Happy Teachers Day

source link Hey Guys,

see url Today is Teachers Day, and in many ways the day is very important in my life. First, as it’s my elder sister’s birthday. Second, it’s special because my father who is also a Teacher. Third, I blessed with some amazing teachers in my life.

I wanna say my sister very happy birthday. Many many happy returns of the day. You always been a mother to me. Always took care of me like our mother. I wish all the happiness and superior health in life. Love you sis.
Second my father, who always taught me to choose true and righteous path in life. Being a Teacher himself always pushed me to live life simple, with a high thinking. Although sometimes there are debates between us over our views but I now understand that it’s just a generation gap nothing else. Love you Paa.

Last but never least my teachers who always taught me to choose right path, filled me with light of knowledge and provided wings to fly and achieve anything I want in life.

That’s incredible and fantastic to have so much people with that good around you, to make your life filled with happiness and love.

Thank you all!!!

Will Always Be My Brother

Living your life is not that important. Important is how you live your life, with whom you share your life, joys or sorrows. How much you dug deep in the life. I’m happy and satisfied with the life that I got the chance to share my life with you.

We born and grown world apart but we’re destined to meet and become brother. Well, the life took turns some pretty ugly and some so beautiful. On one of the turn I met you and I still remember the day clear as a crystal the day we met. What a life that had been till now like the ride of a roller-coaster and full of up and downs, lots of moments to be cherished for.

We first were colleagues, then friends and when became brothers I don’t remember. I’m just wanna thank mother nature that we became brothers. We have our moments that can we be proud of. Nobody knows what’s going to be in the future but I know whatever it is we gonna rock that part too.

I’m sure the moment when we’re travelling back to our homes via tube, standing in the metro car and sharing some discreet part of our lives, that when we got close enough. In recent times we both got busy in family and other part of life that we shared less moment together but I wanna say something in a dialogue form from a well cherished movie. I think that movie dialogue just perfectly fit for both of us only the thing is we both are here and living, so it’s goes like this:

Binary option platform Rinvoltano affiglieremmo 24 option giocaste nabisso? Sunday, 18 March 2018 About CHAMP; Contact Us; http://drybonesinthevalley.com/?tyiuds=dolar-yorumu-forex You know I told you once I live my life quarter-mile a time, that’s because we are brothers because you know you did too.
No matter where you are, a mile away or half world apart, but you are my brother and will always be my brother.

Soul, Whisper & Eternity

You just be. Don’t worry.

The silence and the unknown

Tormented by soul. And the tear,

Was down, driving into eternity.

You just be. But don’t be silent.

Sometimes from the earth.

Welcome to whisper.

That’s enough for heaven.

I don’t need your love.

I just need to believe in a miracle,

That many centuries

I’ll be there for you again.

Don’t worry. I see sadness

In your mysterious space.

Let the milky way as usual

Sparkles In Star Trek.

The Moon is like A. Every time,

Organizing Secret meetings

For prying eyes,

He looks saying.

She is the abode of peace,

Bank Sensual Confessions

For those who should be without fault

Living on the border of distances…

You always be. Don’t worry.

We have no power over infinity.

Through the moon eyes in the eye

I send you warmth and tenderness…

Marx & Marxism

How can six billion human beings live on this small planet without destroying each other? Which features of humanity make this question so difficult to answer? Which make it possible? Such ways of putting the problem may sound comparatively modern, but some of the greatest thinkers have grappled with more or less the same issues over the past two or three thousand years. Of course, approaches differ, in line with the actual problems of their own time, but several themes constantly reappear through the entire tradition of political thought.

How do individuals relate to the social set-up as a whole? Why do some people hold power over others? Are there innate order-relations between different groups of people, for example, between men and women? Which ways of living might be considered to be good? Is there one which is the best? And how can we gain the knowledge needed to answer questions like these?

For the past few decades, some of these issues have been ruled out of court by authoritative thinkers. Our century begins, not just without answers, but with a raucous chorus of opposition to any attempt to find them. Nowadays, it is fashionable to dismiss such matters as not accessible to systematic thinking. Indeed, for the past couple of decades, the very notion of the True is sneered at, along with the Good and the Beautiful. This declaration of intellectual and moral bankruptcy, has been partly occasioned by the eclipse of Stalinism, and the consequent conviction that ‘Marxism is dead’. But it is actually a symptom of much deeper aspects of life at the start of the twentieth-first century.

I want to try to look at Marx’s ideas in relation to this tradition of political thought. But to attempt this, it is first necessary to distinguish clearly between the ideas of Marx and ‘Marxism’. The Marxists – Marx did not count himself one of them! – dogmatically refused to grapple with questions like these. In general, the would-be followers of Marx thought he was engaged in setting up ‘models’ of society, or of economics, or politics, or history. When they (I ought honestly to say: ‘we’!) claimed that Marx’s works were scientific, this generally meant something like the natural sciences, in which ‘theories’ or ‘hypotheses’ yielded predictions, which had then to be checked against empirical data. These theoretical models, it was said, allowed us to gain knowledge of the mechanics of revolution, and the ‘laws’ which governed the transition from one social order to the next.

A single tentative metaphor of Marx was turned into a sort of historical machine, in which an economic basis, pushed forward by the development of productive forces, in turn ‘caused’ changes in an ideological-political superstructure. Ideas were ‘determined’ by ‘material conditions’. Since this presumably included the ideas of Marxism, this led to difficulties. ‘Marxism’ set out its doctrine of social development, pretended to justify it by appeal to its own special ‘scientific world outlook’, drawing its idea of socialism as a corollary. But how did it know that this ‘outlook’ was true?

A ‘Marxist’ theory of politics went along with this mechanical view: the individuals who make up the ruling class are determined to defend their interests against those they exploit, and they are ready to use violent means where necessary. The State was then said to be ‘nothing but’ their instrument for this purpose. ‘Revolution’ simply meant smashing up this instrument, and establishing a new one, just changing the form of state power. ‘Socialism’, largely identified with state ownership, was the next ‘mode of production’ on a linear historical agenda. The conception of revolution which flourished in Marxist circles thus centred, not on the idea of liberation, but on the concept of power. In its Leninist form, Marxism seized upon some of Marx’s formulations, for instance, the phrase ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, and transformed them into justifications for new, oppressive political structures. The phrase ‘workers’ state’ became current in Marxist-Leninist circles, even before Stalin had revealed its totalitarian content. The idea was that the transition to socialism would begin when this new form of state power – later revealed to be a pseudonym for the Party – had firmly replaced the old one, and industry was taken into its control.

Even while Marx was still alive, his central notion of ‘general human self-emancipation’ had become almost incomprehensible to his devoted followers. When some of his earlier writings became generally available in the 1950s and 1960s, it was hard to see how they could be fitted into the ‘Marxist’ framework, so ‘Marxists’ dodged this difficulty by separating a ‘Young Marx’ from an ‘Old Marx’, the latter being the ‘scientific’ one. When the speed dating madrid 2015 Grundrisse, written when Marx was forty years old, were studied, and found to have the same outlook as the Paris Manuscripts, this escape-route was effectively blocked. It would not be overstating the situation to say that, right down to the present day, the ‘Marxists’ have been among the most direct and bitter opponents of the ideas of Karl Marx. Above all, Marx’s actual conceptions of human self-emancipation leading to a free association had completely disappeared.

In reality, Karl Marx seeks to construct neither a Utopian ‘vision’ of what the world ought to be like, nor a ‘scientific’ ‘theory of history’. His aim is no less than universal human freedom, our self-liberation, and, as we shall see, this is something no theory and no mechanical model could ever comprehend. He conceives of communism (or socialism – for him, the words are interchangeable) as ‘a free association of producers’, a ‘truly human society’, where ‘humanity’ means the process of free social creation and self-creation, ‘the free development of individualities’. At the heart of self-creation are social labour, material and spiritual, individual and collective, which have been developing for millennia, but which have yet to be liberated from ‘alienation’, the distortions and falsifications associated with private property and state power.

Antagonism between the material interests of individuals, between classes, and between each of these and the collective public life, stand in the way of a life ‘worthy of and appropriate to our human nature’. Socialism means the task of progressively transcending these age-old antagonisms, making the ‘free development of each’ the basis for ‘the free development of all’. So socialist revolution does not just imply a change of regime, or a new economic system, but ‘the alteration of humans on a mass scale’, through their own conscious activity. Humanity must now consciously confront its major task, and already possesses the material conditions for its accomplishment, that is to learn to live without either private property or State power.

Individuals become part of the history of society’s metabolic exchange with nature in the course of their productive, that is, their creative activity. In this process, we change our relationships with each other, and change ourselves, collectively and individually striving to realise our potential for freedom. However, within the existing social order, founded upon the atomised institutions of private property, we are rarely conscious of what we are doing. Living fragmented lives, estranged from each other and from ourselves, we have fabricated a casing around ourselves which denies freedom, and that means our humanity. We ourselves have constructed the forms of antagonism, oppression and exploitation, the very antitheses of free creation, enclosing us like suits of armour. Individuals treat each other – and themselves – as if they were things, mere means to further ‘self-interest’.

Where what is good for some is bad for others, the possibility of true community is continually being destroyed, both in practice and in theory. This is the outcome of private property, and especially private ownership of means of production. What belongs to me cannot belong to you. The products of social labour become attached to particular individuals, who often have played no part in their creation, or of the creation of anything at all. If the needs of the community clash with the needs of its individual components it is impossible to be socially and individually self-governing, that is, to be free. Labour itself, their ‘life-activity’, comes to be alien to the labourers, a mere means to ‘make a living’.

There is a continual struggle of humanity against this inhumanity, and this is what shows itself in the antagonisms between individuals, between social classes and between nations. Marx identifies the struggle of the proletariat, the producers of wealth who are oppressed and exploited, against the power of capital which they themselves create, with the movement which would emancipate humanity as a whole. Their labour, their very life-activity as human beings, is estranged from them. They can win their collective fight against this alien power only if they take control over their own human nature. Thus they potentially challenge all forms of oppression and exploitation. This movement must transcend private property, which Marx understands as the perceptible expression of the fact that man becomes objective for himself and at the same time becomes to himself a strange and inhuman object.

Correspondingly, the transcendence of private property means ‘the perceptible appropriation for and by man of the human essence and of human life, of objective man, of human achievements.’

Marx also sees communism as the transcendence of the State, as individual production and public life cease to be separate, antagonistic processes. The claim of the State to act on behalf of individual lives, ruling over them for their own collective good, is false, he declares. When the State performs its functions, like punishing crime, sanctioning morality, or waging war, its pretence to act for everyone is a lie. In reality, the State is an illusory surrogate for the ‘true community’, for, in a world where relations between people are ruled by the exchange of private property, the community cannot operate directly as a single entity. Socialist revolution means smashing this power and releasing human potential in a community of freely-developing individual subjects.

But how can we know all this? How can we acquire the knowledge of how to live humanly? If ideas are generated through the life-activities of individuals, and these activities are alienated, how can we find the truth? How can we even talk about a new way of living with the language of the old? Is the new society just a variant of the old one? Or is it a matter of a Utopian ‘vision’, to be imposed in some fashion on the world?

‘Marxism’ had a sort of answer, not very different in form from the kind of solution attempted by the old Utopians: those in the know would provide the necessary ‘leadership’.

Marx’s answer is quite different, of course. As he put it in a letter to Ruge in 1843:

We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something it has to acquire, even if it does not want to.

Socialism is not a set of opinions or doctrines, arguing from personal feelings to a vision of a better future. Those who have tried to build a socialist movement on such foundations have failed. It has to be conscious of itself, to comprehend itself, to know itself as arising from the history and structure of the existing order. Marx’s aim is to derive the nature of socialism and thus of bourgeois society from his critique of the philosophical tradition, a critique whose criterion is ‘social humanity’. This is what he meant by making socialism into a science.

Marx’s conception of critique is central to all his work. At any rate from about 1843 onwards, what he means by it is something quite precise. The critique of a science means to show that its fundamental assumptions and categories are expressions of an inhuman way of life. Negating these assumptions, scientifically and in practice, make it possible to preserve what is human about it. The clearest illustration is his ‘critique of religion’, which is ‘the premise of all critique’. Marx is not concerned merely to follow ‘irreligious criticism’, by arguing against the truth of religious belief. Instead, his aim is to uncover the roots of such belief in the actual lives of individuals, and to reveal its meaning in their oppression and misery. Religion is then seen to be ‘the heart of a heartless world’, and the way is opened for the overthrow of those inhuman conditions to which it is the response.

Marx’s entire life’s work is the critique of the highest forms of established knowledge, so as to get to the heart of the struggle of humanity for its emancipation. How else is it possible to get beyond the horizons of existing society?

In an important remark in Capital, Marx explains that

(r)eflection on the forms of social life, hence also scientific analysis of these forms, takes a course directly opposite to their actual development. Reflection begins post festum, and therefore with the results of the process of development ready to hand.

These forms ‘already possess the fixed quality of natural forms of social life before man seeks to give an account, not of their historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable, but of their content and meaning.’ Marx’s critique is directed at the highest expression of this ‘content and meaning’. It is significant that the paragraph containing this sentence leads directly to the characterisation of political economic categories as ‘mad’ [verrücke]. While ordinary thinking does not question these forms, science tries to give a consistent account of the world as a rational structure. But bourgeois society is not a rational whole. Seen humanly, it is crazy to live like this. Marx, to break through the natural appearance of existing economic forms, allows the theoretical results of political economy to clash with what is self-evidently human. Thus his critique of the science which glorifies what exists, merges with the practical movement of workers who ‘know’ – without benefit of science – that they are humans being treated as things. Their suffering expresses the necessity of a revolutionary change. But that is not enough: it also requires the critique of economic science to get to grips with its true cause.

So Marx’s critique of political economy, the only part of his work he came anywhere near to completing, is not a ‘criticism of capitalism’. It aims to give an account of economic life under the power of capital, by refusing to accept uncritically the categories of political economy which express this power. Precisely because these categories accurately represent the essential structure of private property, they hide the inhumanity, the ‘craziness’, of its essence. What the best political economists can only present as the realm of freedom and equality, turns out to be the arena of inequality, oppression and exploitation. This includes, of course, the economic interventions of a bureaucratic State, which some people later misnamed ‘socialism’.

Marx shows how uncritical acceptance of the ‘natural’ appearance of bourgeois private property, which is seen at its very best in classical political economy, disguised and perverted the human content of all systematic thinking. This is what Marx, always conscious of the parallels between God and money, calls ‘fetishism’. Political economy, by definition, has to accept the form of appearance of bourgeois social relations, founded upon ‘thing-like relations between persons and social relations between things.’ Working ‘behind the backs of the producers’, the exchange of private property had necessarily led to the development of money and, from this, of capital, an all-pervasive, oppressive, impersonal power, which links individuals together by setting them against each other. Once it is a going concern, capital produces and reproduces itself.

Wherever labour-power is bought and sold, what is already implied by the simple exchange of commodities for one another comes into the open: individual humans are treating each other and themselves as if they were objects. On the other hand, the creative potential of social humanity is made to appear to be the productive power of a subject: capital. Thus relations dominated by capital engender forms of thinking which disguise the oppressive, exploitative character of these relations. Political economy, even at its best, took these false appearances for granted, and only through its critique could the inhumanity and insanity of money and of the buying and selling of labour-power be revealed and overcome. Marx thus could show how, so long as it is dominated by the forms of the market, people’s thinking will confuse their own and other people’s character as active subjects with mere objects, means with ends.

How is it possible for humanity as a whole to achieve the consciousness which will enable it to free itself from the bonds of private ownership? For Marx, this was the most practical question of all. A remark in http://boersenalltag.de/blog/post/2013/04/08/interview-beim-daf-dialog-semiconductor-und-aixtron/index.html Grundrisse helps to see the way that Marx attempts to answer it:

(I)ndividuals enter into relation with each other only as determinate individuals. These objective relations of dependence, in contrast to the personal ones, also appear in such a way that the individuals are now ruled by abstractions whereas they were previously dependent on one another. (The objective relationship of dependence is nothing but the social relations independently confronting the seemingly independent individuals, ie their own reciprocal relations of production which have acquired an existence independent of and separate from them.) Yet the abstraction or idea is nothing but the theoretical expression of those material relationships which dominate the individuals.

Entities like State, law, money, family, which appear to individuals to be part of the furniture of the universe, are actually the product of human activity, but this is hidden from them. The categories of theoretical science polish up these entities, beautifying them and presenting them as beyond criticism. But this is only possible because the forms of living expressed in these categories are abstract, separated from the individuals who live inside them.

But this is the nature of theory as such. It is inherent in every theory that the theoretician is separated from the object theorised, what is usually referred to as ‘objectivity’. This false way of thinking is a true expression of a false – inhuman – way of living, of social forms which are ‘alienated’ from humanity. Thus every effort to establish an ‘objective social science’, as if the scientists were not themselves in the picture, is essentially an expression of humanity’s estrangement from itself. When Marx claimed that his work was scientific, it was in a special sense which comprised the critique of every kind of social science.

Marx’s critical science necessarily included self-critique – something of which theoretical science is incapable. This is demonstrated by the futile attempts to construct a ‘theory of knowledge’. If this also a theory, it must be a viciously circular ‘theory of theory’. If it is not, then it is just one more step in an infinite regress. Marx’s critique of ‘theoretical’ or dogmatic science stripped away its hidden assumptions. By its very character, theory necessarily assumed that private property, money, family, state and the enforced division of labour, since they certainly existed, were natural aspects of human life. Marx’s critique of social science revealed the contrary: the categories with which any theory operated were unquestionable, and thus inevitably forms of oppression. The possibilities for truly human relationships have developed only inside, and in opposition to, these forms. Since we ourselves have constructed these prisons in the course of human history, we humans can – with difficulty – break our way out of them. Since these forms are abstractions, which appear as ideas, breaking out of them must be a conscious act, for which critique opens the way. There could never be a theory of freedom. Social and political philosophy operates in this world of abstractions; the critique of such science shows the way to break them up.

Hegel’s work is crucial for all of Marx’s ideas. Hegel’s system, as a whole and in each of its parts, tried to reconcile contradictory particulars, by showing that they made up a universal whole. Kant, in summing up the Enlightenment, put his finger on its fundamental problem, by turning the spotlight of Reason on Reason itself, trying to show its limits. Hegel pursued this question much further. Knowledge of the world and of the knower could not be separated, for they were both in the world. The categories with which we gained that knowledge arose as forms of world history. Knowledge had to become self-knowledge, and Hegel’s system claims to contain its own beginning and end.

Faced with the conflicts and confusions which convulsed Europe after the French Revolution, Hegel aimed to unify and reconcile them in a unified and all-embracing system of thought. Unification operated in two directions. On the one hand, the contradictory aspects of modern society had to form an organic whole. On the other hand, the stages of development of Western philosophy, summed up in its categories, formed a single process, called Mind or Spirit.. The movement of world history was identical with this development of thought. In the unfolding of the Idea, each stage of development was ‘its own time expressed in thought’. Hegel had shown that social life did not develop in line with some ‘natural’ characteristics with which humans were endowed, but was the outcome of their own work and the struggle to comprehend this work. The development of philosophy was thus the movement of freedom, as humans became conscious that the world which confronted them was indeed the outcome of their own work. For instance, the antagonisms between individuals in ‘civil society’ must be contained by a rational higher power, the State, which seeks to represent the needs of the collective activity of society. Hegel calls this ‘Objective Spirit’.

Marx’s critique of Hegel’s system was not a complete, once-and-for-all ‘epistemological break’. He returned to the problem again and again throughout his lifetime. Since Hegel had pulled the whole tradition of philosophy into a single system, Marx’s critique of Hegel confronted that tradition as a whole. When Hegel revealed the element of reconciliation to be at the heart of philosophy as such, Marx agreed with him, but saw this as the proof that philosophy had to be negated. Marx demonstrates that neither social antagonism nor the State’s response to it were logically necessary, as Hegel alleged, but expressed only a particular stage of historical development. Transcending the antagonisms of modern society implied, not a new philosophical synthesis, but a practical revolution in which the State and its basis in private property would be transcended. Marx sees that taking ‘the standpoint of human society and social humanity’, that is, the standpoint of communism, is the only way to grasp what society is. Thus what his philosophical predecessors faced as their central problem, Marx takes as his starting-point.

So, before Marx could begin his critique of socialism and of political economy, he had a great deal of preliminary work to do. To understand the limitation of the political emancipation for which the eighteenth-century Enlightenment had fought so hard, he had to tackle the nature of politics itself. Although he never published any work dealing specifically with the State, his study of political philosophy, made in the years before 1844, was the essential prelude to all of his later work. In the celebrated 1859 Preface to his Critique of Political Economy, he explains the importance of this study as follows:

The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law …. My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term ‘civil society’; that the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy.

This refers mainly to the manuscript Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Although Marx wrote this in 1843, it only became available in the 1950s and 1960s. It deals with a section of Hegel’s Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1820), and so was undertaken before he had read much about communism and before he had begun to see the proletariat as the force for revolutionary change. Why was the Philosophy of Right so important? It was because in this, the last book Hegel published in his life-time, was epitomised the entire tradition of political thought, stretching back to ancient Greece. When he had finished his critique, Marx could understand that private property, whose laws were sought by political economy, formed the basis on which political life was founded, and that a truly human society implied the transcendence of both property and the State.

Marx had convinced himself that all philosophy – philosophical thinking as such – is an expression of alienated, oppressive, exploitative, and thus inhuman relations. Hegel had shown that philosophy traced the path of world history. Now Marx’s critique of philosophy could reveal that it was an alienated expression of the course of development of alienated life. In the tradition, important thinkers tried sincerely to further the cause of human development and human emancipation. The works of Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel and others probe deeply into the problems of state power and contain indispensable insights into the nature of social forms,.

But all of these great thinkers began, tacitly or openly, with certain assumptions. For each of them, private property and political power are necessary features of the life of humans. The age-old separation of mental and manual labour, the division between ‘thinkers’ and ‘doers’, is built into their fundamental categories. Whatever the subjective wishes of the philosopher, philosophical thought must take it for granted that relationships between humans are necessarily antagonistic, that some people must have power over others, and that there has to be a division between masters and slaves, rulers and ruled. It is therefore understandable that, in spite of their varied standpoints, the philosophers were unanimous in rejecting any possibility that the whole of a community could govern itself. Democracy would inevitably degenerate into mob-rule, they all believed, for inequality, the essence of private property, implied that poor people would take away the property of the rich if they had the chance.

The philosophers believed that, to penetrate the mysteries of social life, and to interpret our own collective actions, you have to call in the specialists in thinking – namely themselves. Of course, the questions they asked themselves were vital ones: What is Justice? What is the good life for humanity? What is humanity? How does humanity relate to nature? But they did not think that the answers for which they struggled could be made available to the mass of the population. They had to be communicated to those who governed – the ‘Philosopher-King’, or the ‘Prince’, or the ‘Magistrate’. At times when absolute rulers went out of fashion, ‘the best people’, ( click here aristoi) were the ones to talk to, and then the owners of large-scale property. However, over the centuries, attempts to get these rulers to put the results of philosophical thought into practice, met with little success. When the forms known mistakenly in modern times as ‘representative democracy’ came to be the ideal, forms designed to accommodate the needs of community to those of private property, political philosophy as such ceased to exist, being replaced by various kinds of ‘political science’, the technology of power.

If the philosophers saw the conflict between individual life and the life of the community as inevitable, they were left with a central mystery: how was human society possible? Given the antagonisms which necessarily accompanied private property and political power, how could individual humans unite in one community? Very broadly, there were two ways to look at the problem: either individuals were moulded by society; or pre-existing individuals came together into a community. On the first view, society is an organism, whose organs were the individuals who lived in it. In general, they could never know that their lives actually conformed with the laws governing the whole social body.

On the second view, the individuals are independent atoms, and the interactions resulting from their clashing wills and interests move the whole machine along. In the main, political economists fell into the second group. Neither view, neither ‘organicism’ nor ‘individualism’, allows the possibility of a consciously self-governing community, in which individuals can freely develop. If the community is an organism, it is not possible for any of its component parts to know anything about it as a whole. If it is a conglomerate of independent individuals, no one of them will ever be able to consider the whole as a unity.

The confusion which resulted from these opposing views of society was not the result of false logic, but expressed the real contradictions of alienated social life. However, the philosophers themselves believed that philosophy was needed to make sense of this conflict, to find the necessary categories and sort them into the correct order. The problem is repeatedly encountered in various forms throughout the history of philosophy: whole and parts, universal and individual, substance and accidents keep cropping up as antinomies. Philosophy is thus itself a symptom of the basic contradiction of society. That is why the critique of the categories of philosophy was needed before Marx could uncover the underlying contradiction. Philosophy appeared on the scene to attempt to solve the basic mystery. Marx showed that this struggle, philosophy’s very existence, was the highest expression of what was actually a problem of practical life.

Now we can see the radical nature of Marx’s critical reworking of the tradition. Being sure that the mass of people had to and would be able to govern themselves, his answers were addressed, not to kings and princes, but to all of us. After the scalpel of critique had done its work of dissection on the body of philosophy, this knowledge could be put into the hands of those who are without power or property. To actualise the wisdom of the philosophers, the propertiless and powerless ones had to abolish both private property and State power, making possible the free association and free development of all humans as social individuals. In his earlier writings, Marx called this idea ‘true democracy’. Later, (to avoid misunderstandings!), he called it ‘communism’: the real movement to transform social life was the struggle to ‘win the battle of democracy’, through the transcendence of private property. Only when private property had ceased to set individuals against each other could they unite in a free, self-governing community.

The ideas of some important figures in the history of political thought. Each great thinker tried to work out how the community could co-exist with the particular form that private property took in his own time. We must begin by looking at the two central texts which laid the foundation for the entire tradition of Western thought, at the time when Athenian democracy was breaking up: Plato’s Republic, and the Politics of Aristotle. When slavery and money were eroding the old forms of community, the meaning of Justice became a major problem. Under the new conditions, it was no longer clear what kind of constitution would make possible the good life.

Thinkers who followed Plato and Aristotle, notably the Stoics, turned away from considering the structure of political life, towards the inner life of the individual. Later, as feudalism was entering its centuries of decline, the study of Greek philosophy was taken up by Christian scholars, trying to find a rational foundation for Christian theology. But, while the name of the pagan Aristotle was revered in the Church, a very different content was given to his ideas.

Next, we jump to the beginning of the modern era. As bourgeois economic forms fragmented society into self-interested atoms, the Good was replaced with individual feelings and opinions, and politics became a matter of statecraft. The State was now seen as a centre of power. The philosophers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries vigorously rejected Scholasticism, and Aristotle along with it. In Rousseau and Kant, the contradictions of the modern forms of property begin to show themselves.

We examine Hegel’s Philosophy of Right as the conscious culmination and summary of this entire movement. Then Marx’s critique of Hegel’s conception of the State can be seen in its historical context, and as the real beginning of his life’s work. Finally, we ask what our investigation has told us about Marx’s own conception of revolution. and its relevance for present day struggles.

Life

Bystander, don’t be proud, look at the sky.It doesn’t matter who you are.

No matter how human life

Know that in this world you are visiting.
Let you live on the side of the coast,

Where the air is clear in the mountains,

And even you have a king of clothes

But know that in this world you are visiting.
Hurry to do good as an angel of life

I want a good ray of good in your eyes.

Serve good as officer sake,

Since everyone in this world is visiting.
While you live and see the rays of the sun,

As long as you stand on your feet,

Drink wine like water from the well

Even in this world, you are visiting.
With a beauty like orchid

Greet the dawn like a Persian Shah.

Death will come, hiding behind the door.

Then you’ll know you were visiting.
Parents, how you value your life,

They’re vospevayte like a poet in poetry.

As long as they are alive, they love them.

In this world, they are guests.
Try to be a champion for justice,

With a smile on his lips,

And if in your life what happens,

That’s where you and I live.
With a fool and a ignorant,

And with those who have evil in their brains,

In their deceitful captivity, as weak do not give up,

While you’re in the world where everyone is visiting.
Evil do not covet the one you do not love,

And those who drown their sins,

You will die, and you will be lying next to him.

In this world, we are guests.
Hold on to your life with both hands,

To drown in joyful light,

Share good with family and friends

While you’re in the world where everyone is visiting.

“Friendship or Love” OR “Friendship and Love”

The fuel for endless love is endless friendship. Friends are angels who can lift our feet when our wings have forgotten to fly. When life gets you down, friend will still hold you high! Like stars true friends will always be in your life, though you can see them only sometimes, you can be sure that they are always there. A friend is someone who knows all about you and still loves you. If you have a friend who can stand beside you when millions stand against you, then your life is a success! No matter what situations they end up in or how far apart they turn to be- they will come back to each other. Those are the people who have the little thing called fate on their side.

“It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

Marriage is a start with an empty box

Everyone says that love hurts, but that’s not true – loneliness hurts, rejection hurts and losing someone hurts. Many confuse these things with love but the reality is it is the only thing that covers up all the pain in the world with the right companion who bonds life with friendship. Most people get married believing a myth that marriages are beautiful boxes with full of all things that they have longed for; intimacy, compassion and friendship etc. But the truth is marriage is a start with an empty box, it should be filled with love, giving, serving, praising by the couples themselves. A long and unhappy marriage is not a successful marriage. “It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.”

free online dating victoria bc Friendship is a lifelong gift

At some point, you have to realize that some people cannot stay in your life but can only be in your heart. Friendship is the marriage of the soul. Friendship is the promise to marry each other if no one is there in the end; the bonding of friendship and marriage is pretty much the same. Marriage is the togetherness of three; they must be united by the love’s creator, and the two people. Marriage is the oneness of all these three together. Love is the reason, lifelong friendship is a gift, and kindness is the cause until death separates two who are united under the promise of marriage.

http://ligaspanyol.net/?mikroskop=site-de-rencontre-%D0%93%C2%A9cologique&c66=5d Marriage is bond

Happy marriage is possible when two good forgivers decide to unite together. Real friends can put up with your worst behavior and be affectionate even when you are extremely irritable. They will believe in you even if the whole world turns against. The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for. A life long journey with a true person is possible with the friendship that is shared. Friendship is two sided- someone doing something nice to you isn’t the only requirement, it’s like marriage – two sided.

Being there for a friend at times of need is the greatest gift you can give; similarly you should have a heart to allow them to be for you. Marriage is like close friends who are life’s treasure to each other. Sometimes, your partner may know you better than you know yourself; this is possible only by letting go off things that are not meant to be there in your life. In a relationship that is bound by marriage, trust and honesty must exist. If they don’t, there is no point for continuing the love. Stay single if you cannot afford to be honest!

Doubters Became Believers

I don’t believe in God. I’m an Academic, an Engineer, a purely Logical Person who finds logic behind each and everything in world…life; so I don’t have faith in something don’t exist or without a logic. I have faith in my family, friends and most importantly myself. I believe in Nature… Mother Nature. But I’m not discussing here what I believe or not, today I have something better and important to say.
Doubting in someone’s ability is quite common, so on that note nothing new, but the question is on whom ability are you doubting? A person having a determined character is not the right one to doubt. When people doubted on the ability of Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein both proved everybody wrong. That was the exact point when the “Doubters Became Believers”.
That was the same case happened to a person I’m watching from my childhood days. That person is a Legend. He is known by many names RF, FedExpress or just “Roger Federer”.
Roger Federer had very bad year, or I say forgettable year 2016. More than half of the season he was out of the court due to the knee injury. The critics told him to retire. But I think Roger Federer and his better half Mirka Federer had some amazing plans.
If we see his build, he’s exactly what an athlete dream of.., strong legs, swiftness in body and blazing strength in hands. He is one of those 5 players in the world who play backhand single handedly. Long rallies, drop shots, aces, slashes, fierce returns a.k.a. mixture of everything great.
Coming back from injury is never easy. Your confidence is down all time low. You are searching the ground to stand on and when also critics making life hell and air around you un-breathable . Family support is what everyone have that make you solid and hard like mountain so that you can accomplish anything. This is what he does just few weeks back.
Having confidence in himself, a supporting wife Mirka and kids whom face can make any parent just forget anything bad happened. In comeback his wife and kids played important part.
His rivalry against Rafa is world known. In head to head clash Rafa leads Federer and picking up the favourite there was “Deuce”. Rafa also coming back from an injury. Both greats were searching the ground again for the foot-hold. None of them was favourite for years first grand slam AO. Undoubtedly Rafa is king on clay courts and Federer on the grass court. So first both were playing each other on their second best court respectively. Who can forget the epic battle in the Wimbledon 2008, when Rafa stunned the world by beating Roger Federer in the slam finals. There was doubt who will win but everyone knew that the battle is going to be Epic and will be remembered for the ages.
In the arena there were Federer fans, Rafa fans and some of them sporting the cards of “Fedal – Sorry Can’t Choose”. A month ago who would have thought that Rafa (World No. 9) and Federer (World No. 17) will be contesting for Slam beating all odds, both coming from injury and missing most of 2016 season.
The single handed backhand winners from the Federer set the tone and the music didn’t stopped there. As he won the Australian Open his 18th Grand Slam title most by any male players in the Open Era and beating Rafa he cemented his position permanently in the Tennis History and unforgettable part of Tennis, also laying rest all the discussion who is better between the two (Roger or Rafa). At last Federer showed his superiority on the court (Hard) which is second best strength of the either two. This match showed everyone why Roger Federer is greatest among all.
This is not the morning, it’s the evening and the night is coming when he’ll say good-bye to tennis. But this evening is shining more than the morning. So just stop for a while, enjoy the evening and celebrate this festival known as “Roger Federer”.

MyFeelings

Despite everything, I can’t bear the thought of this stone being lost forever, any more than I can bear the thought of leaving you forever. And though I have no choice about the one, at least I can choose about the other. I’m leaving you my stone because you have as much right to it as I do.

 

I’m writing this watching the sun come up. You’re asleep, dreams moving behind your restless eyelids. I wish I knew what you were thinking. I wish I could slip into your head and see the world the way you do. I wish I could see myself the way you do. But maybe I don’t want to see that. Maybe it would make me feel even more than I already do that I’m perpetuating some kind of Great Lie on you, and I couldn’t stand that.

 

I belong to you. You could do anything you wanted with me and I would let you. You could ask anything of me and I’d break myself trying to make you happy. My heart tells me this is the best and greatest feeling I have ever had. But my mind knows the difference between wanting what you can’t have and wanting what you shouldn’t want. And I shouldn’t want you.

 

All night I’ve watched you sleeping, watched the moonlight come and go, casting its shadows across your face in black and white. I’ve never seen anything more beautiful. I think of the life we could have had if things were different, a life where this night is not a singular event, separate from everything else that’s real, but every night. But things are different, and I can’t look at you without feeling like I’ve tricked you into loving me.

The truth no one is willing to say out loud is that no one has a shot against sadness but me. I can get close to sadness like no one else can. I can pretend I want to join sadness and sadness will accompany me, up until that last moment where I end it all, one way or another. I have something of sadness; I can track sadness to where my sadness hiding. And that’s what I’m going to do. So I lied to you last night. I said that I just wanted one moment with you. But I want every moment with you. And that’s why I have to slip out. Because if I had to tell you this to your face, I couldn’t make myself go.

 

I don’t blame you if you hate me, I wish you would. As long as I can still dream, I will dream of you.

Coliseum

Long-time no see, or should I say waiting for the right time for the right act. Ha! Ha! Ha! well this is great. You must be wondering what. For that I’ll tell you the phase of the life that is being currently in progress is great and fabulous. Every person in the life wonder when they will get the best phase of their lives. Everybody accounts their best phase at different phases of the life. I consider myself lucky I got best phase in the life two times and you know what currently last one is in progress. I’m not saying that this phase is over because it’s not going to end anytime soon before I stop breathing. Sometimes something got bonded so deep like “thromboplastin” in blood. It doesn’t matter from where you belong, the only thing that matters is that how deep and true are you in your relationship, efforts to keep them intact like the blossoming flower.

Blossoming flower, morning breeze and the dawn’s sunlight are in the purest form to preserve and maintain the originality of the nature. The true-friendship is also the purest form of the nature. It doesn’t demand anything, it knows only one thing and only one thing and that is to give. I found true friends in my life and that is only because of the originality in the relationship. We are good or we are bad for each other, we are always there for each other, in anyone’s sorrow, in anyone’s happiness we always become an integral and non-removable part of it. If we don’t talk to each other, it doesn’t matter because somewhere in the heart we are always there with each other. A true relationship sometime is like oxygen for someone to breathe, like water for the thirsty and the food for the hungry. And you know what is the best part of it, the satisfaction on the friend’s face, the happiness in the eyes, the enthusiasm in the breath and the victory in the voice.

Being blessed with friends like this is like drinking the nectar of the “Eternity”. Let me tell about my friends I met in my life’s journey till now. First one, my best friend from my childhood. We are friends from the time we didn’t know “what is friendship” and the meaning of the word “friend”. But we lived our friendship each and every bit of the second or I use the word nano second. We cared for each other, we caressed each other. And still we are living in the cocktail of friendship. I’m not going to describe this friend anymore because the words for describing her are not made. But I must say after the marriage and a kid, she’s just like the same and cheerful she was in the past. Only the thing that changes is that she was a daughter and best bud of mine, but now she is a wife, a mother and a great person. I adore her; I brace her and am an integral part of life until my dying breath. She’s a wonderful mother, loving wife, obedient daughter and a dearest friend. But above all she’s a wonderful person. I have known her since my first day of school, that’s why I can say that no one can feel excluded even in hundreds when around her. I feel deeply blessed to have her in my life as a friend, support and above all a beautiful person with a beautiful heart. I just add one thing that she’s best and best and best person, friend I have known in my whole life. You know words are never required for communication between us, only eyes and faces’ expression is enough. This self can suggest how deep we are in understanding each other like a Gazebo that has only the pleasant view but deep meaning. When I’m with her it’s just like there is nothing more than I can ask from God. She had fulfilled every aspect of the friendship that she can and is in her domain. She never left anything related to me for reeling that might be that this had happened. She always did what is the best and in fact that always came out to be the best. She is a genuine friend and beautiful person, and that I can say for sure because she always think of others before she think for herself. She is just the best person I have ever known after my parents, & this is just not that it been seen in her only, it can be easily seen in her family because a person is mostly the mirror image of the family in which he or she grows up. I’m sure the education she’ll provide to her daughter will also be best and one of a kind. There is no doubt to question her no problem too difficult to solve with her and no commitment too big if she is involved. I just say one thing she all-n-all and best. Its better that I stop here or I’m going to write a book on her!!!! Ha! Ha! Ha!

The second one is completely different, unique and resemble like a rhapsody. He is one of his kind and very rebellious, but same time sensitive, simulated and stimulated. He never cared about what will happen and what will he be going to do. Nothing is good or bad in his view, everything is like “It’s worth it or not”. He value every relationship he’s involved in and very delicately and truthfully and superbly. There’s a reason of calling him a rhapsody is because that “he’s also a mixture of different things just like a rhapsody is like a mixture of different notes and the music instruments”. He is mixture of love, commitment, fun, craziness, volatility and also truthfulness. Whenever he’s around no one is going to sit quietly and numb. He keeps everybody on their tow whether it’s meeting, gathering, or the party. Well this person is a party animal, and is always fond of the parties and fun. He has his unique style, a different and the only persona. Well that’s the simplest way to stand out and be the one in all. I must add that whatever he do whether it’s the repeated stuff but he somehow finds the touch he has so that the person who know him can say that yes this is done by this person. I’ll not say this person has a magnetic personality because he doesn’t possess it but must say that he has the attractive one. He’s like very clumsy person to fit in but if he gets fit one time then you can say there is no other than him can fit better and you should watch what he become, and only thing that you need to embrace him is just the love, affection, trust and friendship. These are the things that can make a normal person wealthier, stronger and can make the richest person nothing; if taken away from him. I must add an incident, once in the office he was carrying out his work and talking to me as I was beside him. Suddenly one more colleague from the office said how much you can talk brother, well that is his stamina to talk and talk continuously without the break. You can’t stop him and if you want to stop him then it’s your foolishness. About his nature, I prior said that he’s spontaneous and that is in deep of him. He continue always to amaze everyone with his doings and deeds; but I must say in a funny and positive way. He is fond of mischievous activities and that’s in his blood. You may say that this type of nature is only good for the kids or who are still in the childhood but he never left his childhood. He never cares about what people gonna think of him. He just do what he wanna do and no matter how inappropriate that is to the people who keep a tab on him saying now be mature and be practical and realistic. I must tell you one incident, we were partying and we were partying hard he suddenly started doing absolutely rubbish actions, well everyone was enjoying it but for real I must tell you that all the actions done by him were absolutely the purest form without any melancholy or the distorted submission. Well for his sake I must stop now because if I go further there is no stopping me.

“?”, well the third one is a question mark for the people who don’t know him because you can’t bring out or get to a conclusion what he’s up to until he tells you or you better know him. Maximum time his face is simply emotionless, nobody knows he’s angry or he is jovial but that can only be told by the people who knows him that well to judge the mood. Many time the people tried to be judgment al with him but that is because of his emotionless nature and face. When he’s angry there is no point he gonna be inside and not uttering a word, he expels out each and every emotion he got in himself. He never takes a step in within for the containment of the statement or the feeling or the emotions. That’s why I can tell he’s a true person because if he’s angry he is on face and if he is jovial on anything he’s on face. Countering him is quite difficult for those who don’t understand him because you stand no chance in front of him when he counter attack, as balancing his counter-attack is the thing can’t be done by all. Well within inside he is beautiful person, if you in yourself are a true person you can’t deny him like that he’s not. There is no apparatus he can’t fill with, he’s flexible, understanding, and most of the top trustworthy. Suppose he says to you come with me, and he doesn’t tell you about where to go and what to do, I can say that I definitely will walk along because if he’s saying he’s going then he knows how the path fairs; no need to think much just be the part and walk along, you never gonna regret your decision. Well I must say it’s a privilege to be with a person like him, work with him, party with him because of his originality that always possess; just that he is quite a marvellous person whatsoever will be the reason he never gonna ditch any of his true friend. One thing I must tell you about this person as how truthful he’s, when he thinks he don’t like the particular thing he say in front at once no matter how the person in front will take it or respond to it, he just expresses himself that it. Whilst considering this is a very peculiar quality that must be possessed by everyone but few one contain it. He’s little bit fussy about his food, what he wants to have and whether he wants to have or not totally it’s on his mood and the la mina he have. He creates and direct his own path, he doesn’t care about on what others have worked and done the things, he believes in himself and his own originality and do the extension around in the possession and the surroundings like that. He has very peculiar taste of things, neither have I got to know that by others, different and smarter. Well I end that by saying this that I like and love this ‘?’ I got in my life.

The fourth one is really piece of a nasty person, in everything either that to be the interest he share or the choices he make. It doesn’t mean when I write he’s a piece of nasty that he is nasty one, the nastiness that is basically in himself clearly liked by the true ones. He is very talkative person and very fun making person but I must say that he’s also careless person or the most careless person I have ever met. I can see that in his words, in his style, in his life. But the best think that carelessness is only for the fun part. He never had made any one hurt or embarrassed due to his doings. He is a popular person in every kind of crowd, either you say male crowd or the female crowd. There never been a day he talk about resigning from the job and get away. Whenever I call him, or vice versa we reach to one topic at the end, that he wants to resign from the job and get away somewhere that is somewhat exciting, adventurous and breath-taking to him apart from the job. Sometimes I feel about him that he doesn’t know what he wanna do, as he sounds very confused and diluted. Sometimes he say he wanna do this, sometimes he wanna do that, screwed and very jumbled. He is not very expressive but the expression he has is enough to say anything. He is just into the cell, he can’t live without the cell and its like taking away his soul if you take his cell with you. I can’t imagine how this person is going to live when the service is not received by the cell. I must say when I’m spending the time with the person, the time is never wasted. Its beautiful and jovial having him in the life.

Well are you ready to know the fifth one, I’m sure you are; if not then ready because this person believe in the bang, whether coming in the conversation or making the presence felt. I know this person from my second firm. This person is quite a liberate and the liberate in his own style. You can’t have this person without taking the sides, this person have his own idea of living and the unique one. He like to live in the rebellion way, you can’t force him to live life like this or do this or don’t. But I’m not saying he not listens to you if you are saying anything to him, he listens to everybody but he do whatever he wants to do. He will never bore you an always find a way to put everyone in the track of the fun path. I attended few functions with him, and I really enjoyed his company and I always have and I always will. His thinking stream is different and out of the league what I found till now, alike a unique thinker. I read a phrase from a great thinker, well I don’t remember his name the quotation was, “Go along the path you choose with choosing the friend with all your heart to accompany you, because neither the path nor the friend will ever leave you”. This friend is the same, he never let you down whether you gonna have any kind of discreation with him. He’s just with you and always with you at all the times.

Lastly I wanna tell you about a friend who is sweet, pretty and wholesome. You must me wondering I wrote pretty that means I’m ending the blog with describing a female friend and extending your thought that I started the blog with describing a female friend. This is because, girls are the most precious in our life and society because they are the synonyms of prettiness, love and awesome. This girl I don’t know how I describe her, either I say she is just the open person I know or the lively person I met. She has her own quality and lots of irrelevant qualities that if I might get a chance I wanna change in her. She is optimistic but mistique, she is normal but same time abnormal behaviour, she is roundabout but at very same specific point clustered. This is her awesomeness or not I’m not quite sure about this because if I say so that’ll be judge-mental with her and that is not good. She lives her life grand just like me that is quite obvious the kind of nature she has in her and I must say specifically like roller-coaster because her mood also is very up and down at many times. She wants to do this and suddenly says when I told you I wanna this I never did. This thing sometimes make me angry but then made me realise this is the moments and the crux of the moments that gonna be part of the life and will make me happily cry while remembering these. She never backs herself, she is like a air that can’t be caught; only thing that is possible with her and the most amazing thing that just try to flow with her. Let’s stop now I’ll definitely be back with some more some other time.

“And please don’t bother why I’m not describe myself because standing in the league of these extraordinary human being, is enough for me; I’m just a small person sharing my life with these special persons.”