The Cartesian view of classical science had described the
world as an automaton, which was deterministic and capable of
total description in the form of causal laws, or "laws of nature."
Today many natural scientists would argue that the world should
be described quite differently. 9 It is a more unstable world, a
much more complex world, a world in which perturbations play
a big role, one of whose key questions is how to explain how such
complexity arises. Most natural scientists no longer believe that
the macroscopic can simply be deduced in principle from a simpler microscopic world. Many now believe that complex systems
are self-organizing, and that consequently nature can no longer
be considered to be passive.
It is not that they believe Newtonian physics to be wrong, but
that the stable, time-reversible systems which Newtonian science described represent only a special, limited segment of reality. Newtonian physics describes, for example, the motion of
the planets but not the development of the planetary system. It
describes systems at equilibrium or near to equilibrium but not
systems far from equilibrium, conditions that are at least as
frequent, if not more frequent, than systems at equilibrium.
The conditions of a system far from equilibrium are not timereversible, in which it is sufficient to know the "law" and the initial conditions in order to predict its future states. Rather, a system far from equilibrium is the expression of an "arrow of time,"
whose role is essential and constructive. In such a system, the future is uncertain and the conditions are irreversible. The laws
that we can formulate therefore enumerate only possibilities,
never certainties.
The classical scholar Liey Shih-p’ei argued that the realization of anarchism in China should not be too difficult because of the influence of Taoist principles of ‘indifference’ and ‘non-interference’.
Bu yaz yanınızdan ayırmak istemeyeceğiniz kitapları sizin için bir araya getirdik.
💬 Siz olsanız bu listeden hangisiyle başlardınız?
Individualist anarchism comes closest to classical liberalism, sharing its concepts of private property and economic exchange, as well as its definitions of freedom as the absence of restraint, and justice as the reward of merit. Indeed, the individualist develops the liberal concept of the sovereignty of the individual to such an extent that it becomes incompatible with any form of government or State. Each person is considered to have an inviolable sphere which embraces both his body and his property. Any interference with this private sphere is deemed an invasion: the State with its coercive apparatus of taxation, conscription, and law is the supreme invader.
Slowly, people had to start distinguishing the old Latin from the language that people were speaking on the streets of Rome, which came to be known as Romanicus .
The Dark Ages darkened and the difference between Latin and Romanicus grew larger and larger. Latin was preserved in a way. Classical Latin, or something very like it, became the language of the Catholic Church and of academic discourse.
Yet in the Middle Ages, most people didn’t want to read books about theoretical theology. They wanted stories about knights in shining armour and beautiful damsels in distress. They wanted fire - breathing dragons, enchanted mountains and fairylands beyond the oceans. So such stories got written by the bucketful, and they were romanice scribere , that is to say they were written in Romanic.
Quintilian says that after you have chosen your words you must weave them together into a fabric – in textu iungantur – until you have a fine and delicate text [ ure [ ile ]] or textum tenue atque rasum . It’s the sort of thing we say all the time. We weave stories together and embroider them and try never to lose the thread of the story. Quintilian’s metaphor lasted. Late classical writers took up text to mean any short passage in a book and then we took it to mean anything that was written down.
Ey güzellik bağının fidanı! Saf lâli tatlı dudağına benzetirlermiş, onun ne tadı ne tuzu var.
