Arguing philosophy is fun, I just wish I knew shit about it.
Any suggestions?
Descartes
Locke
Hume
Ha, those are actually the first three we did on my philosophy course. I can't remember who came next as it got boring talking about punishment and liberty. Mill and somebody.
Mojo_Jojo on
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
my question is therefore: if the nature of reality as we perceive or experience it leads you to conclude that there is a realm of forms, how then does the nature of the realm of forms not lead you to conclude that there must be an even more fundamental level of reality, and indeed, an infinite regress of such realities?
Pretty sure Aristotle argues something like this against Plato / Socrates. Except my brain hurts so I can't remember where.
I think universals / forms are utilized to explain similarity. So there is only an infinite regress insofar as similarity need be explained. So once we go from red to redness, the only other step we would have to do is for there to be a Form of Forms, the form shared by all forms. or a universal of universals, the quality "universal" which is shared by all universals.
After that there's nothing which requires an infinite regress.
If we're going with an ontology or metaphysics of forms, not just the "explain similarity" bit, then we can get into self-evidence as a stopping point. Once we get to a self-evident truth, that can maintain itself and there is nothing "behind" it which would suggest an infinite regress.
i am curious as to the quality of a truth which is self-evident such that it can maintain itself without resorting to "it just is."
or "it just [strike]is[/strike]" in some cases.
i am also curious as to the nature of the process of instantiation, and how it occurs; how does the immaterial interact with the material (which is the central problem of dualism, as I recall it)?
Manhattans are pretty high on the deliciousness scale. But I'll have an Old Fashioned. Or Sazeracs if I don't have to do the driving.
I prefer the manhattan. I am not really wild about sugar in whiskey, which is basically what distinguishes sazeracs and old fashioneds from manhattans.
I guess i prefer the way the vermouth stands up to the whiskey.
Also I've yet to have a sazerac where the pastis didn't color the flavor of the drink to the point where the quality of the whiskey was irrelevant.
Arguing philosophy is fun, I just wish I knew shit about it.
Any suggestions?
Descartes
Locke
Hume
Ha, those are actually the first three we did on my philosophy course. I can't remember who came next as it got boring talking about punishment and liberty. Mill and somebody.
i find that whole era is really profitable to read from, very applicable to daily life and discussion but also immediately understandable once you get used to the anachronistic style.
it's a whole other animal compared to contemporary metaphysics and cultural criticism.
Posts
sold my wife's car
when our tax return comes, we will pay off the rest of our cc debt
woo
pleasepaypreacher.net
sold his wife's car
but wait 'til your wife finds out
Yup. It's preferable to a fake maraschino cherry.
my friend was riding the train back to campus at that time! but in the opposite direction! but still!
Nice!
gin is pretty bad yes
so far it is the only alcohol i actively dislike
and i feel bad about it
I planned to hit the city anyway
Sold her too
Ha, those are actually the first three we did on my philosophy course. I can't remember who came next as it got boring talking about punishment and liberty. Mill and somebody.
Descartes
Spinoza
Hume
Fuck Locke in his ass.
Actually, if you want a really good time, pick up New Essays on Human Understanding. It is Leibniz writing a critique on Locke.
If you want a really fantastic example of the Rationalist / Empiricist debate just grab that book.
i am curious as to the quality of a truth which is self-evident such that it can maintain itself without resorting to "it just is."
or "it just [strike]is[/strike]" in some cases.
i am also curious as to the nature of the process of instantiation, and how it occurs; how does the immaterial interact with the material (which is the central problem of dualism, as I recall it)?
--> bus ticket
hey yo!
so that is up to you
gin does not appeal to me
there's something reminiscent of pine-sol there
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
I prefer the manhattan. I am not really wild about sugar in whiskey, which is basically what distinguishes sazeracs and old fashioneds from manhattans.
I guess i prefer the way the vermouth stands up to the whiskey.
Also I've yet to have a sazerac where the pastis didn't color the flavor of the drink to the point where the quality of the whiskey was irrelevant.
Plato crito to the republic. To st augustine. To hobbes. To descartes. To spinoza. To heidegger. Uhh
You don't mix a quality whiskey, so there's nothing getting wasted.
there's someone who has an exhibit made from real life naked people
Dead to me.
Arch? Dead to me.
Suck it, _J_
Truly, I am made of unicorns and stardust.
(I am planning on revealing myself once again this Friday, barring any unfortunate airplane-related setbacks)
Curious, I started with Socrates
seems like a natural place to begin
on saturday
what would you suggest?
i find that whole era is really profitable to read from, very applicable to daily life and discussion but also immediately understandable once you get used to the anachronistic style.
it's a whole other animal compared to contemporary metaphysics and cultural criticism.
Good Scotches and such usually gain a bit from some water
yaaaaay
Man it is RAINING here.
I heard that rumor, but I'l believe it when I see it, mister!
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Rye whiskey is better than scotch and it also makes the best cocktails in the world.
we should be getting to your place, nexus, at between 8 and 9 pm friday night
right?
because if so i know what train we should get on and i can spread the word (which may or may not be bird)
Huh I thought I included Leibniz.
yes we did
_J_ or whoever that was
Why is Locke bad?
I like locke, if i am thinking of the right person