1) Pholosophy
2) pieople

Un tas ir tikai pirmajos teikumos. Tālāk var atrast arī šādas pērles: The soviet philosophy, especially after Stalin’s death, lost its 100% ideological characteristic. (skat. šeit) Pierādīt šī apgalvojuma nepatiesumu ir vieglāk par vieglu.

Kā jau teicu - absolūti karsta manta.

mana pagaidām mīļākā nodaļa ir "PROBLEMS REGARDING STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES OF DIALECTIC THEORY"

"So far the dialectic theory has not been lucky in its historical development. Its founder, Hegel, hoped that his philosophical theory based on deep and thorough studies of the historically philosophical thought of mankind would survive through centuries. But history made its own will happen. After the death of this brilliant German philosopher the development of dialectic theory has progressed not upwards but in a downward motion."

"Many of our philosophers think that an unite dialectic theory is impossible and that this area of research is ruled by some „theoretical pluralism”. The author disagrees with this opinion. He admits some „theoretical pluralism” only in search for approaches to make an unite dialectic theory. "

Nav slikts arī šis:
"An important factor in policy of issuing textbooks is the publisher which is in an unenviable state: on one hand, he has to ensure the company’s financial side not to go bankrupt; on the other hand, he has to keep the interest about his area in the market. That is, if the publisher offers philosophy textbooks, doing it intensively is in his interest. That is why in cases when local authors are not productive enough and demand for their work decreases, the publisher seeks for opportunities to issue foreign works which often corrupt processes that have begun well. So this has happened to philosophy textbooks. Several works of foreign authors have been put on the market besides books by M. and R. Kulis and the author of this article, one of them being “Basics of philosophy” by Nigel Warburton (RaKa, 2001).


This book consists of 7 basic parts: “God”, “Good and Evil”, “Politics”, “Outside World”, “Science”, “Psyche” and “Art”. It is obvious that these chapters do not signify of a specifically philosophical approach, it seems that it is the complete opposite: philosophy is lost. This happens in all cases when the bond between philosophy and classical tradition is broken. The author states that “there is no undeniably significant chapter in this book. I am speaking of logics consciously left out from the topics investigated.”[1] But the question is a lot more complex. It does not matter that much whether there is a separate chapter for logics in the book or not. What matters more is whether the interpretation and layout of the work’s inner content is dominated by philosophical logics or not. This is the aspect determining the presence or absence of philosophy. In this particular case the situation is not pleasing; it could even be called sad: philosophy has lost its specifics, its boundaries distinguishing it from other mental areas. As a result, concepts stating philosophy is an area where anything what comes in one’s mind is fine are formed. It is enough with the teachers to swallow this bait to irreversibly devaluate the entire learning process."
Lieki teikt, ka pat Vorbertona grāmatas nodaļas nosaukumus kāds nav vīžojis paskatīties oriģinālā.

katru reizi, kas nākas sastapties ar šādiem cilvēkiem (viens tāds bija arī Kirkegora pasākumā), pārņem skumjums. Gluži kā tādas zivis, izmestas sauszemē. Veci ļaudis, tomēr..

Maz ka vecs. Šis ir arī plānprātīgs un nejauks. Pilns komplekts.

Jā, un vēl viena lieta:

Similarly stinking pieople.

The emphasis on the idea of overman is very demonstrative here, of course, not in Nietzschean nuances but on the general (p.59)