but I urge against identifying mental habits against a stultifying personal mode of thought with the desirable aura that surrounds liberatory mass politics
the mass utopia still has barbarians sipping mass-produced lattes and denouncing pollock without a trace of historical irony. and that's fine.
MrMister is your paper a response to Nagel called "What is it like to be a butt?"
Or a thought experiment: Imagine a world exactly like ours in every way
Against Right Reason
Abstract: This article argues against ‘right reason’ style accounts of how we should manage our
beliefs in the face of higher-order evidence. It starts from the observation that such views seem to have bad
practical consequences when we imagine someone acting on them. It then catalogs ways that i.e.
Williamson, Weatherson, and Lasonen-Aarnio have tried to block objections based on these consequences;
it argues all fail. It then moves on to offer its own theoretical picture of a rational 'should believe,' and shows
that, if such a picture is right, it can neatly explain why right reason isn't. It closes by arguing that the extent
to which anti-luminosity arguments motivate right reason has been overstated; the positive picture developed
here, despite rejecting right reason, is nonetheless consistent with luminosity failures.
MrMister is your paper a response to Nagel called "What is it like to be a butt?"
Or a thought experiment: Imagine a world exactly like ours in every way
Against Right Reason
Abstract: This article argues against ‘right reason’ style accounts of how we should manage our
beliefs in the face of higher-order evidence. It starts from the observation that such views seem to have bad
practical consequences when we imagine someone acting on them. It then catalogs ways that i.e.
Williamson, Weatherson, and Lasonen-Aarnio have tried to block objections based on these consequences;
it argues all fail. It then moves on to offer its own theoretical picture of a rational 'should believe,' and shows
that, if such a picture is right, it can neatly explain why right reason isn't. It closes by arguing that the extent
to which anti-luminosity arguments motivate right reason has been overstated; the positive picture developed
here, despite rejecting right reason, is nonetheless consistent with luminosity failures.
Riveting, I know.
It's sorta interesting to see abstracts from different fields.
Not that they're super different - that's what's sorta interesting. The main difference is that in my field you'd start off with a statement and a bit about what's known, then what you did and why it's important.
MrMister is your paper a response to Nagel called "What is it like to be a butt?"
Or a thought experiment: Imagine a world exactly like ours in every way
Against Right Reason
Abstract: This article argues against ‘right reason’ style accounts of how we should manage our
beliefs in the face of higher-order evidence. It starts from the observation that such views seem to have bad
practical consequences when we imagine someone acting on them. It then catalogs ways that i.e.
Williamson, Weatherson, and Lasonen-Aarnio have tried to block objections based on these consequences;
it argues all fail. It then moves on to offer its own theoretical picture of a rational 'should believe,' and shows
that, if such a picture is right, it can neatly explain why right reason isn't. It closes by arguing that the extent
to which anti-luminosity arguments motivate right reason has been overstated; the positive picture developed
here, despite rejecting right reason, is nonetheless consistent with luminosity failures.
Riveting, I know.
It's sorta interesting to see abstracts from different fields.
Not that they're super different - that's what's sorta interesting. The main difference is that in my field you'd start off with a statement and a bit about what's known, then what you did and why it's important.
yeah but no one ever knows or does anything in philosophy, so that's clearly inapplicable
/i kid, i kid
(mostly)
MrMister on
+3
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
MrMister is your paper a response to Nagel called "What is it like to be a butt?"
Or a thought experiment: Imagine a world exactly like ours in every way
Against Right Reason
Abstract: This article argues against ‘right reason’ style accounts of how we should manage our
beliefs in the face of higher-order evidence. It starts from the observation that such views seem to have bad
practical consequences when we imagine someone acting on them. It then catalogs ways that i.e.
Williamson, Weatherson, and Lasonen-Aarnio have tried to block objections based on these consequences;
it argues all fail. It then moves on to offer its own theoretical picture of a rational 'should believe,' and shows
that, if such a picture is right, it can neatly explain why right reason isn't. It closes by arguing that the extent
to which anti-luminosity arguments motivate right reason has been overstated; the positive picture developed
here, despite rejecting right reason, is nonetheless consistent with luminosity failures.
Riveting, I know.
It's sorta interesting to see abstracts from different fields.
Not that they're super different - that's what's sorta interesting. The main difference is that in my field you'd start off with a statement and a bit about what's known, then what you did and why it's important.
yeah but no one ever knows or does anything in philosophy, so that's clearly inapplicable
/i kid, i kid
(mostly)
I considered making a terrible joke like "in my field, we normally have content in the abstracts" but resisted :P
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
That's a really weird abstract writing style compared to how I format mine, MrMr
mostly the usage of "it"
So, I assume this is where we fight to the death
or we join forces
the League of Extraordinarily Unrelated PhDs can always use new membership
Who was the league?
Arch, you, and me?
I think we formed the basis of it, yes
a band of rogue academics, travelling the world and co-presenting the most baffling of topic combinations
Each one stepping out of the light and fumbling their hands more awkwardly than the next while the presenter is talking about some shit they don't understand.
MrMister is your paper a response to Nagel called "What is it like to be a butt?"
Or a thought experiment: Imagine a world exactly like ours in every way
Against Right Reason
Abstract: This article argues against ‘right reason’ style accounts of how we should manage our
beliefs in the face of higher-order evidence. It starts from the observation that such views seem to have bad
practical consequences when we imagine someone acting on them. It then catalogs ways that i.e.
Williamson, Weatherson, and Lasonen-Aarnio have tried to block objections based on these consequences;
it argues all fail. It then moves on to offer its own theoretical picture of a rational 'should believe,' and shows
that, if such a picture is right, it can neatly explain why right reason isn't. It closes by arguing that the extent
to which anti-luminosity arguments motivate right reason has been overstated; the positive picture developed
here, despite rejecting right reason, is nonetheless consistent with luminosity failures.
Riveting, I know.
I think I would find it rivetting.
But I am babby and don't know what right reason is.
I'm mostly grateful for the yelta conference ending up with the soviets not getting norway
we were the only country liberated by the russians that they pulled out of
but how did norwegian communists feel
the break with comintern and the soviets had happened before the war
so, as elated as everyone else, apart from a small minority
oo. what triggered the break? pre-ww2 soviet foreign policy?
Lenin's Twenty-one Conditions for joining the comintern (Moskvatesene, as we call them) were the sticking point
Labour - or the literal translation, the Norwegian Worker Party, DNA - split over accepting them and first in 1920, the right wing forming the Social Democratic Labour Party of Norway, NSA
one of the major sticking points was that unions that had a collective membership in the party had to stop doing that because of democratic centralism
in 1923 the national convention voted against accepting the conditions, with the leftmost minority splitting into the Communist Party of Norway, NKP
NSA joined back into DNA in 1927 and hasn't split since
MrMister is your paper a response to Nagel called "What is it like to be a butt?"
Or a thought experiment: Imagine a world exactly like ours in every way
Against Right Reason
Abstract: This article argues against ‘right reason’ style accounts of how we should manage our
beliefs in the face of higher-order evidence. It starts from the observation that such views seem to have bad
practical consequences when we imagine someone acting on them. It then catalogs ways that i.e.
Williamson, Weatherson, and Lasonen-Aarnio have tried to block objections based on these consequences;
it argues all fail. It then moves on to offer its own theoretical picture of a rational 'should believe,' and shows
that, if such a picture is right, it can neatly explain why right reason isn't. It closes by arguing that the extent
to which anti-luminosity arguments motivate right reason has been overstated; the positive picture developed
here, despite rejecting right reason, is nonetheless consistent with luminosity failures.
Riveting, I know.
I think I would find it rivetting.
But I am babby and don't know what right reason is.
Posts
but I urge against identifying mental habits against a stultifying personal mode of thought with the desirable aura that surrounds liberatory mass politics
the mass utopia still has barbarians sipping mass-produced lattes and denouncing pollock without a trace of historical irony. and that's fine.
oo. what triggered the break? pre-ww2 soviet foreign policy?
Riveting, I know.
a large spider that is making me regret moving my group past the choke point because lawl it's just gonna be more spiders m i rite
mostly the usage of "it"
It's sorta interesting to see abstracts from different fields.
Not that they're super different - that's what's sorta interesting. The main difference is that in my field you'd start off with a statement and a bit about what's known, then what you did and why it's important.
stealth utilitarianism y/n
So, I assume this is where we fight to the death
or we join forces
the League of Extraordinarily Unrelated PhDs can always use new membership
Who was the league?
Arch, you, and me?
yeah but no one ever knows or does anything in philosophy, so that's clearly inapplicable
/i kid, i kid
(mostly)
I considered making a terrible joke like "in my field, we normally have content in the abstracts" but resisted :P
First, become famous
then, give me a million grants
sound good?
I think we formed the basis of it, yes
a band of rogue academics, travelling the world and co-presenting the most baffling of topic combinations
my position has been described as 'epistemic consequentialism' but in some ways that's misleading
Looking at my most recent abstract, I use "this paper" once and "it" once, with the rest outlining what I'm talking about and the context for it
Each one stepping out of the light and fumbling their hands more awkwardly than the next while the presenter is talking about some shit they don't understand.
Can I be your secretary.
It is terrible.
I think I would find it rivetting.
But I am babby and don't know what right reason is.
Lenin's Twenty-one Conditions for joining the comintern (Moskvatesene, as we call them) were the sticking point
Labour - or the literal translation, the Norwegian Worker Party, DNA - split over accepting them and first in 1920, the right wing forming the Social Democratic Labour Party of Norway, NSA
one of the major sticking points was that unions that had a collective membership in the party had to stop doing that because of democratic centralism
in 1923 the national convention voted against accepting the conditions, with the leftmost minority splitting into the Communist Party of Norway, NKP
NSA joined back into DNA in 1927 and hasn't split since
too used to "we show that..." or "we argue that..." or "I argue that..."
AND THIS VIDEO (prolly NSFW)
THIS VIDEO
seems like it'd be possible to mine for fun recursive ways to motivate certain epistemologies
in philosophy, any of these are permitted
a bad view, that I demolish, clearly
thought 2: what the fuck is equinox
thought 3: oh my god his abs
Reviews are more often like that.
when last we met, i could LITERALLY NOT HIT this psychic hunter who was taunting me from atop a tower and had a GOD DAMN MINIGUN FIRING DOWN ON ME
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Federation_of_Trade_Unions
Long Live the Thread