Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

November 11 2012

zariwna
1390 0348
The best Politician in EU since her daughter's birth.
Reposted fromcontroversial controversial

February 23 2012

zariwna
Reposted fromsheikhspeare sheikhspeare viaastrid astrid
zariwna

January 21 2012

zariwna
In 1961, Leonid Rogozov, 27, was the only surgeon in the Soviet Antarctic Expedition. During the expedition, he felt severe pain in the stomach and had a high fever. Rogozov examined himself and discovered that his appendix was inflamed and could burst at any time. With a local anesthesia, he operated himself to remove the appendix. An engineer and a meteorologist assisted surgery.
Reposted fromstraycat straycat viaastrid astrid
zariwna
7561 7bbd
Reposted fromsuperfly superfly viaastrid astrid
zariwna
0252 cee4
Reposted fromlovelove lovelove viaastrid astrid
zariwna

Wozu ist der Masochismus gut? ...

Aus dem PA-Seminar: Kinder kriegen bzw. Eltern werden ist lebensbejahender Masochismus (-: Wie cool ist das? (-:
Tags: Analyse

January 03 2012

zariwna
7901 e4cd 500
Ein paar davon will ich noch erleben...
Reposted fromEusters Eusters viaclifford clifford
Der 8jährige fragt mich, ob Träume irgendwie sowas wie ein Bildschirmschoner fürs Gehirn sind. Interessante Idee! :)
nerxs
Reposted fromnicapicella nicapicella viaclifford clifford
zariwna
Reposted fromragis ragis viaclifford clifford

January 01 2012

zariwna

Zur Melancholie des Todes

Ich bin in der Welt der Subjekte und Subjektivitäten zuhause. Und so habe ich in den Zeichen der zivilisatorischen Endzeit in der Gegenwart sehr (vielleicht zu sehr?) die Zeichen meiner Vergänglichkeit in meiner persönlichen Gegenwart gesehen.

Die Worte haben mich hier mehr getroffen als bloßen Bilder, was ungewöhnlich ist, weil meistens umgekehrt passiert (passieren sollte?).

Naja, zu viel Angst wohl vor einer Melancholie des Todes ...

Und das alles noch am 1.1.12 ...

Jedenfalls Alles Gute für 2012 auf diesem Wege!
Tags: Tod Sterben

December 31 2011

zariwna
Reposted fromfalconwing falconwing viaastrid astrid
zariwna
0299 e461 500
Reposted fromverschwoerer verschwoerer viaastrid astrid
zariwna

yayponies:

It’s a time-honored tradition at Navy homecomings – one lucky sailor is chosen to be first off the ship for the long-awaited kiss with a loved one.
Today, for the first time, the happily reunited couple was gay.

The dock landing ship Oak Hill has been gone for nearly three months, training with military allies in Central America.

As the homecoming drew near, the crew and ship’s family readiness group sold $1 raffle tickets for the first kiss. Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta bought 50 - which is actually fewer than many people buy, she said, so she was surprised Monday to find out she’d won.

Her girlfriend of two years, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell, was waiting when she crossed the brow.

They kissed. The crowd cheered. And with that, another vestige of the policy that forced gays to serve in secrecy vanished.

By Corinne Reilly
The Virginian-Pilot
© December 21, 2011 

Reposted fromDaggeroftheMind DaggeroftheMind viaastrid astrid
zariwna

The Cost of Living Without Sex


Sexual denial never succeeds and sexual desire can never be buried.
Reposted fromastrid astrid
zariwna
zariwna
zariwna

Jason on morality (und die Frage ob sie relativ ist):

The question of what is 'moral' or 'immoral' is a question that can be answered empirically, just like all other meaningful questions. The biggest confusion about morality seems to lie in two areas - the definition of 'morality' and the basis by which one can judge the morality of a given activity. As far as the definition goes, I think the answer is perfectly intuitive; that which causes suffering is bad, and that which increases well-being is good. Sam Harris - author of The End of Faith and The Moral Landscape - likes to use a thought experiment he calls the "worst possible suffering for everyone." In this world, everybody suffers as much as their brains are capable of from the moment they are born to the moment they die. If such a world cannot be called "bad," then "bad" cannot possibly have any meaning. What meaning could the words "bad" and "good" have if we cannot say that the "worst possible misery for everyone" is "bad?"

This leads nicely into the second question - what is basis for morality? Based on the previous paragraph, it should be clear that morality is essentially based in humanity's shared neurological features. Most of us agree about what causes us to suffer most of the time. Even when we do not agree about the causes, we still all can understand what it means to suffer. The same goes for well-being. Given that we all experience suffering and well-being in the same or very similar manners, then it is possible to draw certain absolute conclusions about the nature of suffering and well-being, and thus draw absolute conclusions about morality. At the end of the day, suffering and well-being are neurological phenomena.

Consider, for instance, the Taliban. Even if many people in Afghanistan would not agree, I think we can say with confidence that the Taliban invokes much more suffering than it alleviates, and destroys much more well-being than it creates. Those who disagree with that statement tend to either 1) reject the idea that morality is linked to well-being and suffering (that is, they disagree with the definition) or 2) believe that the well-being is created and the suffering destroyed in the *afterlife.* The first idea, the rejection of the definition, is hopefully ruled out by the previous "worst possible misery" thought experiment. The second idea is rejected empirically once we recognize that there is no evidence for a God in the first place.

The interesting point here is that we are able to say with certainty that the Taliban infringes on a set of irrevocable and undebatable shared values, and is thus immoral; and they are not just immoral based on our own, individual 'relative' morality, but rather based on an absolute scale.

The most common objection to this line of reasoning is that we cannot determine the answers to moral questions so easily most of the time. To this, I concede. However, it is important to note the difference between not having an answer in *practice* and not having an answer in *principle.* Many people recognize that we do not have answers to these questions in practice, and therefore conclude that there are no answers in principle. I think this is a mistake. Take, for instance, the question "how many birds are currently in flight, and what is their combined weight?" There can be no doubt that there is an absolutely correct answer to this question at any given time, and there can also be no doubt that answering this question is impossible with any significant degree of accuracy. The best we could possibly do is estimate. However, nobody can doubt that this question *has* an absolute answer, even if we can never know what it is. There is an answer in principle, even if there isn't an answer in practice. So it is with moral questions.
Reposted fromastrid astrid
zariwna
0500 61fa
Reposted fromBluNectarine BluNectarine viaastrid astrid
zariwna
4528 4d91 500
Reposted fromgeo404 geo404 viaastrid astrid
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl