I really hate that people preach positivism as the panacea of success. They think just being positive automatically attracts success, and even worse, they have this paradigm that positivism and negativism (more like realism) are mutually exclusive, when I think they can perfectly coexist. It's a huge flaw to think one size fits all and just because positivism works for a lot of people better than negativism, having an equal balance of both will not lead you anywhere even if that is what works for you.
I am relatively new to CT and have heard that critiques of positivism are an essential building block towards a better understanding of CT.
I'm in university at the moment (English maj., Philosophy min.) and am familiar with Marx and some continental philosophy but, unfortunately (for me) most of the philosophy department at my school leans towards the analytical side. Classes are all online so I can't really ask a prof this question.
Anyway, are there any specific writings (critiques of positivism) that you've found helpful?
I’m 38 and my whole life I’ve had skinny arms. As a teen, no matter how much I worked out, my arms never got definition or much thicker. My butt was actually meaty and my legs were thicker in proportion to my arms. I also as a high schooler never had a 6 pack, though my abs are strong as hell and you can walk on them, literally. So I never felt confident about myself, always hated my body. As I got married and became a dad, I started gaining weight. My body turned to a dadbod. For a while I put myself through P90X and got back to my high school weight, still didn’t feel confident. I gained the weight back and gained some more after I blew my knee and was on crutches for 6 weeks. Ironically enough, I’m a closeted nudist and started chatting in nudist chat rooms on cam. That started to make me feel good about myself and today, I’m at my heaviest 275lbs, and I only work out for health reasons, not to make my body good looking for society’s standards. Do I still need to lose some weight for health? Yes, but I refuse to get below 220-230. I like my dad bod, I like my belly and today I got shirtless a lot more than I used to when I was skinny.
In my journey I also realized something that I always knew it was there. I like big girls. I find them sexy. I don’t mean that putting down skinny women, it’s just my preference. As I started voicing that to myself, I realized that anti-body positivism exists amongst guys. If a guy dates or hooks up with a big girl, he’s made fun of by his buddies. That makes men who admire big girls to huge their desires and leads to the fetichism of big women and leads to guys who hook up with big girls secretly. It’s so harmful! I can’t speak about when the roles are reversed, but I’d think women would put down other women that date or hook up a chubby guy. I could be wrong.
I’m married to a woman who battled ED in high school, got under 100lbs back then. When I met her, she was 150-160. Just like me after having a child and marriage, she gained weight. She’s at her heaviest, my guess between 200 and 230, but she won’t let me see her weight. She always puts herself down for her body, whether it’s when I pay her a compliment randomly or when we are intimate, she will say no or no I’m not. She tries to tell me that I’m a chubby chaser and that I like big girls. I do. But if I tell her yea I am those things, all she will hear is that I see her the way she sees herself: a fat cow and a whale (her own words o describe herself). The
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Good day! I need a 2 page essay about Positivism and Cognitive justice for may social science class. Deadline is tomorrow afternoon at 2PM. If you're free and want some easy 200 pesos, this is for you. The paper should include a brief sumamry of each theory and their differences. Payment is thru gcash or paymaya.
The article itself seems to be from a blog that posts pro-Kurdish, pro-PKK, and anti-Erdogan content, which are are all things I'm sympathetic with. The anti positivism would seem to fit in with Öcalan's social ecology but the blog writer doesn't make much of a case besides strawmaning it and claiming it's a state ideology.
How much of Buddhism agrees with Logical positivism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
In particular, I find that both agrees with the criterion of verification (rather than falsifiability).
If you cannot observe it, it's metaphysics (Buddha said the all is 6 sense bases).
I ask because the Copenhagen interpretation is influenced by Logical positivism, and it's the most popular interpretation of quantum physics. It might be because of that that many Buddhists think that quantum agrees with Buddhism, but it might be that Logical positivism influence is acting through this. There are certainly other interpretations of quantum physics which have like no impact on Buddhism.
I can't find much information on the subject, at least in Spanish (don't worry, you can answer in English)
I am a feminist myself who has just started studying gender studies at university but I need some help with the logic here. Many feminist are sex-positive, pro-choice and think that fathers should spend as much time with their children as mothers should. I am not opposed to any of these things and I think it all sounds great, but I struggle with some things. Let's say a woman/someone who is able to bear children has casual sex with a fertile man and gets pregnant and wants to keep the baby/fetus. Chances are she hasn't talked to the man she had sex with about children and parenthood so she probably doesn't know how he feels about it. However, his feelings and opinion shouldn't matter that much when it comes to whether or not she should carry the baby or not. So she could in theory have sex with a man who doesn't want children and then shame him for not being there for his children.
So my question is: is it reasonable for a woman to expect a man she doesn't have a relationship with to raise their children together with her if he doesn't have a say in whether or not they have children? And do you always have to bring up the topic of children and parenthood with everyone you sleep with (even when you use contraception)?
-
For the Winter Holiday Events- there should be the addition of a Mastery XP Level that is otherwise unobtainable in the game; it is called "Festive". Once you reach this mastery level, you would obtain unique Christmas themed hats that you cannot otherwise get,
-
For Halloween Events- should be the addition of another otherwise unobtainable Mastery XP level called "Spooky". (Yes, the names would for obvious reasons be child-friendly) Once you achieve this level, you would obtain unique Halloween themed hats that you cannot otherwise obtain.
-
Finally for the Chinese New Year Events- add in a final otherwise unobtainable Mastery XP Level called "New Year". (Of something, I'm most unsure about the name for this one) Once you get this level, you would receive unique Chinese New Year themed hats that are otherwise non-obtainable, who knows maybe even one of these could allow players to tame, have habitats for and obtain the Reindeer?
To do this; the only way the player can get all of these specific Mastery Levels is by riding the corresponding animals they have obtained from those Events in the Stampede- while the other xp from other animals would go toward the normal xp Levels (that we know so well). This would make it feel special and give a sense of challenge to the player as they have to go out and find them to get them.
It's really as bad as you think it is.
They got Bibles: https://www.ebay.com/itm/133460042412
They got a cult leader who wants to "bring the world into a new dimension" and "bestow priceless, life-lifting monetary and personal values on my Active Neothink® Members." He also wears a awesome black robe.
They also got awesome cult members who want to see the "success of the 12 visions party"
Come on, badphil, don't you all love radianism and neoliberalism? Don't you understand that it's the cure for all the worlds problems? Join the Neothink® society today!
True body positivism would not feel a need to shove their views down others throats, if you truly believe you’re beautiful, and there are people who find you attractive, then the opinion of the mass public should not matter.
"Anti-positivism is just a natural response from professional philosophers (rent seekers) who felt threatened. Hobbyists also disregard positivism because of their invested interests (cognitive dissonance/sunk cost fallacy). The narrative game was totally rigged and positivists lost, ending up being remembered by slides such as yours making ridicule of them. Positivism is the real woke philosophy, the rest is just a giant Ponzi scheme." - Anon.
Hey,
Recently i came across the work of Rudolf Carnap and I became interested to learn more about him, the Vienna circle and logical positivism in general. Any good book / essay recommendations? I have the Sigmund book ('exact thinking ...'), but that is more about the history, rather than the philosophy of the circle. I would like to know more about their thinking, in particular their views on science
