subject
A History of Philosophy (with Gaps) Puzzle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wenn Sie einen anderen Ansatz zum Verbinden mehrerer Werte/Elemente mit einer „Kategorie" bevorzugen, probieren Sie den Premium-Kategorisierungstyp „Auswählen" aus.

Anstatt die Karten per Drag-and-Drop in die richtige Kategorie zu ziehen, sehen Sie keinen Namen oder keine Beschreibung pro Kategorie, sondern nur die Antworten. Der Spieler muss die richtige Verbindung finden, indem er auf jedes Element klickt, das zur Verbindung gehört.

Jede „Verbindung" (Kategorie) kann eine beliebige Anzahl von Elementen enthalten, sodass Sie Ihr Verbindungsraster so groß/klein und schwierig/einfach gestalten können, wie Sie möchten.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Erstellen Sie ganz einfach eine Online-Challenge, um Karten in die richtige Kategorie einzuteilen.

# data[].attributes.body
The Soul

King Milinda went up to Nàgasena, exchanged polite and friendly greetings, and took his seat respectfully to one side. Then Milinda began by asking:

1. “How is your reverence known, and what sir, is your name?”

“O king, I am known as Nàgasena but that is only a designation in common use, for no permanent individual can be found.”

Then Milinda called upon the Bactrian Greeks and the monks to bear witness: “This Nàgasena says that no permanent individual is implied in his name. Is it possible to approve of that?” Then he turned to Nàgasena and said, “If, most venerable Nàgasena, that is true, who is it who gives you robes, food and shelter? Who lives the righteous life? Or again, who kills living beings, steals, commits adultery, tells lies or takes strong drink? If what you say is true then there is neither merit nor demerit, nor is there any doer of good or evil deeds and no result of kamma. If, venerable sir, a man were to kill you there would be no murder, and it follows that there are no masters or teachers in your Order. You say that you are called Nàgasena; now what is that Nàgasena? Is it the hair?”

“I don’t say that, great king.”

“Is it then the nails, teeth, skin or other parts of the body?”

“Certainly not.”

“Or is it the body, or feelings, or perceptions, or formations, or consciousness? Is it all of these combined? Or is it something outside of them that is Nàgasena?”

Still Nàgasena answered: “It is none of these.”

“Then, ask as I may, I can discover no Nàgasena. Nàgasena is an empty sound. Who is it we see before us? It is a falsehood that your reverence has spoken.”

“You, sir, have been reared in great luxury as becomes your noble birth. How did you come here, by foot or in a chariot?”

“In a chariot, venerable sir.”

“Then, explain sir, what that is. Is it the axle? Or the wheels, or the chassis, or reins, or yoke that is the chariot? Is it all of these combined, or is it something apart from them?”

“It is none of these things, venerable sir.”

“Then, sir, this chariot is an empty sound. You spoke falsely when you said that you came here in a chariot. You are a great king of India. Who are you afraid of that you don’t speak the truth?” Then he called upon the Bactrian Greeks and the monks to bear witness: “This King Milinda has said that he came here in a chariot but when asked what it is, he is unable to show it. Is it possible to approve of that?”

Then the five hundred Bactrian Greeks shouted their approval and said to the king, “Get out of that if you can!”

“Venerable sir, I have spoken the truth. It is because it has all these parts that it comes under the term chariot.”

“Very good, sir, your majesty has rightly grasped the meaning. Even so it is because of the thirty-two kinds of organic matter in a human body and the five aggregates of being that I come under the term ‘Nàgasena’. As it was said by Sister Vajãra in the presence of the Blessed One, ‘Just as it is by the existence of the various parts that the word “Chariot” is used, just so is it that when the aggregates of being are there we talk of a being’.”

“Most wonderful, Nàgasena, most extraordinary that you have solved this puzzle, difficult though it was. If the Buddha himself were here he would approve of your reply.”

King Milinda went up to Nàgasena, exchanged polite and friendly greetings, and took his seat respectfully to one side. Then Milinda began by asking:

...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Three Doctors Unite! | The Three Doctors | Doctor Who | BBC

# data[].attributes.headline
Group c. Plato on "Philosophy" (Plato, Apology [22d-e])

# data[].attributes.subject
Group c. Plato on "Philosophy" (Plato, Apology [22d-e])

# data[].attributes.body
“Finally, then, I went to the manual artisans. For I was conscious I had knowledge of nothing, so to speak, but I knew that I would discover that they, at least, had knowledge of many noble things. And I was not played false about this: they did have knowledge of things which I did not have knowledge of, and in this way they were wiser than I. But, men of Athens, the good craftsman also seemed to me to go wrong in the same way as the poets: because he performed his art nobly, each one deemed himself wisest also in other things, the greatest things - and this discordant note of theirs seemed to hide that wisdom. So I asked myself on behalf of the oracle whether I would prefer to be as I am, being in no way wise in their wisdom or ignorant in their ignorance, or to have both things that they have. I answered myself and the oracle that it profits me to be just as I am.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Group b. Plato on "Philosophy" (Plato, Symposium [203e-204b])

# data[].attributes.subject
Group b. Plato on "Philosophy" (Plato, Symposium [203e-204b])

# data[].attributes.body
“For things stand thus: no god loves wisdom or desire to become wise - for he is so; nor, if anyone else is wise, does he love wisdom. On the other hand, neither do the ignorant love wisdom nor desire to become wise; for ignorance is difficult just in this, that though not beautiful and good, nor wise, it yet seems to itself to be sufficient. He who does not think himself in need does not desire what he does not think he lacks.

Then who are these lovers of wisdom, Diotima, I said, if they are neither the wise nor the ignorant?

Why, at this point it’s clear even to a child, she said, that they are those intermediate between both of these, and that Eros is among them. For wisdom is surely among the most beautiful of things, but Eros is love of the beautiful, so Eros is necessarily a philosopher, a lover of wisdom, and being a philosopher, intermediate between wisdom and ignorance.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Group a. Plato on "Philosophy" (Plato, Lysis [218 a-b])

# data[].attributes.subject
Group a. Plato on "Philosophy" (Plato, Lysis [218 a-b])

# data[].attributes.body
“Because of these things, then, we might say also that the ones who are already wise, whether they are gods or human beings, no longer love wisdom. Nor, on the other hand, would we say that those love wisdom who have ignorance in such a manner as to be bad. For we wouldn’t say that anyone bad and stupid loves wisdom.”

# data[].attributes.headline
What do you associate with the word "philosophy"

# data[].attributes.subject
What do you associate with the word "philosophy"

# data[].attributes.body
Understanding the World and the role of human beeings.

Understanding different perspectives of the world and how we are in it.

thinking about the right way to think about things.

trying to get to the bottom of things that are generally taken without being questioned.

A discipline that aims to define words that are central for understanding life (as a whole).

trying to get to the bottom of things that are generally taken as they are without being questioned.

not being condescending and treating everybody with respect.

The question of how we know what we know and if we can know anything at all.

It 's about the "big" questions of humanity.

asking the large questions about the world and our role as humans.

Analyzing the meaning of (every)things.

Marvelling at things

Philosophy is defined by asking questions not by the answers

The self-reflective science of pointing out self-evident assumptions.

Way of observing life (outside and inside) to gain wisdom in order to get closer to reality.

Being inquisitive.