on why i don't like gin, from the last thread cause it was locked real fast
i feel bad because gin is the "classy" alcohol and is in LOTS of "classy/ic" drinks
i tried for a year to enjoy it and i just can't
then again i think it is my "got sick on it alcohol"
LONG STORY SHORT: at an upscale bar, friends and i all ordered martinis (i think). they were like "man this is not good" and I was like like "well fine i will drink all the martinis instead of letting them go to waste"
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)?
Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how to articulate "there are self-evident truths" in a manner which addresses, well, someone saying "no there are not". Basically it gets into an argument about certainty and something to the effect if "If you make a statement, have a thought, or in any way utilize, engage with, or discern discrete particulars of understanding / language, this is only possible by an appeal to certainty or self-evidence."
That's just my thesis, though. There's a shit ton of pages I need to write on that which I never get around to doing because i'm arguing on forums or being depressed.
Instantiation of incorporeal with corporeal is the sort of thing that gets danced around. The classic example is "form posited onto matter" in the manner in which, say, your first posits a form onto clay. Of course you say that your first is material and the clay is material, so they can interract.
Short of just saying "PINEAL GLAND" I think what one has to do is construct an ontology such that there is a relation between the immaterial and the material, sort of like how Spinoza does with his parallelism of the thought attribute and the extended attribute of a substance.
You're right that "immaterial substance" interracting with "extended substance" is impossible, given the definition of substance.
The trick, I think, is to play with the definition of "interract" such that when we say redness is "in" the apple we mean something such that there can be material and red, yet not violate the interraction criteria.
Again, though. That's just a thesis. The actual argument would be insane.
Edit: NOt trying to taint the [chat], I just took the time to write this so wanted to post it.
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
if you dudes go to moma, the first room you go into has cezanne's bather on a pillar. Look at that for a few minutes. And then turn to your left and and behold Les Demoiselle Des Avignon. It is a truly awe-some experience.
Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how to articulate "there are self-evident truths" in a manner which addresses, well, someone saying "no there are not". Basically it gets into an argument about certainty and something to the effect if "If you make a statement, have a thought, or in any way utilize, engage with, or discern discrete particulars of understanding / language, this is only possible by an appeal to certainty or self-evidence."
I'm perfectly comfortable with nothing being Certain.
Edit: In fact I find Certainty, in the philosophical sense, to be rather absurd. I also find Truth, in the philosophical sense, to be absurd.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how to articulate "there are self-evident truths" in a manner which addresses, well, someone saying "no there are not". Basically it gets into an argument about certainty and something to the effect if "If you make a statement, have a thought, or in any way utilize, engage with, or discern discrete particulars of understanding / language, this is only possible by an appeal to certainty or self-evidence."
I'm perfectly comfortable with nothing being Certain.
*ahem*
Are you certain of that?
_J_ on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited March 2010
anyways, I ordered some gin drinks for SIG on friday and i think she liked them
corpse reviver #2 and a kind of shitty martinez
i had to tell the bartender how to mix both of them. I think she liked them.
some other good gin drinks are the negroni and the aviation (or casino). Even the humble gin and tonic is about as good as you are going to get from a highball.
I don't like martinis, myself.
I especially don't care for super-dry martinis. It strikes me as a silly affectation
Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how to articulate "there are self-evident truths" in a manner which addresses, well, someone saying "no there are not". Basically it gets into an argument about certainty and something to the effect if "If you make a statement, have a thought, or in any way utilize, engage with, or discern discrete particulars of understanding / language, this is only possible by an appeal to certainty or self-evidence."
I'm perfectly comfortable with nothing being Certain.
*ahem*
Are you certain of that?
I'm certain of it.
I'm not Certain of it.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
Are you saying for a Manhattan or in general? You could be right about the former, I've only mixed one myself, but the latter would make you a madman.
Someone get Morninglord in here, stat!
i feel bad because gin is the "classy" alcohol and is in LOTS of "classy/ic" drinks
i tried for a year to enjoy it and i just can't
then again i think it is my "got sick on it alcohol"
LONG STORY SHORT: at an upscale bar, friends and i all ordered martinis (i think). they were like "man this is not good" and I was like like "well fine i will drink all the martinis instead of letting them go to waste"
oh god bad idea
Do my homework for me.
I don't want to.
Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how to articulate "there are self-evident truths" in a manner which addresses, well, someone saying "no there are not". Basically it gets into an argument about certainty and something to the effect if "If you make a statement, have a thought, or in any way utilize, engage with, or discern discrete particulars of understanding / language, this is only possible by an appeal to certainty or self-evidence."
That's just my thesis, though. There's a shit ton of pages I need to write on that which I never get around to doing because i'm arguing on forums or being depressed.
Instantiation of incorporeal with corporeal is the sort of thing that gets danced around. The classic example is "form posited onto matter" in the manner in which, say, your first posits a form onto clay. Of course you say that your first is material and the clay is material, so they can interract.
Short of just saying "PINEAL GLAND" I think what one has to do is construct an ontology such that there is a relation between the immaterial and the material, sort of like how Spinoza does with his parallelism of the thought attribute and the extended attribute of a substance.
You're right that "immaterial substance" interracting with "extended substance" is impossible, given the definition of substance.
The trick, I think, is to play with the definition of "interract" such that when we say redness is "in" the apple we mean something such that there can be material and red, yet not violate the interraction criteria.
Again, though. That's just a thesis. The actual argument would be insane.
Edit: NOt trying to taint the [chat], I just took the time to write this so wanted to post it.
Are you still West Coasty?
She is now considered a "very classy lady" by the male population at the office.
YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
i meant what museum would you recommend we hit up
Yeah but this week I'm East Coasty.
I'm perfectly comfortable with nothing being Certain.
Edit: In fact I find Certainty, in the philosophical sense, to be rather absurd. I also find Truth, in the philosophical sense, to be absurd.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
no she is getting all upitty but she got to go to Boston
I didn't even get to do that
Is this party at your place on Friday? There better not be alcohol present miss!
*ahem*
Are you certain of that?
corpse reviver #2 and a kind of shitty martinez
i had to tell the bartender how to mix both of them. I think she liked them.
some other good gin drinks are the negroni and the aviation (or casino). Even the humble gin and tonic is about as good as you are going to get from a highball.
I don't like martinis, myself.
I especially don't care for super-dry martinis. It strikes me as a silly affectation
I'm certain of it.
I'm not Certain of it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
VH always waiting...
pleasepaypreacher.net
rye is a pretty great mixing ingredient.
i'd probably argue for gin's prominance, but whiskey is a close second.
technically it's at nex's
but I live 6 doors away from there so
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
In general. Rye > Scotch, and the sazerac 18 -- which can be purchased for only $50 if you get it retail, is the best whiskey in the world.
And this guy agrees with me.
http://cocktailenthusiast.com/2009/12/01/whisky-bible-names-sazerac-rye-worlds-best-whiskey/
saying that Sazerac 18yo is better than the audberg supernova
USA
USA
USA
a wizard did it
Super-dry is kind of plebby from what I understand, but really I can't drink a Martini any other way. I have accepted that they are not for me.
THANK YOU!
Look if the shoe fits...
pleasepaypreacher.net
Which one was that?
I don't understand