Šī, šķiet, ir viena no man mīļākajām vietām Platona meistarstiķī, tāpēc atļaujos ielikt visu salīdzinoši garo fragmentu (angļu tulkojumā gan; nav jausmas, vai latviešu kastrētajā izdevumā šī vieta ir tulkota).

"SOCRATES: Then, it is clear now, Thrasymachus, that no type of craft or
rule provides what is beneficial for itself; but, as we have been saying for
some time, it provides and enjoins what is beneficial for its subject, and
aims at what is advantageous for it—the weaker, not the stronger. That is
why I said just now, my dear Thrasymachus, that no one chooses to rule
voluntarily and take other people’s troubles in hand and straighten them
out, but each asks for wages. You see, anyone who is going to practice his
type of craft well never does or enjoins what is best for himself—at least not
when he is acting as his craft prescribes—but what is best for his subject. It
is because of this, it seems, that wages must be provided to a person if he is
going to be willing to rule, whether they are in the form of money or
honor or a penalty if he refuses.
GLAUCON: What do you mean, Socrates? I am familiar with the first two
kinds of wages, but I do not understand what penalty you mean, or how
you can call it a wage.
SOCRATES: Then you do not understand the sort of wages for which the
best people rule, when they are willing to rule. Don’t you know that those
who love honor and those who love money are despised, and rightly so?
GLAUCON: I do.
SOCRATES: Well, then, that is why good people won’t be willing to rule
for the sake of money or honor. You see, if they are paid wages openly for
ruling, they will be called hirelings, and if they take them covertly as the
fruits of their rule, they will be called thieves. On the other hand, they
won’t rule for the sake of honor either, since they are not ambitious honorlovers.
So, if they are going to be willing to rule, some compulsion or punishment
must be brought to bear on them—that is probably why wanting
to rule when one does not have to is thought to be shameful. Now, the
greatest punishment for being unwilling to rule is being ruled by someone
worse than oneself. And I think it is fear of that that makes good people
rule when they do rule. They approach ruling, not as though they were
going to do something good or as though they were going to enjoy themselves
in it, but as something necessary, since it cannot be entrusted to anyone
better than—or even as good as—themselves. In a city of good men, if
it came into being, the citizens would fight in order not to rule, just as they
now do in order to rule. There it would be quite clear that anyone who is
really and truly a ruler does not naturally seek what is advantageous for
himself, but what is so for his subject. As a result, anyone with any sense
would prefer to be benefited by another than to go to the trouble of benefiting
him. So I cannot at all agree with Thrasymachus that justice is what is
advantageous for the stronger."

Plato. "Republic", tr. by C.D.C. Reeve, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. 2004.

Noskatījos šo ( http://www.lu.lv/par/mediji/video/diskusijas/2012/praids/ ) un sapratu, ka jānomaina jūzerpikča.

Nu izskatās, ka ŽJG šajā valdībā pilda Emša funkcijas.

Kaut ko tik jocīgu es sen nebiju lasījis
http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/the-philosopher-with-no-hands/

Klāt kārtējais Šķiltera simpozijs. Jāsaka, ka šogad repertuārs ir diezgan specifisks (http://szf.lu.lv/files/aktualitates/fakultate/8th%20Symposium%20program.pdf) Šķiet, ka vienīgais uz ko es gribētu aiziet ir Mariona lekcija pēdējā dienā. Attiecībā uz visu pārējo varu teikt, ka man ir visai maza sajēga, kas cilvēkus uztrauc. Jā, un Hintikas ierašanās arī ir atcelta.

Grūti izskaidrojamu iemeslu dēļ vakar nodevos vecu un sen nedzirdētu dziesmu atkalklausīšanās priekam - pārcilāju vecus pastnieku un Baušķenieka grāvējus. Dažos gadījumos biju patiesi pārsteigts, cik labi tie joprojām darbojas, t.i., iet pie sirds (vai kā nu to sauc).
Šī rīta favorīts ir kāds vecs grāvējs no JM repertuāra http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3EUaSVe-IY Pēdējo reizi to klausījos, šķiet, gadā 1996 vai 1997. Sentimentāli, bet tomēr jaudīgi.

Lūk, šī recenzija paņem jau ar pirmo teikumu
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~humean/strohmingermcginn.pdf


upd. Labi, pēdējais teikums arī neliek vilties: Sometimes with books, as with farts, it’s better to just hold it in".

Vai gan kādu pārsteigs ziņa, ka Nusbaumai ir iznākusi kārtējā grāmata?

Šis varētu lieliski papildināt Platona "Tīmaja" lasījumu.
http://www.ikoso.com/ikoso-kits/platos-glo-mobile-kit-ages-10-adult/

"Yet Professor Sword did find writers in every discipline who were effective in engaging their readers. Comparing the openings of two articles on evolutionary biology, she comments: "Amazingly, the authors of the first make the study of ant communities sound fascinating, while the author of the second succeeds in rendering penis size one of the most boring topics on earth.""

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=419748#.T5lgbq6txog.twitter


Upd. par Fuko. "Michel Foucault, when he was visiting at Berkeley, was asked by John Searle how he could think and argue so clearly but write so badly. He answered, without irony, that no one would take him seriously otherwise." R. Solomon. The Joy of Philosophy. - p. 263.

Lūk, šis man ir negaidīts atradums
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26801137/G-Neiders-Dissertation-23009-2

Un ko jūs teiktu par šādu recenzijas iesākumu:
"Keith Lehrer is a philosopher of very considerable distinction but this book will not enhance his reputation. By Lehrer's account, Art, Self and Knowledge began as a book on aesthetics. From there it morphed into a rambling, repetitive exploration of epistemology, the possibility of zombies, human mortality, feminism, the mind-body problem, personal identity, human freedom and a range of other matters. Long stretches are written in an almost impenetrable style. Passages of arcane prolixity are relieved by occasional gnomic aphorisms. ("There is a content of contentlessness marked in experience," (p. 13) and "Negation is coiled in the spring of distinction," (p. 85) are good examples of these enigmatic statements.) Frequently the meaning is buried so deeply that readers need a heidegger to get it out, which is not surprising since Heidegger is one of the acknowledged sources of the book's ideas. When the meaning has been successfully extracted, the claims of the book often turn out to be disappointingly commonplace or profoundly implausible. Judged purely as a book on philosophy of art, Art, Self and Knowledge contributes very little, in part because (judging by the bibliography) Lehrer has read virtually none of the recent literature on the subject. His primary qualification as an aesthetician seems to be that he has taken up painting.

"