« first day (716 days earlier)      last day (4284 days later) » 

03:24
how much wood could a wood chuck chuck if it escaped from Plato's cave?
 
2 hours later…
05:28
a turntable room -- we could listen to music together! turntable.fm/philosophy_se
 
7 hours later…
12:42
We're very sorry, but while we would love to let you in and rock out with us, we need to currently restrict turntable access to only the United States due to licensing constraints.
well then...
unless we can find a proxy through the US...
 
2 hours later…
15:25
(plug should be good for int'l)
user61389
Yes, it works here in the Netherlands.
sweet!
i'm in there now :)
plug is pretty interesting
some distinct advantages over TT...
16:30
things i like about plug vs tt: (a) international. (b) anything on youtube (music + videos). (c) you can play alone and it doesn't shut down the stream.
16:43
room topic changed to The Symposium: A Communal Space for Philosophy.SE [aesthetics] [epistemology] [logic] [metaphysics] [ontology]
hey @Cerberus :)
Hello!
What are you up to?
Renaming the chat room :)
Listening to music
Poking at code
Slow fridays...
How about you?
Hmm is there a connection between those activities?
The music helps the coding maybe? :)
Heh.
It's good to see there's always a party going on in this room.
How do you respond when people, themselves not very much acquainted with philosophy, suggest that the academic discipline might be useless?
16:48
Aggressively :)
Since the question tries to be ironic
in The Frying Pan, May 17 at 23:21, by SAJ14SAJ
How do you distinguish good work product from poor work product in a pool of 100 random philosophy students from, say, Holland within the Netherlands (in case you think I don't pay attention).
Hehe.
Well, the question can contain surprisingly little irony sometimes.
Clearly trying to be caustic, though...
I think he is seriously wondering, tending towards thinking that philosophy is all but useless.
I'm thinking of Deleuze in Nietzsche and Philosophy...
> “When someone asks, ‘what’s the use of philosophy?’ the reply must be aggressive since the question tries to be ironic and caustic. Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not philosophy.”
@JosephWeissman Do you think people coming from the above perspective are likely to appreciate this reasoning?
16:51
That philosophy is useful for harming stupidity?
For turning stupidity into something shameful...? :)
I'd like to argue for its usefulness from within their own perspective. That should be possible, since the exact sciences are both sensible and broad.
Nietzsche says we have to learn to feel differently -- so that, at long last, we might be able to think differently...
@JosephWeissman I don't know...then I would be suggesting that they were stupid, without even bringing forward an actual argument. It would be a bit circular.
The point Deleuze makes here is that there's not really any discipline other than philosophy that sets out to "criticise all mystification, whatever their source and aim, to expose all the fictions without which reactive forces would not prevail"
Finally to turn "thought into something aggressive, active affirmative"; to create "free men, that is to say, men who do not confuse the aims of culture with the benefit of the state, morality or religion"
"But science can do that just as well, and has!"
16:53
Deleuze asks us who has an interest in all this but philosophy?
He suggests philosophy is at its most positive as critique, an engine of exposure, an "enterprise of demystification"
"If you study biology, you can explain human behaviour and superstitions!"
To say the least, it seems somewhat scientistic...
@JosephWeissman I think that is an important aspect to it.
@JosephWeissman But many computer people are like that.
Like what? :)
One thing I'm tempted to bring in here is the irreducibility of concepts to functions
Like scientistism!
16:56
Philosophy is different from art and science; but none are "harder" or "easier" than the others
Hmm how do you mean? I suppose not every concept is a function.
It's no more or less difficult to understand a philosophical concept than to grasp a scientific mathematical function
I agree.
Well, philosophers create concepts, right? Where mathematicians and scientists create functions/mappings
And artists create compositions
But, if the "Results" are intangible, people may say, "what use is it?". They tend to say the same thing about other humanities.
16:57
Different disciplines, different processes and products
A composition, a function -- these are virtual too
Real without being actual (like memories or dreams...)
I agree.
Well, the late-90s era "anti-humanities" scientism... seems to me to have collapsed under the weight of its own incredulity/blindness
"But you can measure the quality of a work of art by how much people like it." And "but art isn't academic!".
(But I definitely take the point that New Atheism and related scientisms remain popular among lay scientists and engineers...)
And yet I hear this a lot on SE (though not in real life, actually: I think it may partly be an Anglo-Saxon thing?).
@JosephWeissman Oh, they have a fancy name for not believing in God, nowadays?
17:01
"New Atheists" like Dawkins, Harris, et al. --Pure scientism, to the point where it becomes about uplift or a kind of prometheanism: science is truth, so we have to eradicate all traces of spirit from the planet.
Ah, that.
Bad accelerationists. I think Kurzweil and the 'light singularity' folks are basically here.
Science become a new messianism. It's pretty toxic really.
(To be clear: I'm generally with the 'full accelerationist'/'dark singularitarians' like Land, Negarestani, Singleton, Williams & Srnicek, etc.)
There is some good in the attitude "let's debunk whatever we can"; but the failure to ascribe any usefulness whatsoever to anything other than hard science is...odd.
Yeah, it's broken.
It reminds me of the logicism that accompanied the birth of analytic philosophy.
(I don't know anything about these last couple of movements btw.)
17:03
Which in a way I think can be read, in its entirety, as a refusal to actually encounter mathematics in a philosophical way.
Encounter?
--Well, I'm trying to label things that are still pretty inchoate/incorporeal, so definitely take the labels with a grain of salt :)
Heh.
I'm probably just not familiar with these people and their ideas.
Right -- or at least the wish to reduce all of mathematics to elementary mathematics, logic, etc.
Right.
17:04
(There's higher mathematics, which are irreducible at some point; and have a lot of lessons to teach philosophers...)
Certainly.
Most analytic "philosophy of mathematics" ends up being about logic and elementary mathematics. Very little consideration of the actual work of mathematicians.
And I have to say there is much philosophy that sounds incomprehensible and vague unless you have studied it.
@JosephWeissman As in about the way their work comes to be?
Sure -- the nature of mathematical creativity.
Right.
17:06
But really just about the nature of that work, the substance/content of it.
Tendentially ignored or reduced to logic.
I have another, related question.
Maybe one way to formulate my suggestion here is that mathematics doesn't form a tautological whole.
Shoot :)
I think considering what definitions to use is very important in general, including the sciences and basically any rational discourse. Philosophy teaches us the importance of definitions very clearly.
A fascinating point. There are always multiple readings possible... :)
I was tempted to talk about philosophy and nonphilosophy when you made the point about obscurity.
But non-philosophers often feel insisting upon clear definitions is only necessary in, say, a mathematical formula, but not in descriptive texts, not even in discussions.
17:08
(Philosophy still needs a nonphilosophy to comprehend it..)
To comprehend it, or to comprehend?
I'm really just saying that there's always at least two readings of a text, a philosophical and a nonphilosophical one.
(Deleuze says philosophy wouldn't have the beauty it does if there weren't the possible nonphilosophical readings of it...)
Now my question is, how can one convince a non-philosopher that definitions are essential, and that debates often hinge on a mere difference in (subconscious) definitions, without being circular?
Well, one thing I think about is that speakers aren't "in charge" of definitions :)
@JosephWeissman I suppose there is some truth in that.
@JosephWeissman What I do is invite them to define whatever we are talking about in whatever way they want.
17:10
This is a psychoanalytic problem, really -- that our signifiers aren't really our own, that they get plugged into wildly different machines, producing heterogeneous results (or none at all)
But they often only make a half-hearted attempt, then complain that I'm nitpicking.
Definitions are demanding a mapping between words -- a science of language, or the unconscious, or the 'law in general'
I don't know
@JosephWeissman Yes. But you can and should get over that in a good debate or discussion, by exploring each other's definitions.
(I'm now wondering about what Laruelle calls his work, a "science of philosophy")
J'sais pas.
17:12
Exploring a definition... I don't wonder if this isn't already to explode the mapping, right?
Or at least to move beyond the surface of sense
How do you mean?
Exposing abysmal depths, glorious heights at the limits of language -- permitting auditions, visions to flow between the spaces and silences between signs...
I'm thinking of signs in Spinoza's sense, as affects -- traces of one body on another
The question would be the relation between affect and percept -- or sign and essence
I have to admit I don't remember much about Spinoza.
Except that I found his system...consistent.
It is certainly made to appear that way, with the geometrical method :)
It doesn't take long to uncover many stranger 'leaps and gaps' (especially in Book V of the Ethics and the third kind of knowledge...)
The Ethics is a philosophical treatise written by Baruch Spinoza. The full title of the book is Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometrical Order (Latin: Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata). The book closely resembles Euclid's Elements. At the beginning of Part 1, Spinoza defines key terms and lists axioms. On the basis of these and other definitions and axioms provided in the remaining four parts of the book, Spinoza offers proofs of hundreds of propositions and corollaries such as "When the Mind imagines its own lack of power, it is saddened by it", "A free man thinks of nothing less than...
No doubt, no doubt...
17:16
At any rate, I'm not trying to pull us too far away
I only remember some of his natural/ontological philosophy.
Really just trying to substantiate/dramatize the problem of definition
Very dramatic!
It's about the way traces connect to interiorities
Intrinsic versus induced properties; transcendence and immanence
I mean, I think the extreme generalization in mathematics over the last 50-100 years (that the analytics ignore so effectively...) can basically be read as Spinozist
Now you're comparing Plato with Artistotle?
Generalization?
17:17
Sure -- I'm thinking of Riemann's manifolds
Which 'strip away' the ambient Euclidean space
And 'immanently' talk about properties of the manifold as intrinsic
mumbles something
(Rather than induced properties from the assemblage's interaction with a certain space...)
It's much more powerful/compact (blissful...) to speak about instrinsic, immanent properties
Rather than transcendental ones
It's more effective mathematically, it unlocks more creative possibilities for development, it's more general when we abandon universal containers
The revolution in/of algebraic topology is really what I'm trying to highlight here as doing away with the notion of a universal container (transcendental space or axis)
We're left with pure immanence -- of unprecedented explanatory and expressive power
Just an analogy. But I think it's important to remember when we're talking about definitions and properties.
Really just trying to unpack and give an example for the instrinsic/induced property question, which I think can help us understand the "real" question, which is about what "spirit" is animating the definition (the statements and questions embedded within it)
--Sorry if it felt like a tangent, @Cerberus :)
Sorry, I was distracted for a moment.
Let me read this...
@JosephWeissman Is this different from a phenomenological perspective on space and time à la Kant?
Immanence to immanence is a life (pure power, pure bliss). It's impersonal, inorganic.
(Not a subject, an individual. But singular, etc.)
Ehh I don't understand this. Define immanence, impersonal, and inorganic!
Oh God, now not only scientistists hate me, but philosophers, too!
17:25
--By the way, Kant and Leibniz are really important with respect to this philosophy of math part of it. I couldn't reproduce the key bits of it in this context meaningfully, but I would refer you to Mathematics, Ideas and the Physical Real, a recent translation of some of Lautman's essays on philosophy of math in the 20c.
Noted.
Immanence refers to philosophical and metaphysical theories of divine presence in which the divine is seen to be manifested in or encompassing the material world. It is often contrasted with theories of transcendence, in which the divine is seen to be outside the material world. It is usually applied in monotheistic, pantheistic, pandeistic, or panentheistic faiths to suggest that the spiritual world permeates the . Major faiths commonly devote significant philosophical efforts to explaining the relationship between immanence and transcendence, but these efforts run the gamut from casting...
Plane of immanence is a founding concept in the metaphysics or ontology of French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. Immanence, meaning "existing or remaining within" generally offers a relative opposition to transcendence, a divine or metaphysical beyond or outside. Deleuze, however, employs the term plane of immanence as a pure immanence, an unqualified immersion or embeddedness, an immanence which denies transcendence as a real distinction, Cartesian or otherwise. Pure immanence is thus often referred to as a pure plane, an infinite field or smooth space without substantial or constitutive divi...
Not the Neo-Platonic way à la Plotinus?
And aren't Aristotle's "forms" also called immanent?
It's an interesting question. I'm not sure I have much useful to say regarding Aristotle here necessarily, I'm not really particularly closely-read (or well-thought) in his metaphysics/science stuff.
@JosephWeissman Hmm this sounds much like plain monism...
17:29
Well, plane of immanence is where pluralism = monism, right? :)
This is how Deleuze and Guattari will frame it in ATP
@JosephWeissman I think all those uses of immanence are related, but not identical.
@JosephWeissman Why not say that it is simply the world view of monism, period?
Well -- again, just to try to stay within the text in question -- they might suggest that it's strategic, right?
We're employing a dualism of models in order to shatter the model-copy system itself
Of course existence is univocal, it's all just energy, matter + movement
But it's also machinic :)
Machines composed of machines composed of machines
@JosephWeissman Then it sounds a bit like...wordplay.
The last sentence in ATP is the single word "Mechanosphere."
Well -- to try to be clear: it's definitely not a metaphor or allegory in any simple sense.
"The world view of mechani(ci)sm"?
17:32
Human beings, if they have a specificity, is to be the handymen of the universe :)
Are we maintaining the universe?
(This is at the very beginning of C&S)
I thought we were merely exploiting it...
Well, to be connected to the flows of the universe
Or that we were merely being.
17:33
To slice and analyze, to conjoin and synthesize flows of matter and energy and movements and speeds
That we are merely dancing
What are we other than a name we stick on certain collections of particles?
A molar totality
That's the meaning of these Names you invoke
Capital, God, the Law, the Unconscious, Power
Any name is created and applied from a human perspective anyway...the universe doesn't call its particles particles.
(I can't help but add...and all the "outmoded" ones we believe more than ever now that we think we have done with them: Truth, the Good!)
Heh.
Believe...or merely use.
17:35
There's also a molecular segmentarity to these molar assemblages
Capable of 'hacking' because they are essential tiny flows of particles/speeds/becomings
Almost "intrinsically" revolutionary, but because of this capable also of the 'worst' and the 'best' crystalizations
Uhh...
Well, that's the state of our belief today, right?
Dissolved in ideology; we don't think we believe, but nevertheless we use them, we still say the sun rises just like everyone else
We use the law, we exploit it, even if we don't really have any faith in it
We all rely on a fabulated other who actually believes for me
The most shocking, almost despairing moment possible here -- for the believer! -- is to discover that 'it actually works'...
We just try to weed out our worst beliefs.
Why is that shocking?
I think this is part of how belief works, right? It's about 'close but not too close'
The extremist is precisely the one who no longer believes
Because they've gone too far -- they now "know", etc...
Faith is constant anxiety; Lacan might say the knife's edge between pleasure and jouissance...
(This is basically a terrible presentation of Zizek's extension of Lacan to cultural analysis...)
@JosephWeissman Hmm how do you mean "too far"?
17:41
Ah, this is interesting, right?
You mean beyond doubt?
The borderline beyond which belief becomes impossible.
I am in fact not so sure people like Osama Bin Laden believed beyond all doubt.
The doorway to the Presence of a Living God.
I think we need to think this through in all seriousness, ethically, aesthetically, etc.; even if happens to sound absurd to us today.
One could argue that extremism is a way of trying to gain absolution for one's doubts.
17:42
I mean, I think the basic point is that we don't always want what we desire.
This is the kernel of psychoanalysis in a way, the fundamental lesson which perhaps cannot escape even the dimmest student.
@JosephWeissman That's a paradox, no doubt hinging on different definitions of "want" and "desire".
We think we know what we want, that we'll find bliss/ecstasy/rapture
We get horror/fury
Divine/sacred violence rather than redemption/revelation
Right.
And even in revelation -- it perhaps does not always extend to redemption, another kind of despair.
Every line of flight ends in death. There are special dangers for artists and writers...
Aren't there believers who think they have seen God and will go to heaven, period?
17:49
"Sad militants" are one way to frame the problem, maybe, right? --Not in the sense that you just need to be 'happy'; but more that having fun is important, using thought to affirm life and life to activate thinking...
:)
Believers are seldom fun!
Definitely. It's easy to come back from the limit with a mythology...
Only the ones who are totally confident.
They don't care what you say.
Hey, what's up with the mythologicism!? I'm not merely a mythological creature, I'm real!
What's a myth? I wonder today if we don't just mean "stories with obvious plot holes"
I'm now thinking about ways of using plot holes, holey spaces, activating subterranean networks, to push the viewer/reader into an even darker beyond/outside...
Lovecraft comes to mind :)
It's not polite to call it a "plot hole". We prefer to call it the "entrance to eternal rest*".
17:53
Lol
*) With occasional voluntary** tasks.
* - may not be valid in Utah? :)
**) On penalty of eternal torture.
Why Utah btw?
They have different rules sometimes?
Do they?
17:56
Also, there's a lot of Mormons maybe? Those two may be related.
Mormons?
Ah, yes.
 
3 hours later…
20:53
Nice talking with you @Cerberus :) I miss this
@JosephWeissman Same here!
The room seems more lively than a while ago, btw.
Yeah! Slowly waking up... :)
Philosophy rearing her mighty head!
21:39
So, happy with the new name?
I like it!
I have already forgotten what it used to be called.
Speaking of a posium, let's crack open a bottle!
lol
So, how come that Philosophy can't use MathJax? What about, e.g., modal logic?
Ah, whatever. Cheers!
Is that the script thing where certain codes are automatically converted into mathematical signs/formulae?
Yep
$E=mc^2$
See, doesn't work.
Although, I guess, mathematical logic is probably covered by Math.SE.
Ah.
Sure, we could use some special signs in Phil...
21:54
I'm just wondering about the "cost" of the option. I can't think of any.
(It's pretty expensive to add the math-processing to every page load; there's been some brief discussion about this on meta.)
Expensive? Money-wise?
Sure, in terms of server processing time, page loads, etc.
At any rate there was a generally negative consensus around it after discussing those sorts of implications. (Unless we can demonstrate a really strong need it's probably not going to happen any time soon.)
--It's a really "heavy" plugin to add everywhere on the site.
It should be an option in one's user profile.
I tentatively think that (forced/willful) non-mathemization is pretty bad for philosophy.
22:04
It's a good point.
We're part of the "sciences" SE group for a reason.
One thing that might be interesting is that philosophy of math and logic were, fairly predictably in retrospect perhaps, extremely popular categories here
There's an outline for a justification of MathJax there, I think, if we really want to pursue it
But given that maybe 80% of questions on the site have no need whatsoever for Math processing...
Just as people in Linguistics seems to be overly interested in the more computery and sciency stuff. I don't remember ever seeing a question on discourse analysis. But I think most other subfields at least come by now and then.
(It's going to be an uphill thing, I think, unless a much larger subset of our question base is really suffering from lack of math formatting.)
We'll always have Paint!
And there is that. So long as it's a relatively small percentage of questions, workarounds are probably preferable.
@Cerberus What's "discourse analysis", and how is it related to, say, epistemic logic?
22:09
@Gugg It is about the analysis of...discourse! It is about investigating why people say/write certain things in certain parts of a text/story.
It is no doubt more complicated than I make it sound.
Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is a general term for a number of approaches to analyzing written, vocal, or sign language use or any significant semiotic event. The objects of discourse analysis—discourse, writing, conversation, communicative event—are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of sentences, propositions, speech acts, or turns-at-talk. Contrary to much of traditional linguistics, discourse analysts not only study language use 'beyond the sentence boundary', but also prefer to analyze 'naturally occurring' language use, and not invented examples. Tex...
I'm not thoroughly familiar with it.
Might be more relevant to the questions about knowledge/power/etc:
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse that views language as a form of social practice and focuses on the ways social and political domination are reproduced in text and talk. Since Norman Fairclough's Language and Power in 1989, CDA has been deployed as a method of multidisciplinary analysis throughout the humanities and social sciences. It does not confine itself only to method, though the overriding assumption shared by CDA practitioners is that language and power are linked. Background Critical discourse analysis emerged from 'c...
@JosephWeissman I'm not so sure about the first two paragraphs...but the rest of the article probably gives something of an impression of the area of interest.
Jürgen Habermas ( or ; ; born June 18, 1929) is a German sociologist and a philosopher in the tradition of critical theory and pragmatism. He is perhaps best known for his theory on the concepts of communicative rationality and the public sphere. His work focuses on the foundations of social theory and epistemology, the analysis of advanced capitalistic societies and democracy, the rule of law in a critical social-evolutionary context, and contemporary politics, particularly German politics. Habermas's theoretical system is devoted to revealing the possibility of reason, emancipation, and...
Seems on-point here too.
22:15
@JosephWeissman Yeah, I don't really know whether there is a commonly recognised boundary between the former and the latter. At any rate, they deal with language on a larger scale than most other (sub)fields related to linguistics.
Touching in philosophy, to be sure.
I think that any argument, for clarity, should be "mathematised", unless it concerns the mathemisation procedure itself, which usually is not the case.
Hmm?
You could conceivably lump just about all of the 'deconstructions' in here, too, though it's a looser aggregate
I'm really thinking of Ricouer (it's definitely not all of them that are quite so attentive to this concern)
Logical argument? Syntactic argument? Mathematical argument? Discursive argument?
Paul Ricœur (; 27 February 1913 – 20 May 2005) was a French philosopher best known for combining phenomenological description with hermeneutics. As such his thought is situated within the same tradition as other major hermeneutic phenomenologists, Martin Heidegger and Hans-Georg Gadamer. In 2000 he was awarded the Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy for having "revolutionized the methods of hermeneutic phenomenology, expanding the study of textual interpretation to include the broad yet concrete domains of mythology, biblical exegesis, psychoanalysis, theory of metaphor, and narrative the...
22:17
Did Habermas write something about how the "I" is something of a weak construct?
I seem to recall that he did, but I couldn't find it when I tried to find it.
Or perhaps I confused him with someone else.
Logical answers are acceptable, and only questionable by questioning logic itself.
He talks about the deterioriating boundaries between the dividual and the common
Wiki puts it like this:
> "Disfranchisement of citizens occurs as political parties and interest groups become rationalized and representative democracy replaces participatory one.[16] In consequence, boundaries between public and private, the individual and society, the system and the lifeworld are deteriorating...
I don't know if that's quite what you mean, though.
Hmm yes, but that is more about politics (which I believe is the core of his oeuvre). It's not what I meant.
Perhaps it was another philosopher.
@Gugg it makes me wonder about the nature (perhaps provisional!) of reason, rationality... whether or not it lies ultimately on drift, delirium :)
Like the stock market, right? You can reason about it, 'understand' it to a certain degree -- but it's totally delirious, chaotic, consumed by its own abstractions
To maybe try to bring this back to discourse analysis -- it makes me think about the addressee of a question...
Haha.
22:23
When we question others, or God, we're also questioning ourselves, as well as "us," humanity or even "humanity-in-person" :)
The stock market is mostly about post-diction.
@Gugg I'm still not entirely sure what you are referring to...
Questions can always be read 'both ways', or at least two ways. There are always multiple readings possible. It seems to cast doubt on a singular 'reason', in kind of the same way neurodiversity might cast doubt on a unified [universal] ethics or aesthetics...
...it would seem to me perhaps :)
I always thought there was a base logic. Until I checked a few papers by Brouwer and noticed that he seemed to never use the excluded middle.
(I would like to hear more about what you mean, too though)
22:28
(Not even in the text.)
Interesting
Makes me think about suspending certain of Euclid's axioms in order to arrive at more 'interesting' kinds of spaces that couldn't be captured with classical geometry
(The parallels postulate would be the interesting one here, I think, right?)
In geometry, the parallel postulate, also called Euclid's fifth postulate because it is the fifth postulate in Euclid's Elements, is a distinctive axiom in Euclidean geometry. It states that, in two-dimensional geometry: If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles. Euclidean geometry is the study of geometry that satisfies all of Euclid's axioms, including the parallel postulate. A...
Brouwer believed in his logic, I think. But it demonstrates, IMO, that there is some arbitrariness going on. (Which, I think again, wasn't his point.)
Anyway, un-Symposium-like, I'm off. See ya!
22:47
G'bye!
23:15
Leonhard Euler (, , , similarly to 'oiler'; 15 April 170718 September 1783) was a pioneering Swiss mathematician and physicist. He made important discoveries in fields as diverse as infinitesimal calculus and graph theory. He also introduced much of the modern mathematical terminology and notation, particularly for mathematical analysis, such as the notion of a mathematical function. He is also renowned for his work in mechanics, fluid dynamics, optics, and astronomy. Euler spent most of his adult life in St. Petersburg, Russia, and in Berlin, Prussia. He is considered to be the pre-emi...

« first day (716 days earlier)      last day (4284 days later) »