As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Fibonacci doodle [chat]

12357102

Posts

  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    Football reactions tomorrow gonna be so good

    for once in my life I actually can't wait to read the NYP

    ezek1t.jpg
  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    Podly wrote: »
    Winky, I actually don't know of any "general" histories of philosophy worth the effort to put in reading. Because if its written by a philosopher, they will ALWAYS frame the argument in terms of their bias, and if its written by a historian, they might miss the incredible subtleties that have always existed in philosophy. (Lots of people assume that Aristotle and Plato must be simple because they are thousands of years old, but their arguments are extremely intricate, detailed, and complex.)

    The best method REALLY is to just read a major text or two by the big names starting with plato and aristotle. You can jump over the mediaeval philosophers if you want to get to modern philosophy, but you'll be missing a lot of crucial (and fascinating) physical and metaphysical arguments that guys like Descartes and Spinoza use all the time and you won't really understand what they are talking about.

    Plus, you'll miss all the great natural philosophy arguments that

    I have no illusions that any history or summary of philosophy isn't going to be incredibly biased, it's just that when I have read philosophy in the past it's difficult for me to put everything in perspective and there's large swaths of context that I'm missing out on. Like I've read some Descartes and I've read some Spinoza but I don't know anything about who they were. It's not that I want to gloss over a summary and determine I know everything (though this is a very common temptation I have, I'm aware), but I want to have a bigger picture before I dive into any individual details.

    As it is, it's like I've read bits of The Republic and some of Aristotle's ethics and meditations on first philosophy and bits of spinoza's ethics and then lots of random essays or excerpts from Popper and Kuhn and Ayer and Quine and Lakatos and Godel and etc, but I don't really have a good grasp of who wrote what when in response to who else.

  • SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    Who is that video making fun of anyway. One person sounds German and the other person comes off as lazy but also realistic.

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    Podly wrote: »
    Actually, I did know copleston. But it's better as a reference than something you'd read to learn philosophy.

    Also, I think the L. thing is totally apropos. His whole theory is that the physical world is this endlessly reducible spiral that eventually is generated from something metaphysical. I suppose it's more "information theory" than string theory, but I used string theory as a buzzword catch-all.
    I found a philosophy history book in my house that a previous renter left. Was fairly decent until the author decided to include his own essay on why affirmative action hurts us all and it was the laziest piece of shit thing ever. I have a mind to find the professor that assigned that book and tell them a thing or two.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Podly wrote: »
    Actually, I did know copleston. But it's better as a reference than something you'd read to learn philosophy.

    If a non-professional wants access to a history of philosophy? I'd say copleston will give them an adequate general overview. It's pretty good as a "here are most of the major texts".
    Podly wrote: »
    Also, I think the L. thing is totally apropos. His whole theory is that the physical world is this endlessly reducible spiral that eventually is generated from something metaphysical.

    It's not a spiral, and it's not endlessly reducible, and it's not a "physical" world, and it's not really generated.

    It's just indestructible monads acting in accord with pre-established harmony.

  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    To be fair, if an english speaker is discussing heidegger, they are probably a critical theorist and COMPLETELY misunderstand heidegger

    I stopped discussing Heidegger in public because so many people love to go on an on about being and time and just spew the worst BS that it makes me cringe.

    I just tell people I studied Duns Scotus in school.

    That's...that's actually fairly sensible.

    Plus, you know, Heidegger was a Nazi.

    It is! Because then if they actually recognize who Duns Scotus is and go "are you familiar with any Heidegger?" I can go "LOVE ME!"

    also, yes he was a Nazi. And it played into his philosophy too!

    But he also publicly denounced the anti-Semetic programs (even though he removed the dedication to Husserl) and really thought that the Nazi's would wipe out the old platonic metaphysical program and he would be installed as some sort of High Philosopher of the World and usher in a new metaphysical era.

    Yeah, he was a twat.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong Putting Nintendo out of business with AI nips Registered User regular
    As Organichu knows, antarctic exploration is my favorite metaphor.

    Y'all philosophizers are a bunch of stiff upper lip Brits trying to trudge your horses to the south pole. You will freeze to death on your way. 50 years later, my people will fly in with a B52 and land it on your corpses.

    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    A joke about Tebow from last night: a friend wanted to dress up as Tebow for Halloween last year.

    Why?

    That way he could throw candy behind kids and at their feet

    fuck gendered marketing
  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    I have to salute this airline company for their humor: http://imgur.com/a/TMXX8

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    Winky wrote: »
    I have no illusions that any history or summary of philosophy isn't going to be incredibly biased, it's just that when I have read philosophy in the past it's difficult for me to put everything in perspective and there's large swaths of context that I'm missing out on. Like I've read some Descartes and I've read some Spinoza but I don't know anything about who they were. It's not that I want to gloss over a summary and determine I know everything (though this is a very common temptation I have, I'm aware), but I want to have a bigger picture before I dive into any individual details.

    As it is, it's like I've read bits of The Republic and some of Aristotle's ethics and meditations on first philosophy and bits of spinoza's ethics and then lots of random essays or excerpts from Popper and Kuhn and Ayer and Quine and Lakatos and Godel and etc, but I don't really have a good grasp of who wrote what when in response to who else.

    If you want the "who wrote what when in response to who else" in a simple, introductory fashion I'd recommend this book: Looking at Philosophy, by Donald Palmer

    I think it does a good job of explaining every philosopher in a brief way, and it's organized chronologically so you'll get an idea of how the narrative of Western philosophy works.

    _J_ on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    It's not a spiral, and it's not endlessly reducible, and it's not a "physical" world, and it's not really generated.

    It's just indestructible monads acting in accord with pre-established harmony.

    I disagree. There's a reason that Leibniz invented integral calculus. He was concerned with the infinitely small, how there can be two discrete entities and still space in between. Folds within folds, etc.

    I think you are framing Leibniz in a Cartesian manner, which I think is erroneous.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    As Organichu knows, antarctic exploration is my favorite metaphor.

    Y'all philosophizers are a bunch of stiff upper lip Brits trying to trudge your horses to the south pole. You will freeze to death on your way. 50 years later, my people will fly in with a B52 and land it on your corpses.

    Only you'd never have figured out how to build B52s without philosophers.

    Wait, metaphor...mixing...aw fuck it

    The point is that, contrary to popular belief, philosophy is fundamental to all science.

  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    Oh god I posted in the ME3 ending thread.

    What have I DONE. I feel unclean.

    ezek1t.jpg
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    Winky wrote: »
    As Organichu knows, antarctic exploration is my favorite metaphor.

    Y'all philosophizers are a bunch of stiff upper lip Brits trying to trudge your horses to the south pole. You will freeze to death on your way. 50 years later, my people will fly in with a B52 and land it on your corpses.

    Only you'd never have figured out how to build B52s without philosophers.

    Wait, metaphor...mixing...aw fuck it

    The point is that, contrary to popular belief, philosophy is fundamental to all science.
    was
    not that it isn't still useful

  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Winky wrote: »
    As Organichu knows, antarctic exploration is my favorite metaphor.

    Y'all philosophizers are a bunch of stiff upper lip Brits trying to trudge your horses to the south pole. You will freeze to death on your way. 50 years later, my people will fly in with a B52 and land it on your corpses.

    Only you'd never have figured out how to build B52s without philosophers.

    Wait, metaphor...mixing...aw fuck it

    The point is that, contrary to popular belief, philosophy is fundamental to all science.

    Alchemy was fundamental in the creation of chemistry. Doesn't mean we should be studying alchemy, does it?

  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    Winky wrote: »
    As Organichu knows, antarctic exploration is my favorite metaphor.

    Y'all philosophizers are a bunch of stiff upper lip Brits trying to trudge your horses to the south pole. You will freeze to death on your way. 50 years later, my people will fly in with a B52 and land it on your corpses.

    Only you'd never have figured out how to build B52s without philosophers.

    Wait, metaphor...mixing...aw fuck it

    The point is that, contrary to popular belief, philosophy is fundamental to all science.

    Philosophy of science is a really big important thing

    fuck gendered marketing
  • SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    Magnasanti is Super Sperge 9000.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    philosophy reacted rather badly to general relativity and there has always seemed to be some unbridged gulf since

    aRkpc.gif
  • SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    Winky wrote: »
    As Organichu knows, antarctic exploration is my favorite metaphor.

    Y'all philosophizers are a bunch of stiff upper lip Brits trying to trudge your horses to the south pole. You will freeze to death on your way. 50 years later, my people will fly in with a B52 and land it on your corpses.

    Only you'd never have figured out how to build B52s without philosophers.

    Wait, metaphor...mixing...aw fuck it

    The point is that, contrary to popular belief, philosophy is fundamental to all science.

    Alchemy was fundamental in the creation of chemistry. Doesn't mean we should be studying alchemy, does it?

    Fuck yes we should, I want a sweet pocket watch and some robot limbs.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Oh god I posted in the ME3 ending thread.

    What have I DONE. I feel unclean.

    Besides clues from the PA strip, I didn't even know there was something wrong with ME3's ending. I assume it was tragic, highly unsatisfying for fans, unavoidable, and possibly artsy a la 2010's weird-ass ending.

    I gleaned all that from the thread title. The thread title alone has spoiled the game for me.

  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong Putting Nintendo out of business with AI nips Registered User regular
    I've never taken the calculus too seriously.

    (Engineering confessional #398)

    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    I've never taken the calculus too seriously.

    (Engineering confessional #398)

    But ... derivatives!

  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    Winky wrote: »
    As Organichu knows, antarctic exploration is my favorite metaphor.

    Y'all philosophizers are a bunch of stiff upper lip Brits trying to trudge your horses to the south pole. You will freeze to death on your way. 50 years later, my people will fly in with a B52 and land it on your corpses.

    Only you'd never have figured out how to build B52s without philosophers.

    Wait, metaphor...mixing...aw fuck it

    The point is that, contrary to popular belief, philosophy is fundamental to all science.
    was
    not that it isn't still useful

    I mean, it still is. Philosophy of mind and neuroscience are inextricably linked at this stage.

  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    philosophy reacted rather badly to general relativity and there has always seemed to be some unbridged gulf since

    tell that to ted sider

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    I mean, it has really gotten worse and worse since, what with all the dang natural sciences encroaching on introspective reflection as the path to knowledge

    for some reason, people keep taking it seriously even without any satisfactory philosophy of science

    aRkpc.gif
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Ugh ME3 thread please don't start talking about if things you buy can be considered art.

    It's a dumb tangent and also answered in about five seconds if you even think about it and realize things like patronage and auction houses exist.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    Winky wrote: »
    As Organichu knows, antarctic exploration is my favorite metaphor.

    Y'all philosophizers are a bunch of stiff upper lip Brits trying to trudge your horses to the south pole. You will freeze to death on your way. 50 years later, my people will fly in with a B52 and land it on your corpses.

    Only you'd never have figured out how to build B52s without philosophers.

    Wait, metaphor...mixing...aw fuck it

    The point is that, contrary to popular belief, philosophy is fundamental to all science.

    Alchemy was fundamental in the creation of chemistry. Doesn't mean we should be studying alchemy, does it?

    You should, actually.

    Geber is the fucking shit

    fuck gendered marketing
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    I have to salute this airline company for their humor: http://imgur.com/a/TMXX8

    hahahaha

    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238
    Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
    Playing: Persona 5 Royal (PS4), Animal Crossing (SW), FF7remake (PS4)
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    Podly wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    It's not a spiral, and it's not endlessly reducible, and it's not a "physical" world, and it's not really generated.

    It's just indestructible monads acting in accord with pre-established harmony.

    I disagree. There's a reason that Leibniz invented integral calculus. He was concerned with the infinitely small, how there can be two discrete entities and still space in between. Folds within folds, etc.

    I think you are framing Leibniz in a Cartesian manner, which I think is erroneous.

    I don't know where you're getting "folds within folds". Leibniz was concerned with the problem of the continuum.

    Cohesion, Division and Harmony: Physical Aspects of Leibniz's Continuum Problem (1671-1686):
    Leibniz inherits this wider conception of the continuum problem, and it is the whole cluster of problems concerning infinite divisibility, the actual infinite, the existence of atoms of matter or substance, and the analysis of continuous space, time, and motion to which his characteristic allusions to the "labyrinth of the continuum" refer.(1) Given this complexity it is not at all easy to summarize what Leibniz took his solution to the problem to be. But in broad brush strokes, it involves at least the following: insofar as anything is continuous, its parts are indiscernible from one another, and thus indefinite. The continuum is therefore not an actually existing thing, a whole composed of determinate parts, but an abstract entity. In existing things, by contrast, the parts are determinate, and are prior to any whole that they compose. Matter, for example, considered abstractly (i.e., as primary matter), is a homogeneous, continuous whole, consisting in a pure potentiality for division; but taken concretely (i.e., as secondary matter), it is at any instant not only infinitely divisible, but actually infinitely divided by the differing motions of its parts. Thus no part of matter, however small, remains the same for longer than a moment; even shape or figure is evanescent, and a body with an enduring figure is something imaginary. Similarly, there is no stretch of time, however small, in which some change does not occur. Change, on the other hand, can only be understood in bodies as an aggregate of two opposed states at two contiguous or "indistant" moments; but again nothing can remain in precisely the same state for longer than a moment, so the supposed enduring states of bodies must themselves be to some extent imaginary. Thus the perduring element in matter is not something material, i.e., explicable in terms of the extended, motion and figure. There must, however, be such a perduring element in any part of matter however small, which is the principle of all the changes occurring in it. This immaterial principle, Leibniz concludes, consists in a primitive force of acting. It bestows unity on a substance by taking that thing through all its states in a lawful way: it thus encompasses the laws that govern the series of states of the thing, as well as an endeavor or appetition, taking it into the next state of the series. Finally, this (immaterial) principle of unity of any given substance is the complement of its primitive passive power, or (material) principle of diversity, and substance is constituted by these primitive active and passive powers together.

    I would not presume such a highly condensed account to be readily intelligible, and indeed there is much that is missing (such as the whole question of the status of infinitesimals and the calculus, Leibniz's philosophy of the infinite, and the relation of mathematics to reality), but I hope it is enough at least to set the scene, and to give some of the flavor and richness of Leibniz's assault on the continuum problem. Certainly I have no intention of giving a complete account of the latter here. But I hope to say enough to illuminate some of the main turns Leibniz took en route to his own distinctive solution.

    As I understand it, his philosophy is about solving the problem of the continuum.


    Edit:
    Podly wrote: »
    how there can be two discrete entities and still space in between.

    There isn't space, for leibniz.

    Or, space is "an order according to which situations are disposed, and abstract space is that order of situations, when they are conceived as being possible."

    But that's not "space" space.

    _J_ on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Magnasanti is Super Sperge 9000.

    I think 90% of my interest in that video is the music.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    hahahaha this is so oldschool mad-scientist sci-fi

    I love it

    251147d1314647618-gear-porn-thread-pics-your-slutty-setups-eb-rack.jpg

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    Winky wrote: »
    Winky wrote: »
    As Organichu knows, antarctic exploration is my favorite metaphor.

    Y'all philosophizers are a bunch of stiff upper lip Brits trying to trudge your horses to the south pole. You will freeze to death on your way. 50 years later, my people will fly in with a B52 and land it on your corpses.

    Only you'd never have figured out how to build B52s without philosophers.

    Wait, metaphor...mixing...aw fuck it

    The point is that, contrary to popular belief, philosophy is fundamental to all science.
    was
    not that it isn't still useful

    I mean, it still is. Philosophy of mind and neuroscience are inextricably linked at this stage.
    We have very different opinions of neuroscience. :P

  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    I mean, it has really gotten worse and worse since, what with all the dang natural sciences encroaching on introspective reflection as the path to knowledge

    for some reason, people keep taking it seriously even without any satisfactory philosophy of science

    Without a full knowledge of where we are in respect to a philosophy of science, it can be safely assumed we can come to an agreement on the basic notion: science works.

    Would magic also work, or pseudoscience, or religion, or whatever the fuck else? That's more complicated.

    But science definitely works, so it can be safely assumed that philosophy will have to come up with an explanation that accounts for that.

  • MimMim I prefer my lovers… dead.Registered User regular
    You guys, Joe Biden was fucking hot

    EkYeT.jpg

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    White guys slow walking to hip hop. Never gets old

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Mim wrote: »
    You guys, Joe Biden was fucking hot

    EkYeT.jpg

    The smirk never changes.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    Ugh ME3 thread please don't start talking about if things you buy can be considered art.

    It's a dumb tangent and also answered in about five seconds if you even think about it and realize things like patronage and auction houses exist.

    who the fuck says you can't buy art?

    fuck gendered marketing
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    So young and still all that smug

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
This discussion has been closed.