The three ways to start thinking of modern ideology of the integrity of the scientific thinking of the life of the world's thinking, the nature of human thought. Theory for its own requirements, think of the first two forms of the rejection of metaphysics in the door to understanding other than for the occasional appearance of metaphysics. Productive nature of human depth of metaphysical thinking, recognized its relative historical inevitability. Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger reveals more of their origin relationships: man and (...) his living strength, will, thought relations. Authors think is an absolute metaphysical necessity. Modern thinking themselves to be reading for the historical marker. Should be based on the contemporary metaphysics itself as an intermediary to the reality of our own. There shall be: first, to break the so-called "historical continuity", that metaphysics is the history of the formation of technical thinking; two, revealing the "nothingness of the cry," the hidden "presence of the final there," which is preserved in the history of metaphysics "sacred." Modern thought has developed into what it is today from three sides, a consideration of science, of the living world and of man's essence. The first two systems of thought demand that the theory of a body be considered outside a metaphysical realm. The essence of man can be considered from a relative necessity of history. Marx, Nietzsche, and Heidegger have proceeded form an even more basic stance, considering the relationship between man and his will to power, volition and thought. I consider in this paper the absolute necessity of a metaphysics. Modern thought must resolve this historical representation. It must go the way of metaphysics in realizing this task. Here we must: 1) Breakthrough the notion of the so-called 'linear history'. Metaphysics must complete a history of technological thought . 2) Reveal existence's ultimate being hidden in the 'cry of nothingness'. This is a metaphysical 'holiness' hidden in history. (shrink)

There is controversy as to whether children with developmental language disorder (DLD) and those with high-functioning autism plus language impairment (HFA-LI) share similar language profiles. This study investigated the similarities and differences in the production of Chinese negative sentences by children with DLD and children with HFA-LI to provide evidence relevant to this controversy. The results reflect a general resemblance between the two groups in their lower-than-TDA (typically developing age-matched) performance. Both groups encountered difficulties in using negative markers, which suggests (...) that they might be impaired in feature agreement. Slight differences were detected between the two groups. Specifically, children with DLD experienced difficulties with the agreement on the feature [+telic] and that on the feature [+dynamic], while children with HFA-LI had difficulties with the agreement on the feature [+dynamic] and that on the feature [−dynamic]. This study supports the idea of a common symptomatology for the two disorders. More importantly, it suggests that these two disorders, DLD and HFA-LI, are not altogether the same in terms of language impairment. This paper concludes that general labels should not be simply attached to any children with language disorders. Instead, atypical language is very worthy of further analysis in the categorization of language disorders. (shrink)