Gamification is the general name for trying to increase the motiva- tion for serious work or acti... more Gamification is the general name for trying to increase the motiva- tion for serious work or activities that are considered boring by spangling them with unserious game elements that are considered fun and thus trying to get more efficiency from them. There are three kinds of gamification, which are in- ternal gamification, external gamification, and gamification aiming at produc- ing behavioural change. Among these, internal gamification is credited with in- creasing the enthusiasm and job satisfaction of employees in gamified work- places, and thus productivity; external gamification is credited with improving customer satisfaction and/or brand loyalty of the target audience for companies or institutions; and gamification aiming at producing behavioural change is credited with increasing user engagement and thus success, especially in educa- tion and health. However, gamification is criticised on the grounds that it is in- compatible with or destroys the idea of play; that it prevents the awareness of exploitation or alienation while increasing exploitation and deepening aliena- tion brought about by capitalism, i.e., that it is an ideological device; that it fa- cilitates control by mediating the transfer of the body to an algorithm and sur- veillance, in short, that it is a biopolitical tool. There could also be noteworthy implications of looking at gamification in terms of Kantian ethics. In fact, for Kant, what makes a deed moral or good is not the positive consequences of the relevant behaviour but the good intention or will behind it, and the good will is found in what is done for the duty’s sake, not in what is in accordance with the duty only. Although gamification brings people closer to acting in accordance with the duty, as a non-duty incentive mechanism, it moves them away from acting for the duty’s sake, that is, away from what is moral, simply from the good.
South Korea created miracles out of a mess in the second half of the twentieth century. They have... more South Korea created miracles out of a mess in the second half of the twentieth century. They have built an industrial production and export giant called Han Miracle and a democratic culture. They also began to create a cultural fever worldwide called the Korean Wave. However, what makes the Korean modernisation story unique compared to other development experiences in Asia is neither its industrial development nor its democratisation. The rapid Christianisation, especially the Protestantisation of Korea, which walks alongside modernisation, is what makes this story special. Catholics entered Korea first, but they failed due to various reasons. Then, a peasant movement called Tonghak, which is organised around a syncretic religion named Cheondogyo, began to rise. They even started a nationwide uprising and gained massive supporters, but they could not succeed in expanding aggressively after the Japanese occupation. The latest comers, the Protestants, eventually became the largest religious group in South Korea. The Protestants studied the Catholics' failure and the Tonghak movement's success well and created a syncretic folk religion that did not exclude local religious elements. This syncretism was the key to their mind-blowing success in South Korea.
Aristotle's Snub Soul
The allegations that Aristotle was a soul-body dualist, and that he believ... more Aristotle's Snub Soul
The allegations that Aristotle was a soul-body dualist, and that he believed in the immortality and/or the transmigration of the soul, are not compatible with the arguments of his work On the Soul, especially with the first book. In the first book, Aristotle tries to refute the monist position by arguing that if the soul is reduced to the body, there would be no principle of life, distinguishing the body from a corpse. Aristotle rejects the dualist position by claiming that even the affections of the soul that are regarded as peculiar to it are not independent/separable from the body and asserting that these affections are inherent in a matter [logos enylos]. Even the geometrical figures have more independence from the body than the affections of the soul have. The affections are rather like “snub” which cannot be thought separately from the nose it signifies. The soul is the actuality [entelekheia] of the body that keeps it ready to be in activity [energeia]. Thus, it is neither reducible to nor separable from the body. This study aims to present Aristotle’s position, which is neither monist nor a dualist one.
"Bone" as the Underlying Subject for Nobility in Koreans and Turks
In Silla (668-935), i.e. the ... more "Bone" as the Underlying Subject for Nobility in Koreans and Turks
In Silla (668-935), i.e. the first kingdom to unite the Korean Peninsula under a single roof, within the bone-rank system [kol-p'um] that discriminates the nobles from commoners, and among the nobles the dynasty from bureaucracy, "bone" manifests itself as the underlying subject of nobility. According to this bone-rank system, those who were born a "sacred bone" [sŏng-gol] consisted the highest stratum, those who were born a "true bone" [chin-gol] were of the second rank. Kings and queens were supposed to belong to the sacred bone caste. The relatives of the dynasty and the ministers constituted the true bone caste. And below them, and above the commoners [p'yŏng-min], there were the "head rank" [tu-p'um] caste that consisted of six levels. In like manner, white bone-dark bone dichotomy determines who is noble and who is not in Turks and in Genghis Khan Empire, i.e., nobility is an attribute of bone regarding being white or not. For in Turks and Genghis Han Empire, "white bone" signifies nobles; whereas "dark bone" signifies commoners. This remarkable similarity is a sign that the Turks and the Koreans have more in common, along with nomadism, the monotheistic belief in the God of Heaven(s) (i.e. Blue Sky or Tengri) and Altay language. This humble work aims at grounding this point mentioned.
From Parmenides to young Socrates: Be careful not to have a stiff neck!
In Parmenides, one of th... more From Parmenides to young Socrates: Be careful not to have a stiff neck!
In Parmenides, one of the late dialogues of Plato which is seen as the toughest in terms of following the arguments, conveys a legendary conversation between old Parmenides, his disciple middle-aged Zeno and young Socrates. The answer to the question whether it was possible for such a meeting to happen in Athens is still controversial. In a neglected part of the dialogue, Parmenides tells young Socrates that if one denies the existence of the forms of things, and does not assign one form for each being, there will not be a place to turn his/her head/mind (dianoia), and the opportunity to carry the discussion (dialegesthai) on will be long gone. He says that this one will not know what to do with philosophy and advises Socrates to exercise and train himself/herself in matters which seems useless and is called empty rhetoric by the majority―otherwise the truth would slip out of hand. This humble work aims at reading this very part of the dialogue not only as an argument that proves the existence of the forms, but also as an important passage that expresses the conditions for the possibility of philosophizing and makes hidden references to Parmenides’ poem On Nature.
On the Unity of Common Sense and Imagination in Aristotle
The mechanism of sensation is thorough... more On the Unity of Common Sense and Imagination in Aristotle
The mechanism of sensation is thoroughly examined in Aristotle's work On the Soul where he grounds the soul as the principle of life and where he focuses especially on animal soul. Hereunder, sensing is receiving the form of the sensible body without its matter. Form, here, signifies the proportion [logos] of the mixture of elements that constitute the sensible. By the movement called sensing, sensory organ receives the proportion from the sensible, and becomes similar to it. Sensation [aisthêsis] is the difference between the natural proportion of the sensor and the proportion of the sensible that it receives and becomes. Discriminating [krinein] this difference belongs to the sense and may be called "perception." There are five special senses that have their own kind of sensible objects. On the other hand, there are some sensibles like motion that can be sensed by more than one senses. They are called "common sensibles" and they are sensed by "something which is common" or "common sense" [koinê aisthêsis]. Also, distinguishing the exclusive objects of special senses belongs to the common sense. Again, sensing being sensing, i.e., consciousness is another duty of this common sense. There are the remnants of the sensations which are reanimated when the sensible is beyond the range of sensing. This process is carried out by imagination [phantasia]. By doing so, imagination prepares images as materials for the appetite of all animals and for the reasoning of human beings. It has been thought that these two are separate faculties of the soul. However, the schism between common sense and imagination is not that sharp as mentioned.
Gamification is the general name for trying to increase the motiva- tion for serious work or acti... more Gamification is the general name for trying to increase the motiva- tion for serious work or activities that are considered boring by spangling them with unserious game elements that are considered fun and thus trying to get more efficiency from them. There are three kinds of gamification, which are in- ternal gamification, external gamification, and gamification aiming at produc- ing behavioural change. Among these, internal gamification is credited with in- creasing the enthusiasm and job satisfaction of employees in gamified work- places, and thus productivity; external gamification is credited with improving customer satisfaction and/or brand loyalty of the target audience for companies or institutions; and gamification aiming at producing behavioural change is credited with increasing user engagement and thus success, especially in educa- tion and health. However, gamification is criticised on the grounds that it is in- compatible with or destroys the idea of play; that it prevents the awareness of exploitation or alienation while increasing exploitation and deepening aliena- tion brought about by capitalism, i.e., that it is an ideological device; that it fa- cilitates control by mediating the transfer of the body to an algorithm and sur- veillance, in short, that it is a biopolitical tool. There could also be noteworthy implications of looking at gamification in terms of Kantian ethics. In fact, for Kant, what makes a deed moral or good is not the positive consequences of the relevant behaviour but the good intention or will behind it, and the good will is found in what is done for the duty’s sake, not in what is in accordance with the duty only. Although gamification brings people closer to acting in accordance with the duty, as a non-duty incentive mechanism, it moves them away from acting for the duty’s sake, that is, away from what is moral, simply from the good.
South Korea created miracles out of a mess in the second half of the twentieth century. They have... more South Korea created miracles out of a mess in the second half of the twentieth century. They have built an industrial production and export giant called Han Miracle and a democratic culture. They also began to create a cultural fever worldwide called the Korean Wave. However, what makes the Korean modernisation story unique compared to other development experiences in Asia is neither its industrial development nor its democratisation. The rapid Christianisation, especially the Protestantisation of Korea, which walks alongside modernisation, is what makes this story special. Catholics entered Korea first, but they failed due to various reasons. Then, a peasant movement called Tonghak, which is organised around a syncretic religion named Cheondogyo, began to rise. They even started a nationwide uprising and gained massive supporters, but they could not succeed in expanding aggressively after the Japanese occupation. The latest comers, the Protestants, eventually became the largest religious group in South Korea. The Protestants studied the Catholics' failure and the Tonghak movement's success well and created a syncretic folk religion that did not exclude local religious elements. This syncretism was the key to their mind-blowing success in South Korea.
Aristotle's Snub Soul
The allegations that Aristotle was a soul-body dualist, and that he believ... more Aristotle's Snub Soul
The allegations that Aristotle was a soul-body dualist, and that he believed in the immortality and/or the transmigration of the soul, are not compatible with the arguments of his work On the Soul, especially with the first book. In the first book, Aristotle tries to refute the monist position by arguing that if the soul is reduced to the body, there would be no principle of life, distinguishing the body from a corpse. Aristotle rejects the dualist position by claiming that even the affections of the soul that are regarded as peculiar to it are not independent/separable from the body and asserting that these affections are inherent in a matter [logos enylos]. Even the geometrical figures have more independence from the body than the affections of the soul have. The affections are rather like “snub” which cannot be thought separately from the nose it signifies. The soul is the actuality [entelekheia] of the body that keeps it ready to be in activity [energeia]. Thus, it is neither reducible to nor separable from the body. This study aims to present Aristotle’s position, which is neither monist nor a dualist one.
"Bone" as the Underlying Subject for Nobility in Koreans and Turks
In Silla (668-935), i.e. the ... more "Bone" as the Underlying Subject for Nobility in Koreans and Turks
In Silla (668-935), i.e. the first kingdom to unite the Korean Peninsula under a single roof, within the bone-rank system [kol-p'um] that discriminates the nobles from commoners, and among the nobles the dynasty from bureaucracy, "bone" manifests itself as the underlying subject of nobility. According to this bone-rank system, those who were born a "sacred bone" [sŏng-gol] consisted the highest stratum, those who were born a "true bone" [chin-gol] were of the second rank. Kings and queens were supposed to belong to the sacred bone caste. The relatives of the dynasty and the ministers constituted the true bone caste. And below them, and above the commoners [p'yŏng-min], there were the "head rank" [tu-p'um] caste that consisted of six levels. In like manner, white bone-dark bone dichotomy determines who is noble and who is not in Turks and in Genghis Khan Empire, i.e., nobility is an attribute of bone regarding being white or not. For in Turks and Genghis Han Empire, "white bone" signifies nobles; whereas "dark bone" signifies commoners. This remarkable similarity is a sign that the Turks and the Koreans have more in common, along with nomadism, the monotheistic belief in the God of Heaven(s) (i.e. Blue Sky or Tengri) and Altay language. This humble work aims at grounding this point mentioned.
From Parmenides to young Socrates: Be careful not to have a stiff neck!
In Parmenides, one of th... more From Parmenides to young Socrates: Be careful not to have a stiff neck!
In Parmenides, one of the late dialogues of Plato which is seen as the toughest in terms of following the arguments, conveys a legendary conversation between old Parmenides, his disciple middle-aged Zeno and young Socrates. The answer to the question whether it was possible for such a meeting to happen in Athens is still controversial. In a neglected part of the dialogue, Parmenides tells young Socrates that if one denies the existence of the forms of things, and does not assign one form for each being, there will not be a place to turn his/her head/mind (dianoia), and the opportunity to carry the discussion (dialegesthai) on will be long gone. He says that this one will not know what to do with philosophy and advises Socrates to exercise and train himself/herself in matters which seems useless and is called empty rhetoric by the majority―otherwise the truth would slip out of hand. This humble work aims at reading this very part of the dialogue not only as an argument that proves the existence of the forms, but also as an important passage that expresses the conditions for the possibility of philosophizing and makes hidden references to Parmenides’ poem On Nature.
On the Unity of Common Sense and Imagination in Aristotle
The mechanism of sensation is thorough... more On the Unity of Common Sense and Imagination in Aristotle
The mechanism of sensation is thoroughly examined in Aristotle's work On the Soul where he grounds the soul as the principle of life and where he focuses especially on animal soul. Hereunder, sensing is receiving the form of the sensible body without its matter. Form, here, signifies the proportion [logos] of the mixture of elements that constitute the sensible. By the movement called sensing, sensory organ receives the proportion from the sensible, and becomes similar to it. Sensation [aisthêsis] is the difference between the natural proportion of the sensor and the proportion of the sensible that it receives and becomes. Discriminating [krinein] this difference belongs to the sense and may be called "perception." There are five special senses that have their own kind of sensible objects. On the other hand, there are some sensibles like motion that can be sensed by more than one senses. They are called "common sensibles" and they are sensed by "something which is common" or "common sense" [koinê aisthêsis]. Also, distinguishing the exclusive objects of special senses belongs to the common sense. Again, sensing being sensing, i.e., consciousness is another duty of this common sense. There are the remnants of the sensations which are reanimated when the sensible is beyond the range of sensing. This process is carried out by imagination [phantasia]. By doing so, imagination prepares images as materials for the appetite of all animals and for the reasoning of human beings. It has been thought that these two are separate faculties of the soul. However, the schism between common sense and imagination is not that sharp as mentioned.
Uploads
Papers by Y. Gurur Sev
The allegations that Aristotle was a soul-body dualist, and that he believed in the immortality and/or the transmigration of the soul, are not compatible with the arguments of his work On the Soul, especially with the first book. In the first book, Aristotle tries to refute the monist position by arguing that if the soul is reduced to the body, there would be no principle of life, distinguishing the body from a corpse. Aristotle rejects the dualist position by claiming that even the affections of the soul that are regarded as peculiar to it are not independent/separable from the body and asserting that these affections are inherent in a matter [logos enylos]. Even the geometrical figures have more independence from the body than the affections of the soul have. The affections are rather like “snub” which cannot be thought separately from the nose it signifies. The soul is the actuality [entelekheia] of the body that keeps it ready to be in activity [energeia]. Thus, it is neither reducible to nor separable from the body. This study aims to present Aristotle’s position, which is neither monist nor a dualist one.
In Silla (668-935), i.e. the first kingdom to unite the Korean Peninsula under a single roof, within the bone-rank system [kol-p'um] that discriminates the nobles from commoners, and among the nobles the dynasty from bureaucracy, "bone" manifests itself as the underlying subject of nobility. According to this bone-rank system, those who were born a "sacred bone" [sŏng-gol] consisted the highest stratum, those who were born a "true bone" [chin-gol] were of the second rank. Kings and queens were supposed to belong to the sacred bone caste. The relatives of the dynasty and the ministers constituted the true bone caste. And below them, and above the commoners [p'yŏng-min], there were the "head rank" [tu-p'um] caste that consisted of six levels. In like manner, white bone-dark bone dichotomy determines who is noble and who is not in Turks and in Genghis Khan Empire, i.e., nobility is an attribute of bone regarding being white or not. For in Turks and Genghis Han Empire, "white bone" signifies nobles; whereas "dark bone" signifies commoners. This remarkable similarity is a sign that the Turks and the Koreans have more in common, along with nomadism, the monotheistic belief in the God of Heaven(s) (i.e. Blue Sky or Tengri) and Altay language. This humble work aims at grounding this point mentioned.
In Parmenides, one of the late dialogues of Plato which is seen as the toughest in terms of following the arguments, conveys a legendary conversation between old Parmenides, his disciple middle-aged Zeno and young Socrates. The answer to the question whether it was possible for such a meeting to happen in Athens is still controversial. In a neglected part of the dialogue, Parmenides tells young Socrates that if one denies the existence of the forms of things, and does not assign one form for each being, there will not be a place to turn his/her head/mind (dianoia), and the opportunity to carry the discussion (dialegesthai) on will be long gone. He says that this one will not know what to do with philosophy and advises Socrates to exercise and train himself/herself in matters which seems useless and is called empty rhetoric by the majority―otherwise the truth would slip out of hand. This humble work aims at reading this very part of the dialogue not only as an argument that proves the existence of the forms, but also as an important passage that expresses the conditions for the possibility of philosophizing and makes hidden references to Parmenides’ poem On Nature.
The mechanism of sensation is thoroughly examined in Aristotle's work On the Soul where he grounds the soul as the principle of life and where he focuses especially on animal soul. Hereunder, sensing is receiving the form of the sensible body without its matter. Form, here, signifies the proportion [logos] of the mixture of elements that constitute the sensible. By the movement called sensing, sensory organ receives the proportion from the sensible, and becomes similar to it. Sensation [aisthêsis] is the difference between the natural proportion of the sensor and the proportion of the sensible that it receives and becomes. Discriminating [krinein] this difference belongs to the sense and may be called "perception." There are five special senses that have their own kind of sensible objects. On the other hand, there are some sensibles like motion that can be sensed by more than one senses. They are called "common sensibles" and they are sensed by "something which is common" or "common sense" [koinê aisthêsis]. Also, distinguishing the exclusive objects of special senses belongs to the common sense. Again, sensing being sensing, i.e., consciousness is another duty of this common sense. There are the remnants of the sensations which are reanimated when the sensible is beyond the range of sensing. This process is carried out by imagination [phantasia]. By doing so, imagination prepares images as materials for the appetite of all animals and for the reasoning of human beings. It has been thought that these two are separate faculties of the soul. However, the schism between common sense and imagination is not that sharp as mentioned.
The allegations that Aristotle was a soul-body dualist, and that he believed in the immortality and/or the transmigration of the soul, are not compatible with the arguments of his work On the Soul, especially with the first book. In the first book, Aristotle tries to refute the monist position by arguing that if the soul is reduced to the body, there would be no principle of life, distinguishing the body from a corpse. Aristotle rejects the dualist position by claiming that even the affections of the soul that are regarded as peculiar to it are not independent/separable from the body and asserting that these affections are inherent in a matter [logos enylos]. Even the geometrical figures have more independence from the body than the affections of the soul have. The affections are rather like “snub” which cannot be thought separately from the nose it signifies. The soul is the actuality [entelekheia] of the body that keeps it ready to be in activity [energeia]. Thus, it is neither reducible to nor separable from the body. This study aims to present Aristotle’s position, which is neither monist nor a dualist one.
In Silla (668-935), i.e. the first kingdom to unite the Korean Peninsula under a single roof, within the bone-rank system [kol-p'um] that discriminates the nobles from commoners, and among the nobles the dynasty from bureaucracy, "bone" manifests itself as the underlying subject of nobility. According to this bone-rank system, those who were born a "sacred bone" [sŏng-gol] consisted the highest stratum, those who were born a "true bone" [chin-gol] were of the second rank. Kings and queens were supposed to belong to the sacred bone caste. The relatives of the dynasty and the ministers constituted the true bone caste. And below them, and above the commoners [p'yŏng-min], there were the "head rank" [tu-p'um] caste that consisted of six levels. In like manner, white bone-dark bone dichotomy determines who is noble and who is not in Turks and in Genghis Khan Empire, i.e., nobility is an attribute of bone regarding being white or not. For in Turks and Genghis Han Empire, "white bone" signifies nobles; whereas "dark bone" signifies commoners. This remarkable similarity is a sign that the Turks and the Koreans have more in common, along with nomadism, the monotheistic belief in the God of Heaven(s) (i.e. Blue Sky or Tengri) and Altay language. This humble work aims at grounding this point mentioned.
In Parmenides, one of the late dialogues of Plato which is seen as the toughest in terms of following the arguments, conveys a legendary conversation between old Parmenides, his disciple middle-aged Zeno and young Socrates. The answer to the question whether it was possible for such a meeting to happen in Athens is still controversial. In a neglected part of the dialogue, Parmenides tells young Socrates that if one denies the existence of the forms of things, and does not assign one form for each being, there will not be a place to turn his/her head/mind (dianoia), and the opportunity to carry the discussion (dialegesthai) on will be long gone. He says that this one will not know what to do with philosophy and advises Socrates to exercise and train himself/herself in matters which seems useless and is called empty rhetoric by the majority―otherwise the truth would slip out of hand. This humble work aims at reading this very part of the dialogue not only as an argument that proves the existence of the forms, but also as an important passage that expresses the conditions for the possibility of philosophizing and makes hidden references to Parmenides’ poem On Nature.
The mechanism of sensation is thoroughly examined in Aristotle's work On the Soul where he grounds the soul as the principle of life and where he focuses especially on animal soul. Hereunder, sensing is receiving the form of the sensible body without its matter. Form, here, signifies the proportion [logos] of the mixture of elements that constitute the sensible. By the movement called sensing, sensory organ receives the proportion from the sensible, and becomes similar to it. Sensation [aisthêsis] is the difference between the natural proportion of the sensor and the proportion of the sensible that it receives and becomes. Discriminating [krinein] this difference belongs to the sense and may be called "perception." There are five special senses that have their own kind of sensible objects. On the other hand, there are some sensibles like motion that can be sensed by more than one senses. They are called "common sensibles" and they are sensed by "something which is common" or "common sense" [koinê aisthêsis]. Also, distinguishing the exclusive objects of special senses belongs to the common sense. Again, sensing being sensing, i.e., consciousness is another duty of this common sense. There are the remnants of the sensations which are reanimated when the sensible is beyond the range of sensing. This process is carried out by imagination [phantasia]. By doing so, imagination prepares images as materials for the appetite of all animals and for the reasoning of human beings. It has been thought that these two are separate faculties of the soul. However, the schism between common sense and imagination is not that sharp as mentioned.