tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post2131276797170212834..comments2024-03-22T08:04:05.869-07:00Comments on 魚之樂: 貝克萊的塵埃Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-36352762614967694242011-10-23T22:10:46.114-07:002011-10-23T22:10:46.114-07:00Kane,
//想分享一條片,唔知係邊留言,雖然比較長,有時間睇睇。
片中是關於聖經在古代中文造字...Kane,<br /><br />//想分享一條片,唔知係邊留言,雖然比較長,有時間睇睇。<br />片中是關於聖經在古代中文造字上已經有記載。講到好似聖經解碼咁...//<br /><br />- 只看了一部份,看來是近似遠志明的那種拆字法,已給不少人批評為穿鑿附會了。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-2998059336575674492011-10-23T22:06:49.884-07:002011-10-23T22:06:49.884-07:00楚門,
//維基語錄中, 笛卡兒的條目亦收錄了這一句。//
- 我以為你是說 "The...楚門,<br /><br />//維基語錄中, 笛卡兒的條目亦收錄了這一句。//<br /><br />- 我以為你是說 "There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it" 這句(<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007qhbn" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007qhbn</a>)。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-13773376816431940102011-10-22T08:04:48.701-07:002011-10-22T08:04:48.701-07:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DA-AkJzpKmg#!<br />God in Ancient China<br />想分享一條片,唔知係邊留言,雖然比較長,有時間睇睇。<br />片中是關於聖經在古代中文造字上已經有記載。講到好似聖經解碼咁...<br /><br />理益申報,先說明小弟非基督徒,只是覺得有趣,想知教授/大家有咩感想姐。<br /><br />KANEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-18573541427342109522011-10-22T02:54:19.718-07:002011-10-22T02:54:19.718-07:00//One cannot conceive anything so strange and so i...//One cannot conceive anything so strange and so implausible that it has not already been said by one philosopher or another.// <br />Agree... if (almost) every person is/was a philosopher. Einstein was a philosopher. Heisenberg, with his Uncertainty Principle, was a philosopher. Schrodinger, with his cat, was a philosopher. Even I am a philosopher. LOL. --zpdrmnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-71625438844131399842011-10-22T02:40:45.848-07:002011-10-22T02:40:45.848-07:00Wong,
//其實不過是自尋煩惱,甚至是自欺欺人。//
Oh, it does not only ...Wong,<br />//其實不過是自尋煩惱,甚至是自欺欺人。//<br />Oh, it does not only apply to philosophers but it also applies to all others. Philosophers probably fare better. Don't worry. Or else it could be more 自尋煩惱 on top of 自尋煩惱. --zpdrmnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-54623526155463487092011-10-21T23:27:25.030-07:002011-10-21T23:27:25.030-07:00我意思是為何大家仍會喜歡哲學、玩味哲學(不論如Wong Sir正式攻讀並以此為職業、還是我們一些課餘...我意思是為何大家仍會喜歡哲學、玩味哲學(不論如Wong Sir正式攻讀並以此為職業、還是我們一些課餘業餘當成興趣去碰碰的人)?<br /><br />老實說,我自己也不太清楚自己為何對哲學有興趣,即使有時會覺得是自找煩惱(如接觸本體論、知識論等難題)。Heimannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-62763146611032908592011-10-21T20:50:09.358-07:002011-10-21T20:50:09.358-07:00Wong,
維基語錄中, 笛卡兒的條目亦收錄了這一句。
http://en.wikiquote....Wong,<br /><br />維基語錄中, 笛卡兒的條目亦收錄了這一句。<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes</a><br /><br />One cannot conceive anything so strange and so implausible that it has not already been said by one philosopher or another.<br /><br /> Variant: There is nothing so strange and so unbelievable that it has not been said by one philosopher or another.楚門noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-74390343693494236892011-10-21T12:59:25.360-07:002011-10-21T12:59:25.360-07:00東方也有句相似的:種了巴蕉又怨巴蕉。東方也有句相似的:種了巴蕉又怨巴蕉。Yanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05543452661425487649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-91200826924610086032011-10-21T10:10:28.081-07:002011-10-21T10:10:28.081-07:00Chris,
//某些哲學家豈不是「捉蟲」?!//
- 正是,但他們不會認的。Chris,<br /><br />//某些哲學家豈不是「捉蟲」?!//<br /><br />- 正是,但他們不會認的。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-19487963472558939402011-10-21T10:09:00.041-07:002011-10-21T10:09:00.041-07:00楚門,
//我常記著的金句, 是笛卡兒說的:
不論如何荒謬與不可置信之事, 都莫不曾為這個或那個哲...楚門,<br /><br />//我常記著的金句, 是笛卡兒說的:<br />不論如何荒謬與不可置信之事, 都莫不曾為這個或那個哲學家提倡過。//<br /><br />- 我一向以為這是西塞羅(Cicero)說的,但沒有查證過,真的是笛卡兒說的嗎?W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-75363874734054009402011-10-21T10:06:59.799-07:002011-10-21T10:06:59.799-07:00Heiman,
//有時我會想,那我們為何還要做哲學//
- 假如你那「要」字是「需要」的意思,...Heiman,<br /><br />//有時我會想,那我們為何還要做哲學//<br /><br />- 假如你那「要」字是「需要」的意思,那麼我們的確可以沒這需要。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-14167447668485961942011-10-21T05:25:50.606-07:002011-10-21T05:25:50.606-07:00某些哲學家豈不是「捉蟲」?!某些哲學家豈不是「捉蟲」?!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10133122741874926109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-40537840985425258392011-10-21T02:45:41.415-07:002011-10-21T02:45:41.415-07:00恕我來個狗尾續貂, 奉上我的兩個仙。
我常記著的金句, 是笛卡兒說的:
不論如何荒謬與不可置信之事,...恕我來個狗尾續貂, 奉上我的兩個仙。<br />我常記著的金句, 是笛卡兒說的:<br />不論如何荒謬與不可置信之事, 都莫不曾為這個或那個哲學家提倡過。楚門noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-3778022825429701672011-10-21T00:57:28.180-07:002011-10-21T00:57:28.180-07:00有時我會想,那我們為何還要做哲學有時我會想,那我們為何還要做哲學Heimannoreply@blogger.com