Lg Yahoo Friends List Doesn't Exist

wood

Ferdinand I, Duke of Parma, wan king an almost insignificant duchy of northern and central Italy, is nevertheless destined to be famous for what could have been, rather than what it was.

The Duchy of Parma was governed in the middle of the eighteenth century by the Bourbon dynasty, which, successor to the Farnese family and the Habsburgs, had introduced some significant innovations in trying to emancipate themselves from the influence church, with the abolition of the Court of 'Inquisition, the abolition of privileges granted to the clergy, and the strengthening of public education. By actually quite positive, considering for example that Parma was the city after Paris, with the highest number of subscribers to ' Encyclopédie . Ferdinando, nato nel 1751, era destinato a raccogliere l'eredità del padre Filippo I, che aveva retto il Ducato con equilibrio e saggezza (insieme alla moglie Elisabetta di Borbone).

Per prepararlo al compito che lo attendeva, i genitori di Ferdinando decisero di affidare la sua istruzione agli uomini migliori dell'epoca. La scelta cadde in primo luogo su Auguste de Keralio, che fu nominato "governatore" dell'Infante di Parma: avrebbe dovuto vivere costantemente al suo fianco, per essere il suo punto di riferimento per quanto riguarda le faccende morali e di condotta. Keralio svolse il suo compito tentando di inculcare nel giovane i principi della filosofia dei Lumi, indirizzandolo quindi a una religiosità sincera ma non bigotta, non incline alle superstizioni e alle piccole pratiche di devozione poco adatte a un principe.

Come precettore invece la scelta cadde nientemeno che su Étienne Bonnot de Condillac, ispiratore dell' Enciclopedia di Diderot e d'Alembert, autore del Trattato sulle sensazioni , esponente e massimo divulgatore in Francia del sensismo lockiano, amico personale di Rousseau, e a sua volta inventore di una teoria pedagogica, dedotta dalla sua filosofia, che avrebbe potuto finalmente mettere in pratica (la cooperazione deve sostituirsi all'autorità, occorre rispettare i ritmi dell'allievo e procedere per tappe, procedendo dal particolare in general, and not vice versa).

Besides Kerala and Condillac, is also large influence on the boy Dutillot minister, in whose hands the sun is in practice given the Duchy once orphaned Ferdinand, who will act and opposing claims of clergy in the name of secular principles much like the philosophes . He was responsible for many worthy cultural initiatives, such as the foundation of the Academy of Fine Arts, the Museum of Antiquities, the Royal Printing, and the newspaper Gazzetta di Parma . Not to mention the presence in court, many famous people, such as mathematical and physical Jacquier and Le Seur, the historian Millot (called its to give lessons to the prince), and many others, until the printer Bodoni.

Ferdinand - as told by the beautiful book by Elizabeth Badinter, The Infant de Parme - thus becomes the ideal guinea pig for an interesting educational experiment: the ideology of the Enlightenment empiricist education is everything, and takes precedence over the innate nature of man. The culture and rationality can overcome ignorance and superstition, when the latter is given the right to cast seeds on the fertile soil of the human mind, ready to accept both the good and bad teaching. Ferdinand become, thanks to her teachers, the enlightened ruler that philosophes expect?

Certainly the young Ferdinand was not spared nothing, even to the sound of harsh corporal punishment, because it treats, from an early age, everything that is considered useful to the future sovereign who has completed the first ten years he has already read the scene of Moliere, Corneille and Racine, Voltaire, texts like The Origin of the laws of Goguet, the Treaty on the tropes of Marsais or the Treaty on the sphere of Maupertuis, as well as be introduced to Newtonian physics. In addition, Latin grammar and literature, logic, and history. Follow geometry, hydrostatics, hydraulics, astronomy, geography, architecture, military and modern mathematics. Condillac was satisfied with the intelligence of the pupil.

The tale of an enlightened prince, although early, spread throughout Europe, artfully propagated by the same philosophes, reaching its peak in the year that Ferdinand decides to be inoculated for smallpox immunization (not was still the real vaccine, used for the first time in 1796, but the substances taken from real sick, dangerous practice and opposed by the Church but effective). All the most learned men of Europe look to him as a hope for the triumph of reason sull'oscurantismo religious and absolutist.

But the poor Ferdinand disappoint everyone. Signs that something was wrong in the right direction even before there were: the frequent punishment of which he complains, but they were a perfectly normal practice for the time, are due largely to his own religious transport, to the fact that lets go, more often, in devotional practices that her tutors believe exaggerated and inappropriate to a prince. It also has a fragile character, and the tendency to socialize with people inside the court, not suited to his rank, too often indulging all'infantilismo. Features that all efforts will never lose.

soon became autonomous, and especially since his marriage with Maria Amalia of Habsburg-Lorraine, Ferdinand began to make the policy of ostracism Dutillot, approaches the party's pro-Italian and pro-church of the city that already had a difficult relationship with the French, and draws many people to court earlier removed. Despite all the pressure from abroad to get it back to reason Ferdinand seems subject to the whims of his wife (which, at least initially, keep it under control thanks to the fact that marriage can not be consumed immediately, because of a malfunction due to poor hygiene, which perhaps not one of the lessons provided). Dutillot, for which (unlike the former teacher with whom Keralio will always have a match) Ferdinand has a real hatred, will eventually be removed, the ecclesiastical privileges will be restored, and will even restored the Inquisition. Ferdinand won the nickname "Prince of bigots," which will continue until they lose the throne, many years later, because of Napoleon.

How "experiment" that performed on the skin of this guy certainly has no scientific value. The philosophers we were wrong, and tried in various ways to justify, but it is impossible to determine whether Ferdinand has become a bigot because this was from the beginning to its nature (and then the empiricist thesis should be reviewed) oppure se vi sono stati gravi errori proprio nel metodo pedagogico (cosa altrettanto probabile).

Può comunque servire come memento per chi ha un'eccessiva fiducia nell'educazione, qualunque siano i principi pedagogici ai quali aderisce. Per chi pensa a forgiare non un individuo, ma addirittura un'intera nazione, a suon di proposte di curricolo e di insegnamenti ritenuti di volta in volta, necessari e formativi. Sarebbe una vicenda utile, da studiare e apprendere, per ogni riformatore della scuola, come per ogni difensore accanito degli insegnamenti tradizionali. Perché la verità è semplicemente che alcune cose sfuggono al nostro controllo di ingegneri sociali; per quanto accuratamente le pianifichiamo, they will rebel against our will. Only with the crooked timber of humanity can never be made null and void.

Connecticut Licensed Clinical Social Worker

There is a remote inn on the island of Stromboli. There is a man who has lost his memory and was rescued by a sweet dreams by Lidia. And there's never a she disappears and he remembers it every day ... there is a sadness that permeates the soul. Finally, there is Africa. You never heard letters written and feel a 'never-ending nostalgia and the sound of the sea. Every Sunday from 22 to 23 is my favorite show on Radio Lifegate ... all bets are to listen to them again this link. You breathe in the fresh air of lightness hour Sicilian ... and sighs. Not really screwed until you by a good story, and someone to tell it.

?i-catcher Console - Web Monitorâ

the wrong reasons of militant atheism, and those of the mystic history of childhood

I would like to respond to a post , a few weeks ago, the friend Leibniz Reloaded about militant atheism.

Actually I'm not really the best person to do it right, because, although rather an anticlerical, not at all consider myself a militant atheist. I'm not writing I'm interested in the EU or to register, nor are those who are keen to "sbattezzarsi" (which is useless from a Catholic perspective, as the baptism does not go away however, and thus even more pointless for an atheist). I try to respect the faith of others as a private matter, and not to disturb them with blasphemy or profanity different (though when they are alone or with friends often let myself go), and so on. Among other things, there are certainly among the faithful readers of this blog, and really I see no reason to remove them out of pure spirit of contradiction.

However, I think I understand more than to Leibniz, the reasons for the militant atheists, that if our country step into the shoes a bit 'too gigioneschi of Odifreddi are worthily represented in the Anglo-Saxon countries by people like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris.

A first objection that I would move to Leibniz, is that atheism for me "is not a choice fideistic, as well as its symmetric. This fact would mean that there are degrees of plausibility, or more likely, in accepting a hypothesis, but it is only a "take it or leave it." No one can be absolutely certain that God does not exist, because the bottom seems to be at least a logical possibility, but it can be assumed without contradicting a rational and scientific attitude, that there is not a hypothesis, but much more likely than ' existence. The old argument of Russell's teapot is valid, in this case.

Leibniz is also asked: "certain positions are not deeply individual and naturaliter Codest incompatible with the spirit of party aggregazionismo?". There may be a link between individualism and atheism, although I do not see so obvious, but nothing in any case forbade individualists come together to pursue the common public purposes. I do not believe, in fact, that the purpose of these associations is to meet each other for comfort in the "dogma of the absence of faith," or to perform rituals in addition to those of the faithful.

The aim is also essentially public because religion tends not to be an entirely private affair, and that is to neutralize those that atheists believe to be objective damage produced by religious beliefs in the public sphere. The most immediate comparison is with the Associations of skeptics and debunkers who try to debunk pseudoscientific beliefs, urban legends, and various quackery. One could also argue that those who fight against the nonsense of sciachimisti waste time in a similar manner to sciachimisti themselves (and a bit 'is also true), but it is also clear that the sciachimisti, and generally those who spread false and alarmist beliefs, some damage they do, and therefore can be regarded as meritorious action of those who contrasts.

Compare

believers (all believers) to sciachimisti may be perceived as very offensive and insulting, so now I hasten to clarify that I do not put them all on the same floor, and I think nobody does. But if the essence of true faith is to believe certain allegations without any rational reason or empirical support, I can also understand that this principle is considered ethically wrong, and perhaps even harmful, who has done instead of scientific reason why his of life.

believe in miracles, the healing power of prayer, or intercession of the saints, for example, can be regarded as a waste of resources che potrebbe essere più facilmente impiegato alla ricerca di mezzi più efficaci per ottenere i propri scopi (taccio per amor di quiete i pericoli del fondamentalismo religioso). In fondo, perché dovrei criticare chi si rivolge all'omeopata per guarire da una malattia, e non chi si rivolge a padre Pio? Oppure, perché nessuno ritiene offensivi quei libri che si dedicano a screditare le false credenze sull'astrologia, o sugli Ufo, o le strategie per vincere al lotto basate su ipotesi matematico-probabilistiche fantasiose, ma non appena ci si rivolge a cose come il parto virginale della Madonna ci si sente dare, con una certa stizza, del "positivista ottocentesco"?. Quali sono le false credenze che è giusto screditare e quelle che invece devono essere lasciate stare perché riguardano "la fede religiosa", e quindi al di fuori del campo della scienza? Perché dev'essere considerato politicamente scorretto mettere pubblicamente alla berlina le credenze religiose?

Nonostante tutto, sono però abbastanza d'accordo con l'ultima parte del post di Leibniz Reloaded, quando sostiene che la matematica (e secondo me anche la scienza, nonostante Dawkins abbia dimostrato che fra gli scienziati la percentuale di atei è molto più alta della media), ai suoi massimi livelli, avvicina a Dio, invece di allontanare. In un certo senso.

Onestamente, faccio fatica comprendere quella religiosità che results in a purely factual assertions that have a clear, though perhaps unknown truth value (as Christ was resurrected after three days, "but also" a Being omniscient and omnipotent God created the world and we thought the law "). But actually I do not think religion has been reduced to this. "Religion - William James said - is the overall reaction of a man to life," and in this sense it can be extended to issues that do not seem to have much to do with organized religions and their collection of dogmas.

It can be found, for example, in their devotion to a disinterested scientist searching for truth's sake. Or, more generally, the attitude of sacred awe before the mystery of existence, or in front of the vastness and beauty of the cosmos. "The ineffable there - said Wittgenstein - it is the mystical." For Wittgenstein, however, was precisely the mystic in all that "can not be said," and in this sense, mysticism and scientism coincide: expanding the boundaries of knowledge call for exclusion, including all that's left out (the purpose of Tractatus, that is to limit what can be said just to better show the mystic, of which one must be silent). Another interesting, and most recent attempt to delineate a "mysticism rational, it is found instead in the book by John Horgan, Rational Mysticism , but is aimed more to the East, the experience of enlightenment, and shamanism.

The problem is that this "attitude mystic, "if it can be reconciled with the spiritual quest of many people, not too attached to the tenets received during childhood, is completely incompatible with most organized religions, whose mission is not to ask questions or to maintain a attitude of openness to the world of sense, but in giving responses (wrong) is in fierce competition with other religions and with science, and thus preventing a true search of "ultimate meaning". Not surprisingly, some scientists who have studied brain activity during those individuals described as "mystical experiences", they also noted that such experiences are less common in people officially own "religious", like priests. Not surprisingly, they have all the answers written in a book.

It is also clear, in short, that as far as respect or admiration for the attitude you can have religious and mystical, so defined, nothing that is not a real cognitive content, propositional, with value and expressible in the language of truth, we can the name of "belief." Religious beliefs, as such, are wrong, all of them. Attitudes maybe not

Flash And Burn, Mysapce Collage

Children who are these beings, and what they want from us?

are not moral agents, they have responsibility, have no autonomy. Not cooperate with the housework, but eat and drink and get dirty. They cost a lot of money, but do not go to work. I'm not even humans, are to preserve and care for the animals with care, protecting them from harm and from every possible source of stress, at least until they cross the threshold of maturity (attached in a permanent), exceeded which are ready to be kicked in the ass like everyone else and deprived of any sense of loyalty. But it's always been like that?

seminal study on the childhood story was written by Philippe Aries in 1960, Fathers and Sons in medieval and modern . According to Aries, the sense of childhood is actually a recent phenomenon that comes about in the eighteenth century, and that did not exist in the Middle Ages or in modern times. The children were conceived as miniature adults, not as special beings. Indeed, before passing the early stages of childhood were not considered at all, and often does not even receive a name (so there was a high probability they died), and once reached a minimum degree of autonomy were immediately catapulted into the adult world. There was no child to be protected and preserved. No golden world. Aries

sources were mainly of iconography and literature (eg by analyzing the evolution of the figure of baby Jesus, at first designed as a small man, then learned more and more children). His methodological approach so far has been criticized on the grounds that such issues were being neglected purely theological and doctrinal differences that contribute to the evolution of the iconographic Christ, or those of mere artistic sensibility.

is a study, according to some Aries exploratory che però ha dato il via a una notevole messe di volumi sullo stesso argomento. I libri di Lloyd de Mause (1974), Edward Shorter (1975), e Lawrence Stone (1977) raggiungevano tutti conclusioni assai diverse fra loro e rispetto ad Ariès, sull'epoca in cui sarebbe iniziata la transizione e sulle cause, però avevano tutti un punto in comune: sposavano cioè la tesi "discontinuista" di Ariès, e indicavano un mutamento epocale, nel passato più o meno recente, nel modo di concepire l'infanzia e quindi nelle condizioni di vita del bambino, e nel modo in cui veniva trattato e accudito.

Si noti che le due cose (l'ideologia e la prassi) sono profondamente diverse, ma non sempre questa distinzione è stata delineated with sufficient rigor in the literature. However, in de Mause's essay in particular (contained in the volume he edited, The History of Childhood ), the thesis discontinuity Aries becomes a real story of magnificent and progressive. That is, things went better and better children:

history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The more you go back in time, the lower is the degree of attention for the child, and more frequently turn to him the fate of being murdered, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexual violence.

In de Mause the thesis is then connected an interpretation of "psychogenic" in history really hard to take seriously, in which each generation of parents, introjecting within himself the trauma suffered during childhood and overcoming them, makes a modest improvement over the previous generation, through a slow process gradual.

For Shorter (T h Making of Modern Family ) instead

maternal care to children are an invention of the modern world. In traditional society, development and happiness of infants less than two years were regarded with indifference by their mothers - that instead, in modern society, above all else put the welfare of children.

Even Stone ( The Family, Sex. and Marriage in England 1550-1800) speaks of a great emotional distance between parents and children, the "fierce determination to break the will of the child to impose a total subjection to the authority of elders and superiors, especially the elderly, and the frequent use of corporal punishment, before that, starting from 1660 or so, you experience a transformation of educational theory and practice of child rearing.

There is no doubt that the culture of a society can have a profound effect on farming practices, but it is well founded suspicion that these historians assign too much importance, given il ruolo essenziale dell'allevamento dal punto di vista della conservazione della specie. Sembrerebbe quasi, infatti, che solo attraverso la civiltà moderna e i moderni principi pedagogici l'uomo abbia imparato a trattare con una certa umanità i membri più piccoli della sua specie, mentre prima non si capisce neanche come i bambini potessero sopravvivere. E sono sempre sospette, le storie di progresso della nostra civiltà, anche per l'implicito giudizio negativo sulle altre culture, rimaste in uno stadio più arretrato. A meno che non si voglia dire che certi peccati sono propri solo dell'Occidente, mentre per qualche miracolo tutti gli altri popoli hanno subito scoperto, per magia, il modo corretto di allevare i bimbi (non mi stupirebbe, che si voglia dire questo: ho letto anche di peggio).

Linda Pollock col libro Forgotten Children , del 1983, provvide a fornire una critica articolata delle teorie precedenti, rifacendosi appunto a fonti, oltre che storiche, sociobiologiche, antropologiche, e allo studio dei primati. La conclusione, piuttosto scontata dal punto di vista del buon senso, è che non si rileva "nessun cambiamento nella quantità di dolore materno o paterno nel corso dei secoli e nessuna conferma alla tesi che i genitori, prima del XVIII secolo, fossero indifferenti alla morte della loro giovane prole".

Il dibattito è poi proseguito, fino ad oggi, con posizioni in genere più mediate rispetto al discontinuismo di Ariès e la sua negazione da parte della Pollock. Certo è che tesi come quelle di de Mause attualmente sono in netta minoranza. Il punto è: perché la gente crede a cose del genere, così in contrasto con la ragionevolezza? Perché ama raccontarsi incredibili storie dell'orrore a proposito della propria civiltà, e del proprio recente passato? O del presente, se è per questo. Perché, ad esempio, c'è gente che, oltre alle storie di pedofilia vera (che esiste), ama inventare storie sui pericoli corsi dall'infanzia e racconti popolati da potentissime sette di orchi satanici che organizzano traffici internazionali di bambini da seviziare? o di messaggi subliminali propinati ai nostri figli per propagandare in maniera subdola sesso e violenza? può sembrare un paragone azzardato, quello fra gli storici alla de Mause, e i complottisti della pedofilia (alla Max Frassi), ma secondo me c'è un collegamento.

Lloyd de Mause, raccontando la sua storia di progresso, vuole farci sentire più buoni, esaltando la cattiveria degli altri, in questo caso dei nostri antenati. Il male viene esorcizzato relegandolo nel passato. Nel caso dei professionisti dell'antipedofilia, il male è esorcizzato allontanandolo dalle famiglie (nelle quali avvengono la stragrande maggioranza dei casi di pedofilia) e relegandolo nelle oscure e alte sfere dei potenti e cattivi, totalmente al di fuori del nostro controllo e della nostra esistenza normale (fenomeno psicologico this explains much of the plot).

In both cases, children are seen as subjects totally passive and inert, and as such creatures as angels. De Mause for the discovery of childhood as something autonomous and separate from the adult world, coincides with a major advancement of civilization. Today, unlike in the past, we are able to recognize children as holy creatures, to be protected by our corrupt world full of ugliness. Children dell'antipedofilia for professionals, can have only one place in the scheme of the universe: that of victims. They are incapable of lying, by their constitution, so whatever they say is truth revealed. The price is their liabilities, the inability of agents to be equipped with an initiative and to be able to affect so even partly on their own life.

The irony is that this is precisely the opposite view to that of Aries, which had endorsed a concept developed decades earlier by Norbert Elias will The Civilizing Process (1939). While inside the thesis discontinuity, in fact, Aries intended as a negative deplore the growing gap between the world of adults and children. Consequence of its "civilizing process", and control of the instincts connected to it. Control of the instincts that is striving to ensure that adults differ from children, or that they learn good manners and behave well in society. That

Aries and Elias was then a romantic conception of the medieval past, in which children were absorbed in a totally containing natural in adult society. Vision that had its flaws, but that was to criticize the moral standards of modern society, isolation of the family within it, the creation of "quarantine" necessary, as the educational institution, before the child was deemed ready integrate into the adult world. The imposition of order and discipline, and the birth of the concept of "fragile children," in which child protection goes hand in hand with the "correction" and the education of it.

In short, the very same ideas Moige.