Newsgroup: it.cultura.filosofia
Titolo: il nobel per la filosofia

perche' non c'e'?
k'

perche' non c'e'?
1) Perche' dopo Platone la filosofia sta facendo passi indietro... non 
avanti
2) Perche' qualsivoglia persona beccasse questo nobel vi sarebbero un gran 
numero di polemiche
Ciao
Paolo Zavarise

...


 avanti
semmai da Platone al limite.....
BB e le magnifiche sorti regressive

 perche' non c'e'?
  perche' la moglie di nobel un filosofo se la trombava?

   perche' la moglie di nobel un filosofo se la trombava?
Non credo, pare che Nobel a letto fosse dinamite.
Ciao
Sandrino

 scrivìu:

finalmente un illuminato :)
**************
martin venator
www.ciaoweb.net/m.venator
*************************
She found us
In the cheapo bar with a bag of chips
 


che almeno la filosofia non miri all'esecrabile progresso



cmq entrambi tendono
' j

#include "Paolo Zavarise.h"

La seconda che hai detto. 
--
Blackstorm
*iddieffer giovane guardia con potere
di costruire niubbini e flammare siti* 
"Potremmo, ohime', sfuggire a tanto tormento,
se rimembrando le errate mosse rigiocar potessimo" (Goethe)

perche' non c'e'?
Perché il premio Nobel non esiste.
WEF
"Lo zaino e la sacher sono le sue droghe"

La seconda che hai detto. 
non ci sarebbe nessuna polemica se lo vincesse quelo.

La risposta 1) sembra un pò eccessiva, comunque.......
Ochèi, non turbiamo l'ordine costituito, chiamiamola 3/4)
Adrian Veidt
Veidt Org - President And C.E.O.
ICQ #89133362
www.musicboom.net

 perche' non c'e'?
Che sia per tutte quelle ragioni che si trovano nel sito del Nobel? (A meno
che abbiano cambiato il sito senza dirmelo, il che mi offenderebbe
parecchio).
D.

#include "keroppi.h"

Io proporrei Murphy.


Io proporrei Murphy.
Le Leggi di Nobel:
1) "se qualcosa puo' esplodere , lo fara'."
2) "se esplodera', lo fara' causando il peggior danno possibile."
3) "la prima esplosione inneschera' una serie interminabile di
esplosioni a catena."
k'

Io proporrei Murphy.
Le Leggi di Nobel:
1) "se qualcosa puo' esplodere , lo fara'."
2) "se esplodera', lo fara' causando il peggior danno possibile."
3) "la prima esplosione inneschera' una serie interminabile di
esplosioni a catena."
k'
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

 perche' non c'e'?
verrà dato solo al filosofo che scoprirà la verità assoluta.
si può premiare una non verità?
bon sauvage

parecchio).
ho cercato su 
www.nobel.se
 e non ho trovato nulla neanche nelle faq,
se conosci l'url esatto della pagina di prego di mandarmelo.
Quel che segue e' uno dei pochi documenti che sono riuscito a trovare
sul web che discutono la questione (non e' tratto dal sito ufficiale
del nobel):
Why We Should Be Thankful There is No Nobel Prize for Philosophy
by Francis K. Peddle 
Every year since 1901 prizes from the estate of Alfred Nobel have been
awarded to chemists, physicists, researchers in medicine and
physiology, writers of literature and "champions of peace." In 1968 a
sixth award was established by the Bank of Sweden for economists.
Alfred Nobel, as some may remember, was the inventor of dynamite. He
thought, presaging some of his successors on the atomic level, that
the invention would end war by making it too horrific to contemplate.
The dynamite, not his reflections on it, made him rich. Fortunately
for subsequent recipients Nobel had no heirs and so a foundation in
his name was established. 
More than 600 awards have since been made. They have grown
continuously in prestige and value over the century. Thanks to a wise
investment program, the awards are now worth about $1.5 million each.
The list of Nobel prize winners is certainly a biographical display of
the intellectual life of our times. Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther
King Jr., Albert Einstein, Rudyard Kipling, Alexander Fleming, Linus
Pauling and Paul Samuelson are just a few of the notables. 
Sometimes the awards have been controversial, seemingly based on
regional and other extramural criteria. Sometimes, though not often,
they are treated with disdain, as when Jean-Paul Sartre refused to
accept his, in 1964. Perhaps Sartre would have thought differently had
there been a prize for philosophy? 
Why there is not a prize for philosophy we will never know. It is no
good to speculate on Nobel's limited acquaintance with the discipline.
However, it could be instructive to speculate lightly on the
advantages for philosophy of not having a Nobel prize. An example can
help us in this regard. 
The Nobel prize this year for economics went to William Vickrey of
Columbia University in New York and James Mirrlees, who teaches at
Cambridge University. This is not unusual, the prize is often split
within a discipline. There is, however, something more revealing in
this split award than the official reasons for giving it in the first
place. 
Both professors of economics asked the very Aristotelian question
"What is the best tax system?" Professor Mirrlees, in a recent article
in The Guardian (October 14) answered that because the effect of take
home pay on work incentives seems higher for the boss and the
apprentice than for the middle manager, then the highest marginal
income tax rates ought to be levied on middle income earners. Does it
need to be said that those who hold economic abstractions to be the
essence of scientific virtue do well to avoid the rigors of public
office? 
Professor Vickrey asked the same question and came to an surprisingly
different answer. He said get rid of income taxes, sales taxes and the
endless nickel and diming that makes life so miserable for workers.
The optimum conditions exist when the economic rent of land and other
natural resources are treated as the primary tax base or revenue
source for governments. This is astonishing because most people accept
the current system for an apparent want of a viable alternative.
Vickrey challenges the assumption and the acceptance. 
Professor Mirrlees says the best tax system is more or less what we
have. Just make a few and occasional adjustments in marginal rates
geared to work incentives. It would be an alien mind indeed to believe
it is possible to get by without taxing "work" at all. Professor
Vickrey believes the best tax system is nothing like what we encounter
in the present set up of things. 
If there were a Nobel prize in philosophy, the same situation would
occur. The analytic philosophers and the Rortyan conversationalists
would muck around a lot with empirical givens, occasional concepts,
snippets of the tradition, endlessly trying to come up with something
"original" - to keep things going. The speculative philosophers, who
know the substance of the philosophical tradition without being
enslaved to it, and being never content with piecemeal philosophizing,
want to do things radically different, to banish the marginal and
structure philosophical principles on unrevisable grounds. 
Now most Nobel prizes in economics have gone to the Rortyan
conversationalists, otherwise known as Keynesians, neo-Keynesians and
neo-classical economists. And one can have an endless conversation
about marginal tax rates if one does not question the wisdom of taxing
earned income in the first place. Should we expect anything different
for philosophy? A prize must be awarded every year and you cannot win
it twice. Imagine an award for every philosophical "breakthrough" that
would be immediately exposed in the next symposium as a thinly
disguised rendition of a pre-Hegelian category. The Swedish Academy of
Sciences and the Swedish Academy would find their halo dissipating
gracelessly as rebarbative philosophers undermined the very core of
their decision making legitimacy. 
Incidentally, Professor Vickrey died while on his way to Ottawa to
give a paper at a conference co-hosted by the Canadian Research
Committee on Taxation of which I am the Director of Research. His
remarks would have focused on the alternative system of public revenue
generation previously mentioned. I have a copy of the paper if
Institute members wish to peruse it. 
Newspaper articles on Professor Vickrey did not mention any of these
core ideas. They concentrated on the Vickrey auction, assymetrical
information systems, congestion pricing and the like, in tandem with
the Nobel Foundation announcement. Vickrey did not see a minor
excursion into abstract economics as anything much of significance for
human welfare. He got the Nobel prize for the wrong reasons but they
are the only reasons in the work of Professor Mirrlees. Hegel would
have perhaps received it, and been remembered, for his views on smell
as a particularized airiness. At the Institute we are grateful there
is no Nobel prize for philosophy.