fa
Feedback
0/0

0/0

رفتن به کانال در Telegram

0/0 = undefined A labyrinth of ideas, A diary of curiosities Bot: @contactzero_bot

نمایش بیشتر

📈 تحلیل کانال تلگرام 0/0

کانال 0/0 (@error0error) در بخش زبانی عربی بازیگری فعال است. در حال حاضر جامعه شامل 10 613 مشترک است و جایگاه 8 688 را در دسته دین و مذهبی و رتبه 7 195 را در منطقه المملكة العربية السعودية دارد.

📊 شاخص‌های مخاطب و پویایی

از زمان ایجاد در невідомо، پروژه رشد سریعی داشته و 10 613 مشترک جذب کرده است.

بر اساس آخرین داده‌ها در تاریخ 04 ژوئیه, 2026، کانال فعالیت پایداری دارد. در ۳۰ روز گذشته تغییر اعضا برابر 245 و در ۲۴ ساعت گذشته برابر 5 بوده و همچنان دسترسی گسترده‌ای حفظ شده است.

  • وضعیت تأیید: تأیید نشده
  • نرخ تعامل (ER): میانگین تعامل مخاطب 13.68% است و در ۲۴ ساعت نخست پس از انتشار، محتوا معمولاً 7.09% واکنش نسبت به کل مشترکان کسب می‌کند.
  • دسترسی پست‌ها: هر پست به طور میانگین 1 452 بازدید دریافت می‌کند. در اولین روز معمولاً 752 بازدید جمع‌آوری می‌شود.
  • واکنش‌ها و تعامل: مخاطبان به‌طور فعال حمایت می‌کنند؛ میانگین واکنش به هر پست 0 است.
  • علایق موضوعی: محتوا بر موضوعات کلیدی مانند مُشَاعَرَة, رَجُل, ظِلّ, نِسَاءَة, اِبن تمرکز دارد.

📝 توضیح و سیاست محتوایی

نویسنده این فضا را محل بیان دیدگاه‌های شخصی توصیف می‌کند:
0/0 = undefined A labyrinth of ideas, A diary of curiosities Bot: @contactzero_bot

به لطف به‌روزرسانی‌های پرتکرار (آخرین داده در تاریخ 05 ژوئیه, 2026)، کانال همواره به‌روز و دارای دسترسی بالاست. تحلیل‌ها نشان می‌دهد مخاطبان به‌طور فعال با محتوا تعامل دارند و آن را به نقطه اثرگذاری مهم در دسته دین و مذهبی تبدیل کرده‌اند.

10 613
مشترکین
+524 ساعت
+527 روز
+24530 روز
آرشیو پست ها
0/0
10 613
photo content
+1

0/0
10 613
Amr_Diab_-_Nour_ [KLJA-srM_yM].mp315.52 MB

0/0
10 613
On this note, one can divide philosophies into two classes: • The practical, DIY philosophies that occupy themselves with the problems and daily life of the individual human. They serve as guides or advices along the troublesome journey of life. To this category belongs Stoicism, Buddhism, and some Nietzsche philosophy. • The metaphysical, semi-religious philosophies that tell you what to believe in, and try to impose the author(s) design upon the world. These are more akin to religious tenets and political manifestos than to "self-help" books and fatherly guidance. To this category belongs Kant, Marx, and Berkeley.

0/0
10 613
واحد من أكثر الاستبيانات متعة🤝 خاصة بالأخير تبدي الاسئلة تاخذ منحى غير متوقع: https://forms.gle/AN9JEbXcEP1MVYHy8

0/0
10 613
Repost from Bücher 📖
❝All good in a man for which he is praised or loved, is merely good suffering, the right kind, the living kind of suffering,
❝All good in a man for which he is praised or loved, is merely good suffering, the right kind, the living kind of suffering, a suffering to the full. . .From suffering springs strength, from suffering springs health.❞ ― Hermann Hesse, Zarathustra’s Return

0/0
10 613
ملخص كتاب Laughing at Nothing
ملخص كتاب Laughing at Nothing

0/0
10 613
.

0/0
10 613
.

0/0
10 613
.

0/0
10 613
.

0/0
10 613
In this context: Johnson was playing chess, Berkeley was scrutinizing the rules

0/0
10 613
In this context: Johnson was playing chess, Berkeley was scrutinizing the rules

0/0
10 613
.

0/0
10 613
Appealing to common sense "Appealing to the stone" is considered a logical fallacy; a failure of reason, but I find it to be very sensible and convincing. It's an appeal to common sense, to everyday, self-evident experiences that usually tend to get dismissed in philosophy and labelled as "ungrounded in reason," even though they are grounded in what is as compelling as reason: the familiar, practical experience of the world. Just as common sense must be evaluated via philosophy to rid it of any flaws, so does philosophy need to be gauged in proportion to common sense to keep it rooted in reality and life. This appeal to common sense is vital for philosophy not to go astray in the roads of the fantastic, the unreal, and the nonsensical. Berkeley's idealism is known for its logical consistency and it's difficult to refute it logically. But that doesn't necessarily make it important nor useful, as Johnson's appealing to the stone shows us simply and elegantly how obsolete it is when we employ it in real life and use it anywhere outside philosophy textbooks.

0/0
10 613
Appealing to common sense "Appealing to the stone" is considered a logical fallacy; a failure of reason, but I find it to be very sensible and convincing. It's an appeal to common sense, to everyday, self-evident experiences that usually tend to get dismissed in philosophy and labelled as "ungrounded in reason," even though they are grounded in what is as compelling as reason: the familiar, practical experience of the world. Just as common sense must be evaluated via philosophy to rid it of any flaws, so does philosophy need to be gauged in proportion to common sense to keep it rooted in reality and life. This appeal to common sense is vital for philosophy not to go astray in the roads of the fantastic, the unreal, and the nonsensical. Berkeley's idealism is known for its logical consistency and it's difficult to refute it logically. But that doesn't necessarily make it important nor useful, as Johnson's appealing to the stone shows us simply and elegantly how obsolete it is when we employ it in real life and use it anywhere outside philosophy textbooks.

0/0
10 613
Appealing to the stone Samuel Johnson—logically speaking—was making a fallacy (called 'appealing to the stone'). But I think he was pointing out to a very important notion that neither logic nor "good reasoning" seem to take into account: whether Berkeley's idealism is true or not, the stone would still be solid every time I kick it, and my leg would still hurt me. When he said «I refute it thus», he wasn't creating a counter-argument within the same logical framework that Berkeley used to make his own argument (if he were doing so, then it would truly be a fallacy). He was standing outside the rigid confines of philosophy (in the fresh air of common sense), and dismissing Idealism's whole logical and philosophical framework as nonsensical, just like kicking a stone off the road.

0/0
10 613
هاي بالقرن الـ 18 اجة واحد إسمه جورج بيركلي كال: الوجود كله هو عبارة عن الله، والعقل. أمّا العالم الخارجي فهذا كله تصورات وخيالات تصنعها عقولنا وماكو أي شي مادي بالعالم؛ جسمك وبيتك والحجر والطير والشجر كلهن تصورات عقلية تصنعها عقولنا (الغير-مادية). يعني فلسفته (جان إسمها المثالية) هي بالضبط النقيض التام للمادية. بوقتها أكو واحد من علماء عصره إسمه سامويل جونسون Samuel Johnson كاعد يم صديقه اللي دوّخه وثوله هلكد ما سولف ببيركلي وفلسفة بيركلي، لحد ما جونسون ضاج كلش وراح لحجر جبير وضربه جلاق وكال: I refute it thus (آني أنفي فلسفته بهذا الجلاق) بس فك مني ياخة. يقصد: إذا كلشي تصوّر عقلي وغير مادي، جا شلون اني كدرت أضرب هاي الحجارة؟

0/0
10 613
A statue of Samuel Johnson kicking a stone
A statue of Samuel Johnson kicking a stone

0/0
10 613
— مدخل إلى العلاج النفسي الوجودي، ترجمة د. عادل مصطفى

0/0
10 613
لنأخذ مثالًا بذلك المريض الذي جاء يلتمس العلاج بسبب شعورِه بالوحدة والعزلة، فكان يسهب أثناء الجلسات ويفيض في التعبير عن ازدرائِه واحتقارِه للآخرين. وكان متعنّتًا في هذه الآراء يُبدي مقاومةً كبيرةً تجاه مناقشتها، ناهيك تغييرها. فماذا كان مِن المعالج؟ كان يبرز له شكواه الأُولى ويقرنها بسلوكه حتى تتبيّن له مسؤوليته عن مأزقه الشخصي. وذلك بأن يذكره كلما أبدى احتقاره للآخرين: «وأنت تشكو الوحدة».