Artist Illustrates Everyday Life With His Wife (21 New Comics) | Bored Panda
Relationship goals in comic form. Nervous about people's reaction to her work, Catana wasn't originally planning to post the comics online. the dating pool people who are likely to be poor relationship partners in general. On the .. tific evidence. The overarching goal of this article is to draw upon the. Relationship Goals: Cute and Creative Couple Books to Prove Your Love Seeing couples on the internet making grand gestures for each other She makes traditional artwork, monochrome sketches and pinup illustrations.
Relatively many testimonies, approximately one third of them, have to do with astronomical and cosmological questions. A quotation like "DK 12A17" means: Anaximander is said to have identified it with "the Boundless" or "the Unlimited" Greek: Already in ancient times, it is complained that Anaximander did not explain what he meant by "the Boundless.
Some scholars have even defended the meaning "that which is not experienced," by relating the Greek word "apeiron" not to "peras" "boundary," "limit"but to "perao" "to experience," "to apperceive". The suggestion, however, is almost irresistible that Greek philosophy, by making the Boundless into the principle of all things, has started on a high level of abstraction.
On the other hand, some have pointed out that this use of "apeiron" is atypical for Greek thought, which was occupied with limit, symmetry and harmony. The Pythagoreans placed the boundless the "apeiron" on the list of negative things, and for Aristotletoo, perfection became aligned with limit Greek: Therefore, some authors suspect eastern Iranian influence on Anaximander's ideas.
The Arguments Regarding the Boundless It seems that Anaximander not only put forward the thesis that the Boundless is the principle, but also tried to argue for it. We might say that he was the first who made use of philosophical arguments. Anaximander's arguments have come down to us in the disguise of Aristotelian jargon. Therefore, any reconstruction of the arguments used by the Milesian must remain conjectural. Verbatim reconstruction is of course impossible. Nevertheless, the data, provided they are handled with care, allow us to catch glimpses of what the arguments of Anaximander must have looked like.
The important thing is, however, that he did not just utter apodictic statements, but also tried to give arguments. This is what makes him the first philosopher. The Boundless has No Origin Aristotle reports a curious argument, which probably goes back to Anaximander, in which it is argued that the Boundless has no origin, because it is itself the origin. We would say that it looks more like a string of associations and word-plays than like a formal argument. It runs as follows: The Boundless has no origin.
For then it would have a limit. Moreover, it is both unborn and immortal, being a kind of origin. For that which has become has also, necessarily, an end, and there is a termination to every process of destruction" Physics b, DK 12A The Greeks were familiar with the idea of the immortal Homeric gods.
154 Hilarious Relationship Comics That Perfectly Sum up What Every Long-Term Relationship Is Like
Anaximander added two distinctive features to the concept of divinity: However, perhaps not Anaximander, but Thales should be credited with this new idea. That which has no origin and no end" DK 11A1 The Origin Must be Boundless Several sources give another argument which is somehow the other way round and answers the question of why the origin should be boundless. In Aristotle's version, it runs like this: In this argument, the Boundless seems to be associated with an inexhaustible source.
Obviously, it is taken for granted that "genesis and decay will never stop," and the Boundless has to guarantee the ongoing of the process, like an ever-floating fountain. The "Long Since" Argument A third argument is relatively long and somewhat strange. It turns on one key word in Greek: If any of them should be boundless, it would long since have destroyed the others; but now there is, they say, something other from which they are all generated" Physics b, DK 12A This is not only virtually the same argument as used by Plato in his Phaedo 72ab5but even more interesting is that it was used almost years later by Friedrich Nietzsche in his attempts to prove his thesis of the Eternal Recurrence: If there were for it some unintended final state, this also must have been reached.
If it were at all capable of a pausing and becoming fixed, if it were capable of "being," if in the whole course of its becoming it possessed even for a moment this capability of "being," then again all becoming would long since have come to an end. The ancient Greeks did not use quotation marks, so that we cannot be sure where Simplicius, who has handed down the text to us, is still paraphrasing Anaximander and where he begins to quote him. The text is cast in indirect speech, even the part which most authors agree is a real quotation.
As regards the interpretation of the fragment, it is heavily disputed whether it means to refer to Anaximander's principle, the Boundless, or not. The Greek original has relative pronouns in the plural here rendered by "whence" and "thence"which makes it difficult to relate them to the Boundless.
However, Simplicius' impression that it is written in rather poetic words has been repeated in several ways by many authors. Therefore, we offer a translation, in which some poetic features of the original, such as chiasmus and alliteration have been imitated: Whence things have their origin, Thence also their destruction happens, As is the order of things; For they execute the sentence upon one another - The condemnation for the crime - In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
In the fourth and fifth line a more fluent translation is given for what is usually rendered rather cryptic by something like "giving justice and reparation to one another for their injustice. The upholders of the horizontal interpretation usually do not deny that Anaximander taught that all things are generated from the Boundless, but they simply hold that this is not what is said in the fragment.
They argue that the fragment describes the battle between the elements or of things in generalwhich accounts for the origin and destruction of things. The most obvious difficulty, however, for this "horizontal" interpretation is that it implies two cycles of becoming and decay: In other words, in the "horizontal" interpretation the Boundless is superfluous.
This is the strongest argument in favor of the "vertical" interpretation, which holds that the fragment refers to the Boundless, notwithstanding the plural relative pronouns.
According to the "vertical" interpretation, then, the Boundless should be regarded not only as the ever-flowing fountain from which everything ultimately springs, but also as the yawning abyss as some say, comparable with Hesiod's "Chaos" into which everything ultimately perishes.
The suggestion has been raised that Anaximander's formula in the first two lines of the fragment should have been the model for Aristotle's definition of the "principle" Greek: There is some sense in this suggestion.
Relationship Goals: Cute and Creative Couple Books to Prove Your Love - When In Manila
It is certainly important that we possess one text from Anaximander's book. On the other hand, we must recognize that we know hardly anything of its original context, as the rest of the book has been lost. We do not know from which part of his book it is, nor whether it is a text the author himself thought crucial or just a line that caught one reader's attention as an example of Anaximander's poetic writing style. The danger exists that we are tempted to use this stray text - beautiful and mysterious as it is - in order to produce all kinds of profound interpretations that are hard to verify.
Perhaps a better way of understanding what Anaximander has to say is to study carefully the doxography, which goes back to people like Aristotle and Theophrastus, who probably have had Anaximander's book before their eyes, and who tried to reformulate what they thought were its central claims. The Origin of the Cosmos The Boundless seems to have played a role in Anaximander's account of the origin of the cosmos.
Its eternal movement is said to have caused the origin of the heavens. Elsewhere, it is said that "all the heavens and the worlds within them" have sprung from "some boundless nature.
Subsequently, the sphere of fire is said to have fallen apart into several rings, and this event was the origin of sun, moon, and stars.
There are authors who have, quite anachronistically, seen here a kind of foreshadowing of the Kant-Laplace theory of the origin of the solar system. But this is presumably a later theory, incorrectly read back into Anaximander.
Astronomy At first sight, the reports on Anaximander's astronomy look rather bizarre and obscure. Some authors even think that they are so confused that we should give up trying to offer a satisfying and coherent interpretation. The only way of understanding Anaximander's astronomical ideas, however, is to take them seriously and treat them as such, that is, as astronomical ideas. It will appear that many of the features of his universe that look strange at first sight make perfect sense on closer inspection.
Speculative Astronomy The astronomy of neighboring peoples, such as the Babylonians and the Egyptians, consists mainly of observations of the rising and disappearance of celestial bodies and of their paths across the celestial vault. These observations were made with the naked eye and with the help of some simple instruments as the gnomon. The Babylonians, in particular, were rather advanced observers.
Archeologists have found an abundance of cuneiform texts on astronomical observations. In contrast, there exists only one report of an observation made by Anaximander, which concerns the date on which the Pleiades set in the morning. This is no coincidence, for Anaximander's merits do not lie in the field of observational astronomy, unlike the Babylonians and the Egyptians, but in that of speculative astronomy.
We may discern three of his astronomical speculations: Notwithstanding their rather primitive outlook, these three propositions, which make up the core of Anaximander's astronomy, meant a tremendous jump forward and constitute the origin of our Western concept of the universe.
The Celestial Bodies Make Full Circles The idea that the celestial bodies, in their daily course, make full circles and thus pass also beneath the earth - from Anaximander's viewpoint - is so self-evident to us that it is hard to understand how daring its introduction was. That the celestial bodies make full circles is not something he could have observed, but a conclusion he must have drawn. We would say that this is a conclusion that lies to hand.
We can see - at the northern hemisphere, like Anaximander - the stars around the Polar star making full circles, and we can also observe that the more southerly stars sometimes disappear behind the horizon.
We may argue that the stars of which we see only arcs in reality also describe full circles, just like those near the Polar star. As regards the sun and moon, we can observe that the arcs they describe are sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller, and we are able to predict exactly where they will rise the next day.
Therefore, it seems not too bold a conjecture to say that these celestial bodies also describe full circles.
Nevertheless, it was a daring conclusion, precisely because it necessarily entailed the concept of the earth hanging free and unsupported in space. The Earth Floats Unsupported in Space Anaximander boldly asserts that the earth floats free in the center of the universe, unsupported by water, pillars, or whatever.Relationship Goals 😊
This idea means a complete revolution in our understanding of the universe. Obviously, the earth hanging free in space is not something Anaximander could have observed. Apparently, he drew this bold conclusion from his assumption that the celestial bodies make full circles. More than years later astronauts really saw the unsupported earth floating in space and thus provided the ultimate confirmation of Anaximander's conception.
The shape of the earth, according to Anaximander, is cylindrical, like a column-drum, its diameter being three times its height. We live on top of it. Some scholars have wondered why Anaximander chose this strange shape. The strangeness disappears, however, when we realize that Anaximander thought that the earth was flat and circular, as suggested by the horizon.
For one who thinks, as Anaximander did, that the earth floats unsupported in the center of the universe, the cylinder-shape lies at hand. Why the Earth Does Not Fall We may assume that Anaximander somehow had to defend his bold theory of the free-floating, unsupported earth against the obvious question of why the earth does not fall. Aristotle's version of Anaximander's argument runs like this: For that which is situated in the center and at equal distances from the extremes, has no inclination whatsoever to move up rather than down or sideways; and since it is impossible to move in opposite directions at the same time, it necessarily stays where it is.
Anaximander's argument returns in a famous text in the Phaedo E4 ff. Even more interesting is that the same argument, within a different context, returns with the great protagonist of the principle of sufficient reason, Leibniz.
In his second letter to Clarke, he uses an example, which he ascribes to Archimedes but which reminds us strongly of Anaximander: He takes it for granted that if there be a balance in which everything is alike on both sides, and if equal weights are hung on the two ends of that balance, the whole will stay at rest. This is because there is no reason why one side should weigh down, rather than the other".
One may doubt, however, whether the argument is not fallacious. Aristotle already thought the argument to be deceiving. He ridicules it by saying that according to the same kind of argument a hair, which was subject to an even pulling power from opposing sides, would not break, and that a man, being just as hungry as thirsty, placed in between food and drink, must necessarily remain where he is and starve.
To him it was the wrong argument for the right proposition. Absolute propositions concerning the non-existence of things are always in danger of becoming falsified on closer investigation.
They contain a kind of subjective aspect: Already at first sight this qualification sounds strange, for the argument evidently must be wrong, as the earth is not in the center of the universe, although it certainly is not supported by anything but gravity.
Long Distance Relationship Quotes
Nevertheless, we have to wait until Newton for a better answer to the question why the earth does not fall. Anaximander's vision implied depth in the universe, that is, the idea that the celestial bodies lie behind one another. Although it sounds simple, this is a remarkable idea, because it cannot be based on direct observation. We do not see depth in the universe. The more natural and primitive idea is that of the celestial vault, a kind of dome or tent, onto which the celestial bodies are attached, all of them at the same distance, like in a planetarium.
One meets this kind of conception in Homer, when he speaks of the brazen or iron heaven, which is apparently conceived of as something solid, being supported by Atlas, or by pillars. The Order of the Celestial Bodies Anaximander placed the celestial bodies in the wrong order. He thought that the stars were nearest to the earth, then followed the moon, and the sun farthest away. Some authors have wondered why Anaximander made the stars the nearest celestial bodies, for he should have noticed the occurrence of star-occultations by the moon.
This is a typical anachronism, which shows that it not easy to look at the phenomena with Anaximander's eyes. The ARPANET was designed to survive subordinate-network losses, since the principal reason was that the switching nodes and network links were unreliable, even without any nuclear attacks.
To build such a system was, clearly, a major military need, but it was not ARPA's mission to do this; in fact, we would have been severely criticized had we tried.
Rather, the ARPANET came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators, who should have access to them, were geographically separated from them. The message text was the word login; on an earlier attempt the l and the o letters were transmitted, but the system then crashed.
About an hour later, after the programmers repaired the code that caused the crash, the SDS Sigma 7 computer effected a full login. By 5 Decemberthe entire four-node network was established. Bythe number was host computers, with another host connecting approximately every twenty days. At about the same time a terrestrial circuit added a London IMP. Rules and etiquette[ edit ] Because of its government funding, certain forms of traffic were discouraged or prohibited.
Sending electronic mail over the ARPANet for commercial profit or political purposes is both anti-social and illegal. Technology[ edit ] Support for inter-IMP circuits of up to It could also be configured as a Terminal Interface Processor TIPwhich provided terminal server support for up to 63 ASCII serial terminals through a multi-line controller in place of one of the hosts.
The was configured with 40 kB of core memory for a TIP. These appeared in a few sites. Now pause with me a moment, shed some tears. For auld lang synefor love, for years and years of faithful service, duty done, I weep.
Lay down thy packetnow, O friend, and sleep. An message essentially consisted of a message type, a numeric host address, and a data field. To send a data message to another host, the transmitting host formatted a data message containing the destination host's address and the data message being sent, and then transmitted the message through the hardware interface.
The IMP then delivered the message to its destination address, either by delivering it to a locally connected host, or by delivering it to another IMP. Nonetheless, the protocol proved inadequate for handling multiple connections among different applications residing in a host computer.
This problem was addressed with the Network Control Program NCPwhich provided a standard method to establish reliable, flow-controlled, bidirectional communications links among different processes in different host computers.
This led to the evolution of application protocols that operated, more or less, independently of the underlying network service, and permitted independent advances in the underlying protocols. LickliderLawrence G. SutherlandRichard W. PastaDonald W. Daviesand economist, George W.