Is this a positiv test? it didn’t got much purple but definitely pink.
👍︎ 9
📰︎ r/LSD
💬︎
📅︎ Nov 29 2018
🚨︎ report
Hello everyone, good morning/good evening. I ain't positive today or for the past couple of days, i Wanna say sorry for not being here for everyone and for not being positiv . I'm definitely trying to help out and to make shit easier for people, but I'm dealing with a lotta shit .

A REMINDER: You and your feelings matter. You’re important, you’re loved, you’re beautiful. You’re good enough, you’re worth it, your presence on this earth makes a difference whether you believe it or not. You have a purpose .

👍︎ 5
📰︎ r/lonely
💬︎
📅︎ Mar 01 2019
🚨︎ report
Why did logical positivism fail so definitively?

My sense of philosophical frameworks is that there's always a kind of ambiguity in the extent to which they are accepted or rejected by various communities (aside from those communities that are defined by their acceptance or rejection of a framework). But, it seems that logical positivism has pretty much been rejected across the board and one often runs into casual statements referring to "the spectacular failure of positivism" or somesuch.

So, two questions:

  1. How did this particular philosophical framework come to be so widely rejected?

  2. What is different about positivism such that it came to be so soundly rejected, whereas many other philosophical frameworks never seem to receive such a clear or universal rejection?

👍︎ 23
💬︎
👤︎ u/fryish
📅︎ Mar 13 2012
🚨︎ report
Understanding the Discussion Around Judge Coney-Barrett: A Glossary of Basic Terms Relevant to Judicial Philosophy

This subreddit could use more precision in its discussion of the ACB hearings. I often read criticisms of her philosophy that are misplaced, even directed at straw men. If we want to call ourselves the reddit political forum most dedicated to evidence-based policy, we should understand what we criticize. And there are numerous legitimate criticisms of ACB's philosophy. Identifying them requires understanding what she believes.

In this thread, I'll try to provide a basic, as-objective-as-possible outline of basic terms that get thrown around in discussions of judicial philosophy.

Let's start with the basics of what a Supreme Court justice does. The Constitution provides that federal courts can only decide "cases" and "controversies" arising under federal law. You can take an entire law school class on what this means, but in short it restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to deciding questions squarely implicated by an actual dispute between parties who have a concrete, particularized relationship to the issue (as opposed to general or diffuse, like suing to stop the government from spending taxpayer money on a war you don't agree with). The Supreme Court's basic job is to decide how the Constitution, federal statutes, and federal common law apply to a given dispute.

So, the question obviously arises: how do we decide what the law means?

To do that, many judges have adopted a basic philosophy on how to answer that question that guides their analysis. We will discuss the big buckets that legal scholars often put different judges in.

I. Terms Applying to Statutory Interpretation

Legal scholars often use different terms when discussing the interpretations of statutes than when discussion interpretation of the Constitution. However, you will notice substantial overlap between some of the approaches to statutes and the Constitution.

At the most basic level, there is a tripartite divide in interpreting statutes: Intentionalism, Purposeivism, and Textualism. In this framework, ACB is best described as a Textualist.

Textualism restricts its analysis to the actual text of the statute. It asks: when considered as a whole, what would the words of the statute have meant to a reasonable member of the relevant linguistic community at the time the statute was enacted? Textualists do not consider evidence from reports prepared by congressional committees or floor debates. Not only do they find these sources unreliable, and often manipulated to

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 12
📰︎ r/neoliberal
💬︎
📅︎ Oct 16 2020
🚨︎ report
Videospieleentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Oder: wie der Bund Startups vernichtet.

An sich müsste ich an einem komplett neuen Businessplan schreiben, habe aber gar kein Bock. Was mir über diesen Vogel gerade mal wieder anlässlich der Bahn durch den Kopf geht, ist die Bundesregierung, deren Subventionen von riesigen Unternehmen, und im kompletten Kontrastprogramm, den KMU’s und Gründern. Ich werde alle Begriffe klären, ihr müsst nicht recherchieren.

Warum schreibe ich dies alles? An Ermangelung des Interesses der Leitmedien an Startups. Es generiert kein Clickbait, wie die dreiste Gewinnausschüttung und zeitgleiches Erpressen von Subventionen von BMW, Lufthansa und Co. in Milliardenhöhe. Ich will Startups mal eine Stimme geben, und einen Erfahrungsbericht abgeben. Ich bin gespannt, ob es überhaupt jemanden interessiert..

Ich fange einfach mal chronologisch an.

Wir, zwei Gründer, dachten uns: „Hey, geile Idee XYZ, gründen wir dafür ein Spieleentwicklerstudio“. Voller Elan ans Werk gemacht, eine Videospieleidee entwickelt, alles wunderbar, was und wen brauchen wir dafür und vor allem, was wird es kosten. Klassisch ein Projekt aufgestellt, Manntage für Entwickler, Künstler und Projektierung. Kommt raus, sechs Mitarbeiter auf ein Jahr. Kostet samt Haus und Hof und Hund etwa 400T Euro für ein Jahr Produktion.

Nun, das klingt nach sehr viel Geld, ist aber genau betrachtet für jeden ein Minimalgehalt, die Ausstattungen (Investitionskosten) sind überschaubar, mit Minibüro, auf gut Deutsch: Auf Kante genäht und sehr "ambitioniert". Startup halt.

So. Das wird ja nicht so schwer sein, so etwas zu stemmen. Expertise bei allen satt vorhanden, zehn Jahre Minimum Industrieerfahrung werden es schon richten. Bank gesucht, diese überprüft und nickt anerkennend den Businessplan ab. Final wird dann die Finanzierung inspiziert: „Soso, sie bekommen also vom Bund eine Förderung. Das ist mir neu. Werden in Deutschland wirklich Spiele gefördert?“, sind schon so die ersten Vorwehen, was uns da in naher Zukunft entgegenkommen wird.

Tatsächlich hat die Bundesregierung vom Bundeshaushalt eine Spiele-Förderung 2019 genehmigt bekommen. Stolze 50 Mio. bekommt das Bundesministerium für Verkehr und Infrastruktur (BMVI) an die Hand, diese sollen an Kleinst- und Mittelständische Unternehmen KMU, sowie die eingesessen

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 4k
📰︎ r/de
💬︎
📅︎ Jul 24 2020
🚨︎ report
the role of truth

i've been thinking a lot about postmodernism vs logical positivism and what the role of truth is. i'll write some of my thoughts here and please let me know what you think and if any philosophers have any insight into it.

According to the Rosenhan Experiment in the 1980's, one could not distinguish between "sane" and "insane" residents of a mental asylum.

This could mean

  1. we cannot distinguish between sanity and insanity because such a distinction does not exist (kind of like Foucault in Madness and Civilization). The identity of no distinction matches the experiment's identification of such a lack.

  2. our inability to distinguish between sanity and insanity comes from human error rather than an actual non-difference (or identification of a lack of difference between the two does not match the identity)

If the first case is true, then how should this impact everyday life? Is it ethical to let people plead insanity if there is no real such thing? (here, I know that there is legal definitions of insanity, and the DSM, but are these true or arbitrary?) Should you be constantly giving consideration to the possibility that everything you have identified as true is not (aka postpodernism)?

Should a society operate given the possibility of being wrong, or the existence of no truth? I maybe should operate confidently day to day that toothpaste is truly good for me, because if that turns out to not be true, then all I lose is time. But what if it's true that toothpaste causes cancer, we just have not yet discovered it. How should one navigate the balance between truth and peace of mind?

One might say- to the degree that they have information. I don't know that toothpaste causes cancer, so I should operate within the constraints/parameters of what I know.

But what if a society does not know that economic theory X causes death and destruction. They should surely give consideration that theory X is bad. This society is operating within the constraints of available knowledge, but should consider that this is not the truth.

So, what is the role of truth, and the possibility that we have misidentified it?

👍︎ 3
💬︎
📅︎ Oct 13 2020
🚨︎ report
A Skeptical Analysis of the Problem of Other Minds

INTRODUCTION

The problem of other minds is one of the classical metaphysical conundrums. Alongside the problem of the external world, it composes the issue of solipsism, i.e. extending the certainty of existence beyond the subject. I think this, by itself, makes it something worth pondering.

David Hume claimed that the problem of the freedom/necessity of the will is the central question of metaphysics because of its moral implications; at least in the context of modern philosophy, it was generally assumed that demonstrating the impossibility of a free will implies a dissolution of moral discourse. After all, if the subject cannot choose what he does, how ought he obey an ethical dictum that prescribes what he should do? How can we fault someone for a mistake they didn't choose to commit, and vice-versa with praise for involuntary virtuous action?

It seems to me that the problem of other minds poses a similar obstacle. It isn't as threatening to moral reasoning as a negative answer to the problem of free will is: if there are no other minds, there is at least the mind of the subject. And if there are duties to oneself dependent on subjective conditions like rationality (e.g. Kantian morality), in that situation the subject would still have to deliberate on how to act with regards to herself.

Still, if it is the case that there are no other minds, a big part of morality vanishes. It seems obvious to suppose that moral worth hinges on some kind of mental condition: be it the possibility of experiencing pain or pleasure, or being a moral agent. And since duties to oneself are, nonetheless, a highly contentious object, there's even space to affirm that the problem of other minds may be just as dangerous for ethics as is that of free will.

This being said, it should be quite clear that the problem is not merely a curiosity.

In this post, I will skeptically frame the problem of other minds and some attempts to solve it. First, I will discuss the structure of the problem. Then, I shall critique the argument by analogy. Finally, I will discuss how it relates to telepathy, and argue why not even telepathical operations would solve this problem.


  1. THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROBLEM

First and foremost, I don't think this problem admits a kind of "pure theorem of existence" as a positive answer. An example of metaphysical question that does admit such is the aforementioned "Does the external world exist?"; if I find a demonstration of the existence of s

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 16
💬︎
📅︎ Sep 14 2020
🚨︎ report
Short term review: Six Moon Designs Gatewood Cape

A few months ago, I bought a used Gatewood Cape off Ebay. Unfortunately, due to the current situation, it spent most of the spring and summer in my closet. A few weekends ago, I had the chance to take the cape on a long weekend trip to False Cape, VA, and put it through its paces.

Overall, I'm quite happy with the Cape. It's not a palatial shelter, but it's relatively comfortable, light, and does everything I need it to do. I expect it will become my go-to solo shelter for 3-season trips

Weight

The Cape has an impressive combination of weight and low cost. With the Serenity Innernet, 6 Linelocs, 18 feet of 2mm line, and 10 stakes, total weight is 26 oz. The cape is the lightest single-person shelter I own, and all components (cape, innernet, linelocs, line, stakes) cost less than $250 total. With the modularity of the system, I could easily get below 20 oz on a trip where I don't need all of the components (e.g: swapping the innernet for a Borah bivy in the shoulder season, or a polycro groundsheet in decent weather when I'm not worried about bugs). From what I've read, that's about as light as you can get without using a less protective tarp or investing in DCF.

Build quality

According to the Ebay seller, this is the 2011 model, and has been used for 1-2 trips per year. SMD has changed a few things since then, so I can't comment on how my cape compares to a new model. However, it's still in almost-new condition after nearly a decade of light use, which is not bad. The stitching is good quality, the steak loops are beefy, and there are no loose seams or other signs of wear (pardon the pun).

Setup

During my practice setups with the cape, I struggled to get a tight pitch. This is definitely a shelter that benefits from knowing knots, using Linelocs, or both. Linelocs halved the time it took me to get a taut pitch, at the cost of 2 ounces. Worth it, for me.

Space

My initial gripe with the Cape was lack of space. I'm 6'0. When I followed SMD's setup instructions, either my head or my quilt's footbox brushed the wall when I lay down. After some experimentation, I've found a couple of pitches that work for me. Details on the pitches are at the bottom of the review, for anyone interested. Even with the most space-maximizing pitches, the vestibule space is pretty small, but I'm getting accustomed to it. There are a couple of space-maximizing tricks to use a second trekking pole to pull out a wall or guy out the front beak, but I

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 28
📰︎ r/Ultralight
💬︎
📅︎ Oct 02 2020
🚨︎ report
Zum Begriff Degrowth

Das Thema Degrowth stößt hier öfters auf Interesse. Leider ist der Begriff etwas aufgeladen und wird häufig missverstanden. Das liegt auch unter anderem daran, dass es im Grunde eher ein Schlüsselwort als ein scharfer Begriff ist. Daher macht es Sinn die Idee dahinter zu präzisieren. Der Anthropologe Jason Hickel hat kürzlich einen Versuch in diese Richtung unternommen und definiert:

>Degrowth is a planned reduction of energy and resource throughput designed to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a way that reduces inequality and improves human well-being (Kallis, 2018; Latouche, 2009). It is important to clarify that degrowth is not about reducing GDP, but rather about reducing throughput. From an ecological perspective, that is what matters. Of course, it is important to accept that reducing throughput is likely to lead to a reduction in the rate of GDP growth, or even a decline in GDP itself, and we have to be prepared to manage that outcome in a safe and just way. This is what degrowth sets out to do.

Es geht also nicht darum den Wirtschaftswachstum (im Sinne des BIPs) selber zu reduzieren, sondern den Ressourcendurchsatz und die Verschmutzung zu beschränkend, während gleichzeitig Ungerechtigkeit und Wohlfahrt (im Sinne von well-being) gefördert wird. Der Rückgang des BIPs wird allerdings als Folge dessen prognostiziert. Letzteres wird dadurch begründet, dass wir bisher keine Entkopplung des materiellen Fußabdrucks vom Wirtschaftswachstum (pro Kopf) beobachten können.

>There is no historical evidence of long-term absolute decoupling of GDP from resource use (as measured by material footprint), and all extant models project that it cannot be achieved even under optimistic conditions (Hickel & Kallis, 2020; Vadén, Lähde, Majava, Järvensivu, Toivanen, & Eronen 2020; Vadén et al. 2020b).

Das meiner Ansicht nach überzeugendste Paper in diese Richtung kommt von Wiedemann et al. (siehe z.B. Figure 3).

Neben Ressourcendurchsatz ist Verschmutzung bisher auch recht gleichmäßig mit mit der Wirtschaft gewachsen, allen voran die Treibhausgasemissionen:

>Absolute decoupling of GDP from emissions can be achieved simply by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy; but this cannot be done quickly enough to respect carbon budgets for 1.5°C and 2°C if the economy continues to grow at usual rates. More growth means more energy de

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 10
💬︎
📅︎ Oct 10 2020
🚨︎ report
Update: My body is no longer a cage it's a tool and the foundation of clay to sculpt something amazing

9 months ago I wrote this post in r/stopdrinking

At the time I was just over 2 years sober and am now approaching 3 years.

Plus: quarantine/WFH has happened.

Without discounting the very real suffering of others, quarantine has been a major, major improvement in almost every area of my life and has allowed me to make HUGE strides in my health and wellness.

I WFH full time, and that alone allows me to get more sleep and avoid a long, stressful, public-transpo commute.

I am no longer getting Starbucks breakfast every morning, a fast food/gas station lunch and a thrown together dinner.

I am doing Pilates every morning and taking an hour+ walk every night.

I'm also watching my calories.

I'm no longer negatively comparing myself to others, or obsessing over looking perfect for my coworkers or others who might see me.

I'm no longer stress eating or over-eating because I'm not sure when I'll get another chance to eat.

I have seen BIG changes in my body shape in the last 60 days---toned legs, more slender waist, more sharply defined face, dropped a dress size, and this is on top of all the benefits of being sober. My skin is the best it's ever been, and my mood is stable and healthy. I'm over the moon, and want to keep this going.

I think part of this journey was seeing a picture of myself when I was still drinking and comparing it to a picture of myself at about 18 months sober (after I made the post I reference here) and realizing WOW---I look so much better. This inspired me to make the most of my sober gainz and really go for it. you can see those comparison pics here

And now...new comparison pics!

Me the other day

vs. about 9 months ago tried to find a roughly comparable pose and an outfit that shows my body somewhat and where I'm wearing heels, which always helps!

Now these aren't jaw-dropping changes but I feel I can see the difference especially just in the definition on my waistline.

I just wanted to write this because another member of r/stopdrinking contacted me privately some time ago and asked about body image and quitting and I felt bad that I was so negative. I wanted to add the next chapter to the story and I hope to share some rays of positivism to all you

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 82
💬︎
📅︎ Jun 11 2020
🚨︎ report
Everytime I talk/write/think about it, I have a mental breakdown. So let me tell you my story so I can finally move on, because apparently a loss at 6+1 isn't that bad. -.-'

I tested positiv three times on 28/29th of September. I was over the moon, I told my partner right away. I never thought I would be able to get pregnant, because a stupid doctor told me a year ago. But here we were, holding three positiv tests. As the day went by I felt my body changing, I felt calm and relaxed. I was so happy until...

... the 10th of October, when I went to the hospital because I had a bit of blood on the toiletpaper. At that stage I was 6+1. My first appointment would have been 21st of October (would have gotten my mother-child-pass which confirms me being pregnant and keeps track of all the appointments and the state of my body as well as the baby's).

When the doctor examined me, he took the blood out of me and told me it was just old blood (is kinda normal I thought, so I didn't worry). During the examination he asked me if I even wish to have a baby. I said yes. He then asked if I wanted a boy or a girl. At that stage I told him, I just want it to be healthy and I started crying really bad. The women in the room told me I should relax or the examination will hurt more. I told her, that I don't cry because of the pain the doctor is causing me. She told me twice to relax and I told her twice that I'm not crying because of the pain. Doctor didn't stop or care about me crying...

The doctor then proceeded with vaginal ultrasound during (!) which he answered his phone twice. The first time was a short call, maybe from the ambulance I don't know anymore. The second one is still stuck in my head. A friend called him and joked that someone stole his (the doctor's) car. But after two sentences the joke was busted, but the doctor kept talking to his friend, while he had the ultrasonic device in my vagina. I was so perplex I didn't even realize what's going on. He didn't talk to me or told me what he was seeing. He pressed his fingers from outside strongly into my lower belly and pushed from inside with the ultrasound while talking to his friend. Then he stopped the examination and walked away still talking to his friend.

I then needed to be tested for beta hcg in my blood, to check if I had a tubal pregnancy. If the beta hcg is too high, it's a tubal pregnancy, if it isn't - everything's fine. After waiting for 1.5 hours for my test results he told me, that I don't have a tubal pregnancy and I should come on Monday to check the beta hcg again, but everything seems fine. Normally you get a diagnostic findings after you've been to the hospi

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 3
💬︎
👤︎ u/BIackScar
📅︎ Oct 28 2020
🚨︎ report
How wrong is this trad-cat theory? Help needed in debunking

Hey, so as a baby anarchist I'm working on a video looking in detail at the construction of another Cultural Marxism narrative and here I have the first section, where the author states his views on what is freedom, what is culture, what makes us human etc. Generally I'm looking for more holes to poke at. Here's what I have compiled from the first 100+ pages of his book (I tried to be as concise as possible):

> You see, the biological egoist human nature ensures that a man, the least independent of animals, will only fulfill his spontaneous needs of nourishment, safety and procreation, which end his physical unpleasure (The body through unpleasure reminds the animal to satisfy the sex drive). He needs to be brought to his humanity by coercion that enables the development of ambition striving him for psychological satisfaction. From such ambition depends the religiously motivated value system (it is always religiously motivated, positivism and marxism had their own catechisms, not to mention atheism), but only the young man’s high self-esteem (coming from an authority, the non-violent kind of coercion) along with the positive admiration (from his authorities) to the positive results of his actions can create a positive ambition motivating him to take a negative freedom-limiting effort to construct the tools minimising the effort to satisfy his needs, the civilisational goods. Thus created lack of freedom needs to be filled by consuming goods acquired through the equivalent exchange. Doesn’t matter how much the cost, only if the goods serve the needs. The culture needs everyone to be a producer of goods that serve to fulfill the societal needs and develop the ability of creative work.
>
>And if your culture doesn’t want to live in poverty, it needs to achieve its level of production and distribution of goods guaranteeing common positive and negative freedom to privately own the goods necessary to fulfill the needs by achieving the level of high technology, high qualifications and highly organised efficient work. It is a level of the real social life, where freedom has its real dimension and social justice is achieved through common prosperity, not the" just distribution of wealth" ie. money.
>
>Such society needs to develop self-motivation, the motor of culture, in man’s youth, since inability to do useful work cannot be completely made up for. It needs the value system, the steering wheel of culture, determining the sense and the go

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 24
💬︎
📅︎ Mar 28 2020
🚨︎ report
Why does Yasuo get gutted this next patch?

I will give you my perspective as a Yas main almost otp.

Lets look at the problems Yasuo presents (or why people hate him) and potential solutions to those:

Problem 1 WINDWALL: People fucking hate that ability and they are losing their minds. Now it is very strong, it negates all projectiles which may be autoattacks but go all the way up to cc spells and game changing ultimates. Solution: Now the ability is the last 1 you max on yasuo and at base cd on it is 26s. So when playing midlane against most ranged champs where you can utilize this ability you play around it. Now on average you can use this ablilty about 1,15 times every minion wave (they spawn every 30s). So lets say you can use it once per wave, no changes there if increase the cd to 30s right?

Normally the yasuo players opponent tries to bait out the windwall. This will most likely happen by the opponent either baiting an all in but not throwing his blockable spell or throwing his spell that yasuo needs to windwall and effectively trading cd's.

Now most midlane champs have lower cd on those crucial abilities (lets take syndra 'e' for example) which has an 18s cd. This means that after she uses her 'e' to make you use ur ww (ww=windwall), she waits 18s and has a 8s windwall to cc and full combo you free of charge. Those 8s can be used to set up a freeze, deny cs, w/e. The point is they are free. Now with the nerf those free 8s become 12s.

8s of not csing is already pretty hard but 12s? This is more than enough to set up a freeze or slowly start building one up with virtually no counterplay from yasuos side. It is also 12 s where you can (as syndra) go and ward your side bushes or roam or w/e you wanna do and yasuo cant follow. Now most of the midlane mages crutial abilites to combat yasuo are somewhere from 12s to 24s range. So at most they gain that time free of charge for 18s and at least about 6s (before the nerf it would be 14s-2s).

Now those match ups where there was a 2s gap which virtually didn't make much of a difference become a lot harder when the opponent has 6 s to punish the yasuo using his only defensive spell.

So that is defnitely a big nerf Match up wise for yasuo.

Problem 2 passive shield: People complain about that a lot aswell "he gets free hp from passive", "walking gives you that hp back" (thats how the passive stacks back up by him walking) Also his shield passive is linked to his ww passive which lets him stack his shield faster when you level ww.

Now the problem

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 6
💬︎
📅︎ Jun 03 2020
🚨︎ report
Acceptance and Anxiety

"Serenity comes when you trade expectations with Acceptance" Buddha.

Have you ever imagine how much restlessness one can control and get rid of just with the help of one powerful word Acceptance. What does Acceptance means, what is the essence of this word?

Acceptance, means getting close to the reality, and take things the way they are without attaching any kind of thoughts, emotions and opinions to it. Reality is never hurtful, as it is just the outcome or the way situation turned out to be, it is only troublesome when we attach opinions, feelings and thoughts to it. The original event changes to a new and manufactured reality which is nowhere near the actuality and that is what the most hurtful and dangerous.

All this can be very easily resolved by this one word called Acceptance, which not only help you or your mind but also bring back the peace which you were always looking for. Acceptance is a such a big tool, if used well will not only help you live in present moment but also will take most of the pain away. Learn how our emotions takes us away from reality, click here.

Most of the times things become a struggle and stress because we refuse to take the outcome and fight it with our thoughts and emotions. We need to understand how so many external things are not in our control and how fighting to take control of things which are outside of us is just simply a futile effort. What and only what we can control is ourselves and our reactions, that is what's in our hand and acceptance plays a big role in bringing the control from inside. In the end that is all what matters how peaceful and in control you are of yourself.

Learn how to use this tool:

1. Emotional Acceptance: Every thought which comes to your mind, has the power to raise your feelings and emotions to a level which can lead you to take wrong steps. These steps can result in a outcome, which can change the course of action completely and that is what you don't want. Acceptance of arising emotion or feeling due to particular situation, outcome or things can play a big role here in terms of resolving the thought process, bringing the required peace and reduce the probability of wrong outcome.

For e.g: If you are not happy with your boss or the work you do, it could lead you to the thoughts of unhappiness, which can eventually produce the feelings of desperation and mental unrest. This emotion of unres

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 3
💬︎
👤︎ u/Morchelos
📅︎ Sep 10 2020
🚨︎ report
Infertility with my wife is causing relationship problems

Gonna be a long post just needed to vent my feelings somewhere into open space. Feel as if someone is listening to me and maybe somebody that can relate.

I don’t know where to start or why I’m even starting to pick up writing. I feel like every day I go to sleep with her next to me to only wake up the next day without her there. I know it’s only because of her hectic schedule that she is leaving in the wee hours of the morning but I can’t help but feel that there will be a day that she doesn’t wake up next to me and decides not to return to my arms.

Cue the violin. I know all of this must sound dramatic as this all stemmed from a single conversation saying that she was struggling with our infertility issues still (even though we took a break from trying 6 months ago) and now not having intimate feelings towards me. I can relate and understand her struggle with infertility on some level but I can’t seem to wrap my head around her change of feelings towards me. I know it’s different for everybody but for me the infertility issue wants to bring me to her arms where it seems to push her further and further away from mine. She talks about it being an internal struggle but I can’t help but blame myself that she doesn’t feel comfortable sharing her feelings and insecurities with me. I really want what is best for her and to be there for her. I don’t know how to express that to her any more than just coming out and saying it… something I have done. It is just heartbreaking to know that I can’t be the one to help fix things or be included in the process. It’s impossible to put it into words to wake up every day feeling helpless in the direction your life is headed. I understand her seeing a therapist but it would be nice to understand what she is thinking as well. She mentioned, when we were talking on Friday, that I wasn’t there for her and people that were not as close were. I didn’t mention how I felt at the time because in reality how she feels is how she feels and arguing about it isn’t going to get us anywhere or change how she feels. I guess I was so focused on being a positive rock for her that I was missing some of the other signs. She expressed that she tried to reach me and that I would take the conversation in another direction but I want her to know that it wasn’t’ done to quiet her, the change the top or direction of the conversation, but solely meant as a way to cheer her up and provide some positivism. I was also going through a

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 8
💬︎
📅︎ Sep 01 2020
🚨︎ report
I'm mad that he cheated and now they're happy.

He cheated, he left me, he got with her. She was my friend, or so I thought. I still function, I study, I go to my job, I clean, eat right, work-out and spend quality time with family, friends and my cats. My life has settled into a routine. Some days I think I'm fine and that I've moved on, but then I hear from a friend about them. Or I see something posted online pertaining to them.

I don't want to be the kind of person that wishes ill will on others, but dammit, I'm mad. I am mad that they are so happy. And I know people say to me "they're not really happy" or "they won't be happy because of how they got together", and while those are nice things for people to say, they don't comfort me at all. Because it's just words you say to try and put positivism into people instead of accepting the idea that maybe, just maybe they could actually be really happy and have something that lasts. Because everything he did, and that I went through, it feels like his life is better for it.

His parents are happy with her, her parents are happy with him. They study together, work together, laugh at things he and I never laughed at. They seem in sync much more than he and I ever were. They are each others match, and I can't deny that. It feels like I was just a pit stop to him being with her, like they were fated and I was just a plot device in someone else's love story.

Now I've settled into mediocrity, and he gets a happy ever after?

I can't help, but be angry and bitter. I am trying to work through it, but I'm definitely struggling with the "anger" stage of loss.

👍︎ 3
📰︎ r/BreakUp
💬︎
📅︎ Sep 10 2020
🚨︎ report
Poro deck emote guide

I have reached top 50 iron IV for first time with this *definitely not netdecked* poro deck after 174 games with a stunning 24% wr. Below you can see Iron proof and the decklist

*insert code and photoshopped image*

Emote discussion

The core package of this deck is braum + pride poro. They are robust turn 1 emotes, and can be played anytime during the match. While braum values decreases as you start to lose the game, pride poro increases, complementing each other in every way.

As a win condition Im running Lux and Draven. Their smile and positivism just synergizes so well with this deck. You will never lose the emote game with a well timed Lux or Draven.

As for tech im finding success with GangPlank and Tryndamere. GP can get you out of awfull situations, where you just want the game to end. And Trynda is a great response against any opponent play.

Yasuo didn't make the cut. Even he have a great smile, his "not this time" meaning have no synergy with the rest of the deck, as we wont be doing good plays often.

Haven't tested cithria as I dont have her but can be a good alternative to Trynda.

Emote F2P substitutions

I know i know, im a p2w scum. For the budget version, you can swap trynda for the sad poro and draven for shen. IMO Lux is core and you should craft her or play another deck.

General Gameplay

You usually always want to braum turn 1. This gives you a strong start and gives away no information to your opponent as he is so common. If you are lucky and your opponent don't have an answer you get ahead and you can start to snowball your emote advantage on next turns. If your braum is responded with another braum then always counter with pride poro. And if they copy the poro go for a fast Lux. This move will confuse even the best emote players.

Turn 2-4 you wanna develop your emotes. Alternate Pride Poro and Draven for maximum value.

By turn 5-6 you should already lost the board and your opponent is close to lethal damage. You should Trynda when he wipes your board. Then you want to emote a GP into multiple Lux. This will teach your opponents you dont care about the game and that you are just having fun. Thats the strongest play and can lead to an early emote-win.

If the game reach lategame we have to adapt our emote play. Alternating Poro/Draven/Lux is a solid strategy.

Specific Matchups

vs noxus overwhelm: easy emote matchup. On this matchup you usually want to save Draven for their overwhelm units (the 3 and 4 mana

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 44
💬︎
👤︎ u/Hokkyy
📅︎ Jul 02 2020
🚨︎ report
COVID-19 and The Rally Round the Flag Effect

Alternative title: The Rally Rona Flag Effect

The purpose of this post is to expand on this interesting tweet I saw: https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1243648800872443904

What is the "rally round the flag effect"?

In the US, it's basically an event that draws Americans together to support the President. John E. Mueller said such events must 1) be international, 2) involve the United States and the President, and 3) is specific, dramatic, and sharply focused in his 1970 paper Presidential Popularity from Truman to Johnson.

He said that domestic events, like riots, scandals, or strikes, don't count because they exacerbate internal divisions. Events that don't involve the US don't count either because they appear irrelevant to the public. He said that events that are gradual also don't count because they don't command public attention and their impacts on public attitudes are likely diffused.

Examples of this effect in US history include the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs. Notice that the first event had a "good" outcome and the second had a "bad" outcome. Mueller found that the public reacted in about the same way in terms of their approval for the President.

Mueller also found that time after the rally round the flag event and approval rating of the President was negatively correlated, i.e. as time increases, approval rating decreases. This happens even for successful events. Marc J. Hetherington and Michael Nelson saw that happen for the Cuban Missile Crisis, Operation Desert Storm, and the September 11 Attacks in their 2003 paper Anatomy of a Rally Effect: George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism. Page 3 of the PDF I linked has a nice graph that shows approval ratings dropping back down to pre-event levels after a time.

Does this effect hold for other countries?

Most of the research of this effect has been done on the United States, but there is evidence that this effect occurs in other countries in North America and Europe too.

Brian Lai and Dan Reiter suggested that in the United Kingdom, rallies are more likely to happen when there is a direct and intense threat to national interests in their 2005 paper [Rally ‘Round the Union Jack? Public Opinion and the Use of Force in the United Kingdom, 1948–2001](https://academic.oup.com/isq/article-abstract/49/2/255/1796362?redir

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 211
📰︎ r/neoliberal
💬︎
👤︎ u/LtGaymer69
📅︎ Mar 28 2020
🚨︎ report
European federal constitution building: (Pt 3) Thoughts concerning parliamentary supremacy/sovereignty

In this instalment of the current series on authoring a federal European constitution, I am going to deal with the controversial question how far a written constitution should bind the sovereign, and whether the state as an instrument of the sovereign should be indefinitely bound at all. I contrast parliamentary sovereignty with popular sovereignty. Ideally, this part should be read in conjunction with the following part that will deal with questions of judicial review that are inextricably linked to questions of sovereignty.

Parts to this series

Pt 0: Subsidiarity, decentralisation, and the importance of municipal autonomy

Pt 1: Revisions regarding the government of a federal EU

Pt 2: Of the administrative and the electoral branches

Pt 3: Thoughts concerning parliamentary supremacy/sovereignty

Pt 4: Judicial pre-view rather than re-view?

Pt 5: State of emergency: ideas regarding emergency powers

Pt 6: The presidential veto‘s significance

This article contrasts our current understanding of democracy with how democracy was more classically understood, and whether there are areas where the demos should proceed to reclaim its power from putative “elites”. As I became a member of DiEM25 only a short while ago, this question has sparked some interest with me because, while DiEM25 is a federalist movement, there is some talk going on about including in the eventual constitution a “sovereign parliament”. As we shall see, federalism and parliamentary sovereignty are contradictory.

Natural law against positive law

The controversy of natural law against positive law has been going on since the Enlightenment. Understanding this controversy is central to understanding why “rigid constitutionalism” (the presence of entrenched constitutional law) has become more widespread within Europe rather than its opposite, parliamentary sovereignty.

Proponents of natural law posit that law comes from sources higher than humans because law is (or ought to be) based on morals and morals come from higher sources. Such higher sources of law may be deities, holy scripture, other kinds of revelation, or “values”, among others. The problem with natural law is that what is considered natural law is contingent upon what the observer considers “natural”. In other words, the conflict over natural law circles around the question how “natural” it really is.

Positive law, on the other hand, is law that is made by humans:

&g

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 23
💬︎
📅︎ Feb 05 2020
🚨︎ report
Sex & The Failed Absolute — Reading Group "Introduction"

The Introduction To Sex & The Failed Absolute:

Primer, Introduction, Theorem 1 (part 1), Theorem 1 (Part 2), Corollary 1, Scholium 1.1/2/3, Theorem II (Part 1), Theorem II (Part 2), Theorem II (Parts 3 & 4), Corollary 2, Scholium 2.1/2/3/4, Judgment Derp, Theorem III (Part’s 1,2,3), Theorem III (Part’s 4,5,6), Corollary 3, Scholium 3, Theorem IV, Corollary 4:, Scholium 4, End of Reading Groups Synopsis

This post/reading group is really for those who have read the chapters already, or will do so as we go along. If you haven't, here it is, please try and read it before asking questions.

This is a long post (almost as long as the actual intro),

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 60
📰︎ r/zizek
💬︎
📅︎ Dec 07 2019
🚨︎ report
What did Nietzsche think about Socrates?

“Socrates, to confess it frankly, is so close to me that almost always I fight a fight against him.”

--Nietzsche (fragment, 1875)

Another user just asked, in another post:

>Can someone give me a top to bottom rundown of Nietzsche's fierce opposition to Socrates, and perhaps if you agree with Nietzsche, why Socrates is so fundamentally off in his philsophy? I think I understand that in Nietzsche's view, Socrates is a prime example of the denial of life in almost every way (he views death as the greatest thing to happen to him). However I just finished reading the five dialogues and I find Socrates logical argument in the Phaedo about the immortality of the soul quite well thought out. Can someone give me a rebuttal of the Phaedo? I think I know what the Nietzschean response would be but I want to be sure. A lot here, but hopefully I can get some clarity .

In typical essentialsalts fashion, I've authored a response to this question so long that it would take up multiple comments, so /u/purpleguitar1984 gets a whole post to answer his question.

Someone else already responded to the Phaedo question; without commenting at all on whether I agree with their answer, I will simply leave that part of the question to others.

To give the devil his due, I've edited this post to include perhaps one of the strongest denouncements of Socrates in Nietzsche's work, The Gay Science, 340, which I will quote in excerpt:

>Whether it was death, or the poison, or piety, or wickedness - something or other loosened [Socrates'] tongue at that moment, and he said : "O Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepios." For him who has ears, this ludicrous and terrible "last word" implies: "O Crito, life is a long sickness!" Is it possible! A man like him, who had lived cheerfully and to all appearance as a soldier, - was a pessimist! He had merely put on a good demeanour towards life, and had all along concealed his ultimate judgment, his profoundest sentiment! Socrates, Socrates had suffered from life! And he also took his revenge for it - with that veiled, fearful, pious, and blasphemous phrase! Had even a Socrates to revenge himself? Was there a grain too little of magnanimity in his superabundant virtue?

Nietzsche's characterization of Socrates here as pessimist, along with the implications of Socrates calling life a long sickness, might seem to settle the issue. But we may notice at th

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 65
📰︎ r/Nietzsche
💬︎
📅︎ May 09 2020
🚨︎ report
Beginner's Guide on how to (Carlist) Spain in HFM/TGC

>"Woe to all who would harm us now!"
>
>- Irelia

Destroyed by the British Navy and Financial Empire (by financing those pesky independists), humiliated by Napoleon and backwards by inefficient policies, Spain has definitively seen better days.

There have been some threads in which some players have problems playing Spain. This is mostly because of its low literacy, no industry, and poor position in the world (with only Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines as colonial bases). However, Spain also starts in an amazing position to rise again and becoming a nice player on global politics. In this guide, I will plan on giving you the most "stable" type of growth for Spain, before going for massive expansions.

Pre-Starting the game, what should be changed?

The only thing I would change for a more "historical" feat would be changing the MTTH of the Talambó Incident (the one that starts the Chincha Islands War in 1863) from "months = 12" to "days = 1" because this war did happen anyways. And it will give you CBs, plus it's accurate on what would happen in a diplomatic crisis of South America vs Spain. Only change that would need to be done.

1836 - Why Carlists?

At the beginning, choosing to put Carlos V on the throne instead of Isabel has direct benefits:

  • Essentially, it removes the rebel pops so your army is stronger.
  • Enables the option for Reconquista. Which is an option that lets you reconquer Latin America and form the viceroyalties again. Why is this good instead of simply sphering them?
    • Because other great powers will have penalties when trying to influence them.
    • They got great resources.
    • If they go HMS Government, they can get immigrants fast.
    • New Granada enables you the Panama Canal.
    • You have strong allies that are not easily invaded by other Great Powers (if you intervene, anyways).
    • Only downside is that they usually stay as Absolute Monarchies and give USA more immigrants.
  • State Capitalism: You can build early industry.
  • Downside is that it removes the liberal reforms, but you won't get jacobin rebels until 1845-1850 and 1860-1870 respectively. For the first wave, making trade unions illegal weirdly reduces their militancy and thus troops numbers.
  • Another downside is that Christino Sympathies, although less harsh than Carlist sympathies, generate on important coal and iron provinces.

1836 - Before Unpausing

Build 7 transport ships to move your main army, as Central A

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 92
📰︎ r/victoria2
💬︎
📅︎ May 06 2020
🚨︎ report
Marco Sturm is (most likely) staying with the Kings

From recent interview with EishockeyNews magazine, on a question regarding his current contract situation: "[...] Management, coaches and I had some good meetings, and although nothing is official yet, I'm definitely staying in LA"

Heres a Link (in German): https://www.eishockeynews.de/artikel/2020/02/19/marco-sturm-ueber-einen-verbleib-bei-den-los-angeles-kings-es-sieht-positiv-aus/c3d86f49-abbc-4231-8882-cb6b1727560c.html

👍︎ 23
💬︎
📅︎ Jun 08 2020
🚨︎ report
The feminist book of the genders.

Today, the main subject was feminism. Gender studies was briefly mentioned towards the end.

The main subjects of the course were:

1. What is feminism?

2. The feminist waves and histories

3. From women's studies to gender studies.

-What is feminism?-

We started off with class discussion on this subject. With some cliff-notes regarding comments from the students:

  • A good thing
  • Ending all forms of sexism as goal
  • That being a feminist is politically correct
  • Started as women's liberation, but has grown/changed from there

The lecturer had some notes as well. It was quite clear that the lecturer was talking about their own feminism, and acknowledged others could have other definitions.

  • Calling it feminism(s), to clearly show that there is more than one feminism. This brought up a criticism of feminists that if they can't agree with each other, why should anyone else listen to them?
  • Feminism as politically unfaithful, not permanently aligned with any political side.
  • A goal of creating fairness and freedom. Which means acknowledging that we live in a world that isn't fair, or has equality.
  • A foundation of feminist analysis being that something in the world relating to gender makes us unequal.
  • Feminism having moved from a focus on women, to a focus on gender. Which embraces both men and trans identities.
  • The last point was that "my feminism will be intersectional, or it will be bullshit." Bringing in race, ethnicity, class, body, nationality, etc.

Moving on to talking more generally and openly about feminism, some interesting points were gleaned. These were from students

  • S:We will never reach a point where we won't need feminism.
  • S:It is important to call yourself a feminist, even if everyone is a feminist. Because it it isn't something we talk about, someone might think they can get away with snatching power.
  • S:Who controls who is or isn't a feminist?

Next up we watched Roxane Gay's Confessions of a bad feminist, TED Talk.

Afterwards, the discussion was if Gay is a bad feminist. I'll list some of the (highly abbreviated) comments:

  • S:No, because she believes in equality, as long as she tries.
  • S:No, because the standard feminists are held to is too high.
  • S:Gay holds up different types of feminism, and points out how they fail at each other's standards.
  • S:A diffi
... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 24
💬︎
👤︎ u/kor8der
📅︎ Aug 27 2019
🚨︎ report
The Republic: Thrasymachus, the unconventional SP

[Continuing from The Republic: Polemarchus, the young SJ.]

It is a pleasure to read Thrasymachus' argument, finally putting Socrates in his place, and calling him out for being a jerk. Socrates ultimately beats him too, but as Blooms points out, only by slipping one past him. Thrasymachus is skilled at debating, and that is where Socrates beats him. In the quest for truth however, Thrasymachus makes a valid point, and one that Socrates ignores rather than addresses. The irony is, this is pretty much exactly what Thrasymachus accused Socrates of doing before having it done to himself.

Socrates relates the story from his perspective though, with him being calm and collected and Thrasymachus being a wild animal, perhaps to bolster his own position and aggrandize Thrasymachus' defeat:

>Now Thrasymachus had many times started out to take over the argument in the midst of our discussion, but he had been restrained by the men sitting near him, who wanted to hear the argument out. But when we paused and I said this, he could no longer keep quiet; hunched up like a wild beast, he flung himself at us as if to tear us to pieces. Then both Polemarchus and I got all in a flutter from fright. And he shouted out into our midst and said, “What is this nonsense that has possessed you for so long, Socrates? And why do you act like fools making way for one another? If you truly want to know what the just is, don’t only ask and gratify your love of honor by refuting whatever someone answers—you know that it is easier to ask than to answer—but answer yourself and say what you assert the just to be. And see to it you don’t tell me that it is the needful, or the helpful, or the profitable, or the gainful, or the advantageous; but tell me clearly and precisely what you mean, for I won’t accept it if you say such inanities.”

Blooms interprets this as:

>Thrasymachus bursts violently into the discussion. He is angry because Socrates and Polemarchus had been engaged in a dialogue. He sees this as a form of weakness. The participants in a dialogue obey certain rules which, like laws, govern their association; they seek a common agreement instead of trying to win a victory. The very art of dialectic seems to impose a kind of justice on those who practice it, whereas rhetoric, the art of making long speeches without being questioned—Thrasymachus’ art—is adapted to self-aggran

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 2
💬︎
👤︎ u/chacham2
📅︎ Apr 13 2020
🚨︎ report
Nearing 1 year of NoFap. I have made more life progress this year than in all 25 previous years combined.

Roughly half a year ago, I posted my 6 months NoFap update here in this subreddit. This post turned out to be quite helpful for many members here and I highly recommend you to read it if you haven't already. It also contains in-depth descriptions of the many benefits that I experience.

I made a hell of a lot progress during those first 6 months. It allowed me to put an end to a seemingly never-ending period of anxiety, disappointment and lack of self esteem. But the 6 months after that definitely deserve their own post too. What a time it has been!

The most recent thing that I described in my last post was losing my job. This was strongly related to my NoFap journey: it gave me the confidence to speak up about malpractices in this family-run company I was working for, which ultimately led to a 'feud' with the company's owner and his wife. They bought me out of my contract because they feared I would turn other employees against them and 'take over' the company. A very surreal experience, but 6 months later I can genuinely say I am very happy that it happened!

Around the start of my NoFap journey, I was proactively trying to move out of my comfort zone. This meant taking on challenges or tasks which I would normally not be interested in. One of these things was organizing a youth exchange about mental health, with participants coming from 6 different European countries. After months of preparation (and shortly after my last post) the exchange took place in July. And it turned out that everything had been totally worth it: the exchange was a huge success, and probably one of the best weeks of my life. At that time, I was at the peak of my powers: I was spending a lot of time outside, I had peace of mind, I was physically fit, and I didn't stress about anything. I was in a very good place. All because of NoFap, which gave me access to the potential that had always been in me.

And other people noticed. During this exchange, I seemed to have 'star power'. I kid you not. People were constantly commenting on my positivism, my calm, my physique (very interesting because I was always the skinny guy), and probably most of all: my eyes. Being on NoFap and incorporating healthy habits in your life really changes the color, shape and intensity of your eyes. I just seemed to be everybody's favorite person there, and it was genuine. A few people mentioned that I seemed to

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 263
📰︎ r/NoFap
💬︎
📅︎ Nov 14 2019
🚨︎ report
Crazy Motherfucking War!

Reading Group — Sex & the Failed Absolute

Theorem IV: The Persistence of Abstraction

Primer, Introduction, Theorem 1 (part 1), Theorem 1 (Part 2), Corollary 1, Scholium 1.1/2/3, Theorem II (Part 1), Theorem II (Part 2), Theorem II (Parts 3 & 4), Corollary 2, Scholium 2.1/2/3/4, Judgment Derp, Theorem III (Part’s 1,2,3), Theorem III (Part’s 4,5,6), Corollary 3, Scholium 3, Theorem IV, Corollary 4:, Scholium 4, End of Reading Groups Synopsis

Nearly there, only two sections to cover. This is the whole of Theorem IV, so big post.


Madness, Sex, War

You can run, but you can’t hide, abstract negativity is gonna get you, a kind of “hauntology” with a twist — a friend reminded me of this Derridean notion recently, and

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 20
📰︎ r/zizek
💬︎
📅︎ Mar 28 2020
🚨︎ report
Andrzej Sapkowski about accusations of sexism, postmodernism, adaptations and why there is no map - part 2

Andrzej Sapkowski in an interview with Waldemar Czerniszewski, 1993, part 2.

WC: How did you react when you found out that there was an initiative to turn the world of the Witcher visible, meaning the comic book adaptation?

AS: At first I was a bit scared. To be honest, I've had many proposals to show ''The Witcher'' as a comic book. It started from the Polkom con in Olsztyn, where I was swarmed by sketch artists and ''comic book guys''. I kept refusing them, I didn't really know if it was possible to do it. Ultimately, I decided to accept the proposal of my publisher and Bogdan Polch, who convinced me that in ''Komiks'' (the magazine in which the Witcher comic books were published – translator's note), everything is possible. I can already see it's true. The number of comic books I've read proves that with the image, the lines and the text box, you can show much.

WC: I've witnessed many interesting reactions from my friends, who, when they discover that other than my day job I also create comic books, tell me ''Man, why even bother, it's literature for idiots!'' What, Mr. Andrzej, do you think about comic book as a medium?

AS: I don't share that opinion, even though I was never as passionate about comic books as a lot of other people are, especially young people, who are just comic book maniacs. But I've read comic books many times and with great pleasure, too. I bought Polish and foreign ones, borrowed them from my friends and got to know many different genres. I never considered comic books to be ''literature for idiots'', just like I don't think that literature is ''creating for idiots''. In any form – drawn, told, written, filmed – there's something for ''idiots'' and ''non-idiots''. In my mind, comic book is worth no less than other forms of literature, than other forms of... ART. I don't know enough about comic books to make solid statements, but other than the comic books that are pieces of art, I've also read those I didn't like.

WC: How, as the creator of the Witcher world, do you judge the work of the sketch artist, looking at the already drawn land ''between Ina and Jaruga''?

AS: That's where the biggest problem lies, stemming from the simple fact that I've never had the ambition to create worlds. Never! The world of the Witcher was always an allegory to me. I've never done what's supposed to be a Commandment of every fantasy writer, especially one that writes a longer story or a novel. He starts with the heavy dut

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 33
📰︎ r/witcher
💬︎
👤︎ u/Todokugo
📅︎ Aug 15 2019
🚨︎ report
Kommentar: Studien-Wachtturm 2020-07 - Teil 1, "Du stolzer, egoistischer Streitsüchtiger!"

Denk nicht höher von dir, als nötig ist

Quelle

>Demut motiviert uns, Jehovas Wünsche über unsere eigenen zu stellen und andere höher zu achten als uns selbst. (Absatz 1)

In den Publikationen der Zeugen wird regelmäßig darauf gepocht, sich Jehova unterzuordnen und seine eigenen Wünsche zurückzustellen. Dabei spricht dieser Jehova mit einem ja gar nicht. Wer daran glaubt, hat nur die Bibel von ihm. Aber Bibellesen allein reicht bei den Zeugen nicht. Sie haben ein selbsternanntes “Sprachrohr” Gottes: Die Leitende Körperschaft. Und diese ist es, die den Zeugen sagt, was in Wirklichkeit Gottes Wille ist. Und damit liest sich der zitierte Satz so: “Demut motiviert uns, die Wünsche der Leitenden Körperschaft über unsere eigenen zu stellen …”. Und genau das tun die Zeugen.

>Wenn wir nicht vorsichtig sind, könnten uns stolze, selbstsüchtige Menschen in Satans System beeinflussen.
>
>KURZ ERKLÄRT: Ein stolzer Mensch neigt dazu, sich selbst wichtiger zu nehmen als andere. Er ist also selbstsüchtig*. Demut dagegen macht Menschen selbstlos.* Demut wird definiert als Fehlen von Stolz oder Arroganz. (Absatz 2 mit Fußnote)

Und hiermit kommen wir schon zum Versuch, die Zeugen im Denken zu manipulieren, wenn die Organisation hier behauptet, ein stolzer Mensch würde sich selbst wichtiger nehmen als andere. Schauen wir uns mal an, wie der Duden das Wort stolz definiert:

>1. a) von Selbstbewusstsein und Freude über einen Besitz, eine [eigene] Leistung erfüllt; ein entsprechendes Gefühl zum Ausdruck bringend oder hervorrufend
>
>b) in seinem Selbstbewusstsein überheblich und abweisend

Die Organisation bedient sich in der Fußnote der zweiten Bedeutung, nimmt aber die Leute, die nach der ersten Bedeutung stolz sind, in Sippenhaft. Die Zeugen sollen, wenn es nach der Organisation geht, auch nicht auf Dinge stolz sein, die sie selbst erreicht haben. In den vergangenen Ausgaben des Wachtturms wurden die Zeugen wiederholt darauf hingewiesen, dass sie selbst nichts können und nichts Wert sind und dass alles, was sie erreichen, in Wirklichkeit Gottes Geist zuzuschreiben ist und nicht ihnen. Und wer dazu gebracht worden ist, sich selbst so zu sehen, ist leichter steuerbar - vor allem von selbsternannten Vertretern Gottes.

>*Manche stellen fest, dass sie sich ständig mit ihrem Ehepartner streiten, und schlussfolgern dann, sie würden einfa

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 20
📰︎ r/exzj
💬︎
📅︎ Apr 22 2020
🚨︎ report
The bad science and history of a science-focused story: What does Senku from Dr. STONE get terribly wrong despite the incredible manga’s attention to detail and being so well-researched? Its most central topic: What science is. (Part one, minimal spoilers.)

SUMMARY INCLUDED NEAR THE END. I feel I should emphasize because a lot of people missed the summary and it caused a great deal of confusion. Please see summary if you’d like to know what’s what.

Anyway, hi /r/badscience! I’m pretty much certain that nobody remembers me, but I used to have fun making these little high effort R1s back in the day here and people really liked them! I truly had a blast, and I recently watched a show that made me want to return here again. So, not that it will mean anything to anyone, but long time no see. :) Really had fun with this one and look forward to any polite thoughts, amendments, addendums, et cetera! #Introduction: What is Dr. STONE all about? So, I just finished Dr. STONE, binged it all while studying for my physics final (which I did pretty well on, thanks for asking). It’s not perfect; I could definitely write a pretty detailed review on its aesthetic and moral accuracies and inaccuracies, but I’m willing to bet plenty of people more experienced with that sort of thing already are, and have repeated the points I’d have to make ad nauseam.

No, what really prompted me to write about Dr. STONE is not my assessment of how good the show is and whatever evidence I have to convince you that I’m right (though I do think it’s a fairly good show), but rather my claims about the accuracy of Dr. STONE’s claims about science. The show, for those unfamiliar with it, is about a teenager with superhuman scientific knowledge trying to see if he can (for reasons I won’t reveal) obtain our technology from scratch.

While he does this, the show explores a lot of topics central to what science is:

  1. Does science produce epistemic achievements about unobservables? That is, does science ever figure out anything? Are our best scientific theories approximating truth?
  2. What is the essence of science?
  3. Does science have a specific method to it? If so, what?
  4. Who should we, and scientists, recognize as having epistemic authority?

All of these are really important questions, but I can’t go over them all. Here’s a brief answer to each of them, and an overview of what I’ll be discussing in this post.

  1. Experts are about four times as likely to say “yes” than “no,” but there’s still a lot of disagreement on the issue. Furthermore, despite the expert consensus on the matter, scientists at large seem to disagree, with many leading scholars observing that scientists tend to hold or express what are called “anti-realist
... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 48
📰︎ r/badscience
💬︎
📅︎ Dec 16 2019
🚨︎ report
Taking "phallic" too literal? Separatism, lesbian feminism and the linguistic turn applied to feminism.

I was reading some texts by Luce Irigaray and I encountered something that I felt was problematic.

She talks about how a "phallic" society is literally derived from the way penises are. Interesting thought but when she goes into this it gets convoluted:

> "women should create a female sexuality. Irigaray contrasted the singularity implied by the male sexual organ with the multiplicity implied by the female sexual organs. In particular, she localized the feminine voice in the labia, "two lips" that reveal woman to be neither one nor two. Woman is not two, because the labia belong to a single woman's body, "which keeps woman in touch with herself, but without any possibility of distinguishing what is touching from what is touched". However, woman is not one, either, because the labia represent a woman's multiple and diffuse (nonphallic) sexuality: "So woman does not have a sex organ? She has at least two of them, but they are not identifiable as ones. Indeed, she has many more. Her sexuality is always at least double, goes even further; it is plural"

And then comes:

> "Irigaray did not simply contrast the plural, circular and aimless vaginal/clitoral libidinal economy of women with the singular, linear and teleological phallic libidinal economy of men. She also argued that the expression of these libidinal economies [...] extends to all forms of human expression, including social structures. Just as the penetration of the penis prevents the lips from touching, so the phallic unity of the Symbolic order repressed the multiplicity of female sexuality. [....] only through lesbian and autoerotic practice [can women unshackle their potentiality]. As women explore the multifaceted terrain of the female body, they can learn to think thoughts, speak words and do deeds powerful enough to displace the phallus.

I have a couple of questions and criticisms which I wish to share and comment:

  • The "phallic" label literally means "related to the penis". However, I feel the sensible use of the term is to describe a social institution derived from an interpretation of what manhood should be, defining women as a function of men and organizing society around gender valences. Phallic and patriarchal would not be the same by this definition. Phallic would mean something that is defined entirely around what a man should or should not be. Other definitions derived would be secondary (equally meaningful, but not "intentional") However, Irigaray seems to take "phallic
... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 3
💬︎
📅︎ Dec 15 2019
🚨︎ report
[Rem] To discuss philosophy on a platform, you must read philosophy

EDIT 1: sorry had to fix some things

EDIT 2: I should note that this applies *only to people who frame themselves as knowing something definitively. The exploration of philosophical ideas is AMAZING and should be ENCOURAGED. Destiny does this for example (most of the time afaik). Im talking about people who go on platforms are promote ideas they treat as truth, when they are not well read enough to be able to say such a thing. Okay thanks sorry for confusion.


Before you get angry or downvote, I recognise how this is going to come across: I'm an angry Phil boi who wants to shout out others for not engaging in the same pretentious texts I engage in, and that anyone who tries to engage with it in a way that doesn't fit my model is a bad person. AKA, pretentious, snobbish, stuck-up, etc.

It's not going to come off this way because it's not as extreme as it sounds. My broad conclusion is this: if you wish to discuss/argue seriously about a given philosophical topic in front of a large crowd/group of people, you need to be well read enough in the specific topic to know the general overview of the various positions and historical development of the field.

Maybe this still sounds a bit extreme, but let's consider a different field: physics.

I think almost everyone would be in agreement that someone is acting irresponsibly on a platform if they are attempting to pass off the Lorentz aether theory on stream without having read in detail what this entails, and what views rival this theory. Why do we think this is irresponsible? Here are some possible criterion we could appeal to:

  1. The theory is outdated and the model does not mesh with our current understandings of science.

  2. The individual is possibly spreading a false narrative to the viewers because they are not aware of the intricacies of such a position.

  3. The individual does not have any knowledge of the area they are actually discussing. They do not have the justification ready to posit their current theory as correct insofar as we wish justification to be at least thoroughly rigorous.

Now, this example obviously differs from philosophy in many ways. For one, many philosophical areas/positions (arguably most [or even all]) are not subject to empirical overthrow. Indeed, the very notion of empiricism (understood as external objects having relevance within the field of discourse) is itself seeking justification within many areas of philosophy (however obviously there

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 35
📰︎ r/Destiny
💬︎
📅︎ Feb 08 2019
🚨︎ report
What is the practical use of performance ethnography?

I studied communication back in uni and took a class on performance ethnography, and I’m torn on the whole purpose of it.

I identify as an intetpretivist, while I find positivism extremely important, I think interpretivism has valuable uses in the scientific community. However I feel that performance ethnography is stretching it a little too far, it’s pretty much turning it entirely into art. And while I do love art and I work in a creative field, I feel like the performance aspect kind of renders it almost useless to the scientific community.

What are your thoughts?

Edit I've definitely worded this poorly—by "scientific community" I should have considered a term that didn't refer to positivist doctrine or principles like "what counts as science." Honestly, I'm not sure what the best philosophical school of thought is to define where empirical data and qualitative research intersect. There's so much out there.

That said, I know philosophical arguments don't always have practical use in empirical science, and I certainly don't think they need to—I believe they provide wonderful insights for thought and new perspectives (I'm a big fan of social constructionism). But for some reason, through all the philosophical paradigms and communication theory I've been exposed to and researched, I just haven't found performance ethnography to further any legitimate contributions to those schools of thought... for me. Maybe it's just my perspective, maybe I'm keeping my mind a little too closed. I do love art and culture and how we express ourselves and construct our worlds through artistic expression, but performance ethnography just never really provided much value to me...

👍︎ 2
💬︎
👤︎ u/shaherrrb
📅︎ Apr 09 2020
🚨︎ report
All philosophy is value judgements?

I am a bit confused, and this may be that I am unfamiliar with philosophy; but it seems like a lot of philosophical arguments dwindle down to value judgments (as a judgment being good or bad, proper or improper; although, this definition fails to make adequate sense and leave out a lot [someone has a better defintion?]). An example being when the evidence is sufficient for a position or if the argument is sound. Unless, I am mistaken - and very well could be.

These seem to be what constitutes rational, and by opposite, irrational (maybe arational), a good measurement from a bad measurement, a good argument from a bad one, etc. And these are independent of argumemts, or something like basic "things". This leads me to believe that it may simply all be subjectivism of some form, but that cannot be right? I imagine that most of philosophy runs down traditions of schools of thought, e.g. Positivism or Cartesian Philosophy, but that seems to be something of a subjective aspect, i.e. traditions of beliefs, attitudes, and emotions.

I cannot imagine a counterexample to this kind of Subjectivism. And unsure if it extends to all domains of Philosophy, e.g. ethics to epistemology to philosophy of science, because most philosophies rest upon the reasoned conclusions of philosophers, which are in turn philosophical traditions.

All of this leads to the first conclusion of not being convinced of objective aspects of philosophy, but that sounds like it confuses subjective and objective distinctions. The subjective based on beliefs, emotions, and attitudes; whereas, objective based on none of those. As stated, roughly, above. This also seems inaccurate way to capture the distinction, but seems in the right direction.

I am just at a lost and believe it is simply about disagreements, which I can read more about in SEP, BUT I'd appreciate some thoughts on my own reasoning process here and if there are counterexamples and limits?

And direction to further investigation would be immensely appreciated!

👍︎ 2
💬︎
📅︎ Oct 30 2019
🚨︎ report
How to respond to someone who claims that atheism is self-defeating?

I'm in a discussion with someone who is claiming that atheism and associated philosophies are self-defeating (see this article). What is the best way to respond? Here is the content of that post, which basically follows the same argument structure for a few topics:

SOME SELF-DEFEATING IDEAS

(1) LOGICAL POSITIVISM AND (2)THE PRINCIPLE OF VERIFICATION

[Definition:] Logical Positivism (later also known as Logical Empiricism) is a theory in Epistemology and Logic that developed out of Positivism and the early Analytic Philosophy movement, and which campaigned for a systematic reduction of all human knowledge to logical and scientific foundations. Thus, [its principle of verification says] a statement is meaningful only if it is either purely formal (essentially, mathematics and logic) or capable of empirical verification.[source; Emphasis mine]

Premise 1: According to logical positivism and the principle of verification, a statement is meaningful only if it is either purely formal (math or logic) or capable of empirical verification.

Premise 2: But that claim is neither a purely formal statement nor capable of empirical verification. Conclusion: Therefore Logical Positivism and the principle of verification are self-defeating

(3) SCIENTISM

[Definition]Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge. [Source]

Premise 1: According to Scientism, science is the only source of real knowledge.

Premise 2: But that following statement is not itself scientific (it is philosophical) Conclusion: Therefore Scientism is self-defeating

(4) MATERIALISM

[Definition] The doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modification. [source]

Premise 1: According to materialism, nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

Premise 2: The meaning of that very sentence is neither matter, movement, nor modification. [Semantic meaning is immaterial] Conclusion: Therefore materialism is self-defeating.

(5) EMPIRICISM

[Definition] Empiricism is the theory that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, and argues that the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (i.e. based on experience).

Premise 1: All knowledge originates from sense experience.

Premise 2: That sentence does not originate from sense e

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 13
💬︎
📅︎ Apr 02 2019
🚨︎ report
Long time waiting for vegan answers

I've interacted with dozens of vegans for quite a long time. Following their own activism guidelines I like to employ the Socratic method, asking provocative questions that allow people to critically think about their own arguments underlying presuppositions. The problem is that more often than not I never get any answers at all. In /r/debateavegan vegans downvote me for asking these questions. Here, the vegan lurkers will also downvote me but probably not as much, so I'll ask them here. I'd like to see if any vegan would provide meaningful answers.

I) What is the trait that makes it OK for us to spay and neuter nonhuman animals - like pets or members of invasive species - but not human babies? In fact, what is the trait that allows us to treat non-human animals - within the "possible and practicable" in ways that we wouldn't condone doing in humans?


II) Likewise, why do people give moral value to anancephalic babies, or brain-dead humans, or people in persistent vegetative state, or the mortal remains of the diseased? Why do people honor the last wishes of dead people and why necrophilia is deemed to be morally wrong? Since none of these individuals are sentient, should we give moral consideration to other creatures and things which possess equivalent traits such as plants, rocks, etc? Could we use the same rationale to explain why we grant moral value to marginal case humans?


III) We award positive rights to humans which belong part of the so called marginal-cases: Babies and toddlers, the senile, the mentally-retarded. In fact, neglecting to adequately take care of them - house them, feed them, etc. is considered morally wrong. Should we award similar positive rights to nonhuman animals which possess similar traits as per NTT within the idea of the equal consideration of interests? If so, how could that possibly work?


IV) Vegans say that impregnating cows for the purpose of obtaining milk is a form of rape. Vegans also work on the basis that vegan lifestyle is constrained by the "possible and practicable", which realistically means that people should set their own survival and welfare above other practical considerations, meaning that in some cases - let's say African pastoralists who depend on livestock for their nutrition - exploiting cattle for milk is morally permissible. Does it mean that rape is sometimes OK?

*Quick note: I ask this because I did a post on the justifiability of rape under the "possible and practicable" in /r

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 5
💬︎
📅︎ Feb 14 2019
🚨︎ report
How does positivism differ from empiricism? Why does positivism reject materialism?

I have tended to associate positivism with people like Karl Popper and ideas like falsification and verificationism, and ultimately the idea that all real knowledge is a result of sensory experience and that there is no such thing as a priori knowledge. In my mind it seems that these notions are necessarily linked to materialism, if matter is not the fundamental substance of the world then the position that sensory experience is the only path to knowledge seems incoherent, as our senses can only perceive matter and if there is more to the world than the material then there is knowledge that can only be acquired from extra sensory means.

However, there are two issues here: The first is that this definition of positivism is identical to empiricism, so if this is the true definition why is the distinction made? The second is that positivists reject materialism but that does not make sense to me because as I said it seems implicit in their position that everything is made from matter, the only way around that would be if they accepted Cartesian dualism but believed that because “the mind”, the world of extra-material ideal forms is beyond the reach of our senses that there is no knowledge to be had from it.

I must be misreading or misunderstanding something so can you please tell me what?

👍︎ 14
💬︎
👤︎ u/ysfil
📅︎ May 14 2019
🚨︎ report
“It never happened,” said Wayne. “The Holocaust never happened.”

That does make Wayne a Holocaust denier. There are other deniers out here, like Moon landing deniers and climate change deniers, but Holocaust deniers are the worst.

“You’re basically the standard against which we judge all deniers,” said Jocelyn. “You’re the worst type, and we grade or measure other deniers against the likes of you Wayne.”

“Why would you deny the Holocaust?” said William. “What, do you hate Jews?”

“I don’t hate anybody, I’m a liberal.”

Being a Holocaust denier is to deny that a great number of mostly but not exclusively Jewish people were murdered, just for being Jewish and Nonnazi. I’m sure if ever a Jew publicly agreed to Nazism---never mind. Nazism is Antisemitic. So just for being a Jew, you were sentenced to death.

“Well you don’t deny then that Nazism is illiberal?” said Margaret.

“It’s virtually impossible to be completely illiberal. History testifies to that. Even in the most totalitarian dictatorial regimes, even still liberalism is found. Nazism is illiberal because we believe that Jews are people, just as the notion of keeping slaves is illiberal, because poc are people.”

“Why do you deny the Holocaust?” said Jennifer.

“I just do.”

You can’t just deny the Holocaust without being some form of Nazi. This is why the politics of climate change is so high-energy, because people who deny climate change are seen as some form of Nazi.

For liberals though, climate change is like riparian rights cases writ large.

“Wayne, are you a Nazi? Do you know that you’re a Nazi?” said Partha.

“What do you mean, does he know? How could you be a Nazi and not know it?” said Hera. “Unless, do you mean, that denying the Holocaust makes you a Nazi, ipso facto?”

“Of course denying the Holocaust makes you a Nazi,” said Penelope.

Can you deny the Holocaust and not be a Nazi? Survey definitely says no.

“I’m a liberal, and I deny the Holocaust ever happened,” said Wayne.

“Maybe you need to reexamine what it means to be liberal,” said Wendy. “Liberalism believes that ‘all men are created equal’,’ but it sounds like you don’t believe that Jews are ‘men’.”

“I do not believe that Jews are ‘men’,” said Wayne.

Such a thing would be met with anger. If someone said, “I don’t think Jews are people”, you would I would think react with disbelief and anger.

“So how do you think about what we call the Holocaust, if it wasn’t wholesale murder of innocent people?”

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 2
📰︎ r/copypasta
💬︎
👤︎ u/Nee_Nihilo
📅︎ Feb 29 2020
🚨︎ report
Top Posts and Comments of the Day

Top of the Day for 12/03/2020

For frequently asked questions, please click here. Times shown on this page are in UTC, and dates are displayed as Day/Month/Year.

There are some limitations with the Reddit API that still need to be worked around, you can help contribute to this bot through its GitHub page.

Most Upvoted Posts of the Day

First Place

>Please enjoy this video of me getting rocked by a trash can. > >posted by /u/shuckfeldt on /r/funny > >Click here to view the post. ● 168,419 Upvotes ● Posted: 11/03/2020 at 00:33:19 UTC

Second Place

>So there is this scientist... > >posted by /u/thepotsmoker on /r/memes > >Click here to view the post. ● 121,789 Upvotes ● Posted: 11/03/2020 at 14:01:32 UTC

Third Place

>it's beyond science > >posted by /u/AReallyHugeDik on /r/memes > >Click here to view the post. ● 108,776 Upvotes ● Posted: 11/03/2020 at 04:28:34 UTC

Fourth Place

>Harvey Weinstein sentenced to 23 years in prison for sex assault in case that sparked 'MeToo' movement > >posted by /u/JAlbert653 on /r/news > >Click here to view the post. ● 108,397 Upvotes ● Posted: 11/03/2020 at 15:05:01 UTC

Fifth Place

>Me and the boys can confirm > >posted by /u/TigoOver on /r/memes > >Click here to view the post. ● 99,044 Upvotes ● Posted: 11/03/2020 at 09:52:32 UTC

Most Downvoted Posts of the Day

This section is currently being worked on.

Most Upvoted Comments of the Day

IMPORTANT NOTE: This section may be not be accurate as it is under development. Currently this only gets the most upvoted top-level comments from the most upvoted posts today.

First Place

>Took the hit and circled back for more. Respect. > >posted by /u/enrico-eric on /r/funny > >Click here to view the post. ● 15,699 Upvotes ● Posted: 11/03/2020 at 00:44:29 UTC

Second Place

>`I absolutely did

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 3
📰︎ r/TopOfThe
💬︎
📅︎ Mar 12 2020
🚨︎ report
2 years

Hello my name is André, I’m an Alcoholic and today I am two years sober.

(EDIT) First of all thank you so, so much for all the comments and wishes. It means alot to me.

Sorry for some mistakes and grammer to come, I am from Germany so English is not my native language but I give my best!

So how did I do it and what has changed: two days after I came out of rehab I went to my first AA Meeting and obviously it became a huge and important part of my journy. I think what impressed my the most was to see so many people who looked healthy and happy, so I thought "those people must have done something right to look and sound this good". After the meeting one guy came to me and started smalltalk with me. He asked me "so, what and how much did you drink?". My answer was "a bottle of vodka each day for ten years". Even in the context of AA I felt bad and extrem for the amount I drank, but the other guy started laughing and said "well that's nothing. I drank 2-3 bottles of vodka a day. Do you already have numbers to call?". I was a bit confused and then he gave me right away a list with six names and numbers on it. "Here, if you feel the need to drink, call me or anybody from the list. We will stay on the phone with you till you don't wanna drink anymore". I hade to fight my tears in this moment bacause I was not used to strangers offering me help. I saved the numbers of two people that seemed nice to me on my mobilphone and just that help sooooo much. Just to know that help is only a phonecall away. I stayed with that meeting for the fist 9 month of my soberty. Than the group started to change drasticly. The two people that I liked the most left the meeting so I decided that it's also time for a change. In my city there are 122 meetings each week, I tried alot of them till I found a new group that I felt the most comfortable, so I went to meetings at least once a week till today. After ten years of heavy drinking my life was a mess and I didn't know where to start with cleaning up the mess I have created. The meetings helped me to figure out how to put prioritys on my problems. Part of my messed up mind was that I truly belived that I was HIV positiv, as I'm gay and had some unprotected sex while I was still drinking, so this became prio number 1. After three month of being sober I was ready to go to a docter and get tested and TADAH... the test was negativ. After six month of soberty I started to clean my appartment. I had 60 big bags of trash and empty bottles

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 97
💬︎
👤︎ u/AndKrem
📅︎ Jul 03 2019
🚨︎ report
Going to start NoFap now and I have some questions.

Hei guys, I finished one month NoFap, 3 months ago. For me it didnt change much?! I was definitely no so out of energy, but thats all. Now i would like to try 100 days.

question 1: Am i allowed to have sex, handjobs or blowjobs? (Which i would recieve from my wife)

question 2: When will the positiv effect come?

👍︎ 3
📰︎ r/NoFap
💬︎
👤︎ u/Furchtloos
📅︎ Feb 04 2020
🚨︎ report
[Suggestion] I think I found an interesting matchup for Thanos

So, I assume we're still getting Thanos at some point, right? The most common matchups I read for him are Tom Brady, Joker, King Solomon and Kratos and, while I'd be okay with any of them, I think I found one with a deeper connection. Previously I vouched for Thanos vs Frieza, but, assuming they're willing to redo some characters, especially when they were underutilized, I'd use the same connection of Thanos vs Kratos, but apply it to the OG God Killer, Nietzsche. Nietzsche's been in one of the best and most beloved rap battles, but he just had a few lines in a royale and I think his ideais could be expanded greatly in a full rap battle. Being one of the most famous and relevant thinkers of all time, I'd say he's definitely worthy of a full battle.

Now, let me elaborate on the connection. Of course, god killers, but it's actually deeper than that. Nietzsche didn't just write the phrase "God is Dead", his whole philosophy was about attacking the incongruences on the philosophies of others, like greek philosophers, positivism and christianism. His book Twilight of the Idols makes this very clear. He even saw himself as some sort of "killer of philosophers" the same way Thanos is a killer of superheroes. To ilustrate that, he wrote he philosophized with a hammer, which could be used as great line referencing Thor. Also, Nietzsche was greatly against everyone else at the time of his life and largely misunderstood, like Thanos when he tried to warn the people on Titan. Of course, Thanos was insane from the beginning, but still. To finish it off, Nietszche also acquired dementia on the later part of his life, while Thanos, apart from clearly being insane, is known as the Mad Titan.

So, there's that. What do you people think? Would you be down for Nietzsche returning to take on Thanos?

👍︎ 4
📰︎ r/ERB
💬︎
👤︎ u/ckspider
📅︎ Aug 18 2019
🚨︎ report
I really dislike positivism as a way to try to help me with my depression.

I meant to say positive thinking because positivism is a philosophical concept. My bad.

I may be a cynic and that's why but I do feel like, instead of helping, positive thinking makes me feel like an incompetent person, like I'm being talked down by the superior other that is going to come down to tell me the universal answers. It sounds like the one doing the positive talk is patronizing me. Is not that I'm the one who has "low self esteem", it definitely sounds like you are the one with "superior complex" and or humble brag. "It's so easy to to be happy, just do what I do, it worked wonders for me, how can you not be happy with what you have? I care about you, you are so strong (smiley face thumbs up heart kitty)". Ugh... It's like baby talk. It's condescending.

I would prefer to talk without pink filters. Trying to think that "everything will be ok", "don't worry, you have people that loves you". No, it won't be ok, it will suck ass and i will have to confront it one way or another anyways and trying to color it doesn't help me prepare for it. I prefer to grab that sadness and anger and use it in a productive way instead of trying to cover my eyes and go to my happy place ignoring and avoiding everything that I cannot change thinking that tomorrow will be a happier day, watching the beauty of the world around me. That only works so much and doesn't solve anything.

Sometimes saying "you know what, yeah, it fucking sucks and there might not be a solution to it" it's much better because I can stop focusing on it and start trying other things. Sometimes a smack on the face on someone that is being a dick to you is what is needed to stop certain situations. Let me lash out at the world and let others know that something might be wrong with it and it won't get better unless it changes too.

I would prefer not avoid not to hurt the other with my words or my supposed toxic behavior because I can't see the bright side, censoring myself and what I actually think every five minutes to try to keep things going and make the other not feel offended.

All I'm saying is I hate positive thinking. It's useless for me.

👍︎ 38
💬︎
👤︎ u/gemitarius
📅︎ May 27 2019
🚨︎ report
First Year Philosophy of Science Students' Worst Of

Last year I tutored an intro to the philosophy of science course at my university. In the course of this course, I marked around 250 essays from mostly STEM students who took it because they felt they could get an easy science credit doing a subject that doesn't require them to do any labs. This produced quite a lot of bad philosophy. I feel that enough time has passed now that even if one of the students I'm making fun of here saw this post, they either wouldn't remember that they wrote that or they have since realised their folly. In any case, I present to you the very worst of my intro to philosophy of science students:

Bold is written by the student. Italics is my commentary.

Essay Question: Is the “underdetermination argument” a decisive blow against scientific realism?

The underdetermination argument is that current scientific evidence may be insufficient to explain ideas we hold. Simply put this is the argument that correlation does not equal causation.

No it's not, not at all. Also, what does “explain ideas” even mean?

A different student on the same question attempts Logic (TM). Note, this is her THESIS STATEMENT!:

P1 If (Scientific Realism is undermined) then (two or more scientific theories irreconcilably postulate different unobservables).

P2 Not (two or more scientific theories irreconcilably postulate different unobservables)

C Not (Scientific Realism is undermined)

Oh GOD what is she even trying to say? As far as I can see basically she intends to defend the idea realism by saying that it is never the case that two scientific theories are truly empirically identical, but I don't understand why she needed the faux logical structure to tell me that.

Realists are occasionally caught out by the systematic failure of their philosophy.

Something about this made me laugh, I think it's the combination of nonchalant “occasionally caught out” with the extreme criticism “systematic failure of their philosophy”.

It is widely accepted that homo sapiens and dinosaurs once existed.

You don't say?

The eight commandments given by God

How could you know about the Ten Commandments without knowing that there are ten?

I argue in favour of anti-realism, however I also argue that unobservable entities do exist and that we can obtain evidence of certain properties of these entities.

That doesn't sound like you're an anti-realist. That sounds like you're a realist.

*Slightly later on in the same

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 243
💬︎
📅︎ Jun 04 2016
🚨︎ report
Logical Positivism/Empiricism - Verification principle, unobservables and more

Ive read the relevant SEPs and 5 undergraduate-level intro to philosophy of science books but Ive still been left with some questions on Logical Positivism/Empiricism - please could anyone help with any of these?

...

  1. “the meaning of a non-tautological statement is its method of verification

Why the weird wording?

The verifiability criterion of meaning= a statement is literally meaningful if and only if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable

The Verification Principle = the meaning of a non-tautological statement is its method of verification; that is, the way in which it can be shown to be true by experience.

Why do we need the verifiability criterion of meaning AND the Verification Principle?

Would it be right to say:

The meaning of a non-tautological statement is how it can be shown to be true by experience (Corollary: where this is undefined then a non-tautological statement is meaningless)

  1. "the meaning of a statement is its method of verification" - how is this different to Operationalism? (Ive read the Operationalism SEP and this still isnt clear)

  2. Is the Verification Principle self-refuting? In the SEP Ayer says no as it was a definition. Does that make it analytic? If so, doesn’t that make it arbitrary special pleading?

  3. Does verification apply to propositions as well as sentences? If not why?

  4. Did they originally think observations could logically entail propositions or viceversa?

  5. Are propositions concerning particulars still never strongly/conclusively verified because of underdetermination?

  6. What’s the difference between weak verification and confirmation?

  7. How did the criterion of meaning adapt to the verification principle's evolution?

  8. Are experience, observation and sensation synonyms?

  9. What unobservable terms are not even theoretical and belong to neither observation terms nor theoretical terms? (Putnam’s criticism of Carnap)

  10. In Semantic Instrumentalism, theoretical terms are ‘logical constructs/tools for systematising relations between phenomena’.

In Reductive Empiricism, theoretical terms ‘can be defined in terms of observable concepts’?

Does Semantic Instrumentalism still define observations eventually? If not, how? And if so, then what is the actual difference between the two schools?

  1. Theoreticals do not “literally refer” to unobservables in neither Semantic Instrumentalism nor Reductive Empiricism.

How does this make any difference or consequence?

  1. Semantic Ins
... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 2
💬︎
📅︎ May 18 2019
🚨︎ report
[Rem] An Enhanced Reading List for the 20th Century in Analytic Philosophy

Someone pointed out to me that my other reading guide is largely based upon Early Modern + Moral Philosophy. I stand by the belief that the Early Moderns are certainly the best introduction to philosophy as a whole (and not the Ancients); but, I can readily see now that there is an intense juxtaposition between my own reading list and the types of topics that I post about and discuss on stream. As such, I present here a reading list to introduce yourself to the type of philosophy that I personally study.

It was also mentioned to me that I should make a medium account instead of just blogging on here, but I have no idea how to do that, nor do I really care. I guess some might find these posts a nuisance, but I largely get positive responses to them, and I hope this one gets the same type of treatment.


#Philosophy of Language Beginning with Frege

It shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone that I think Frege is perhaps the most important philosopher (maybe other than Kant) to have lived. I stand by the belief that he revolutionized philosophy through the linguistic (or conceptual) turn, drawing attention to the philosophical importance of language as a reflection of inner-thought.^though it should be noted that many many contemporary philosophers reject the idea of the primacy of language over thought

Where do you begin with Frege? I have here assembled the most important texts, as well as a brief explanation of each, that Frege wrote, along with some secondaries that can be of help. Finally I will indicate the difficulty (from my perspective) of each text.

##Frege List

Frege's Grundlagen
>Held to be perhaps the greatest philosophical text ever for its brilliant accessibility and clarity, here Frege begins his philosophical (and mathematical!) project: to secure mathematics in logic. It may seem at first to be pure mathematics with little relevance elsewhere, but you would be sorely mistaken. Here Frege introduces the very notion of a theory of meaning. He explores how sentences gain their meaning through the compositionality of their parts, and considers the primacy of the sentence as a unit of language. His arguments are stellar and completely refuted previous philosophical theories of mathematics like Kant's, Leibniz's, Mill's, and Husserl's.

>> 1/5 [very easy and accessible to all]

Frege's "On Sense and Reference" [Uber Sinn und Bedeutung] >Considered the first explicit paper in the philosophy of language. Here Frege con

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 38
📰︎ r/Destiny
💬︎
📅︎ May 29 2019
🚨︎ report
Scepticism about Philosophy (by Jason Brennan)

1. Insider and Outsider Scepticism about Philosophy

Philosophers disagree immensely in significant ways. Our best philosophers disagree over the doctrines, methods, and even the aims of philosophy. Experts in all fields disagree, but disagreement is more pervasive in philosophy than in most other fields. As Thomas Kelly says, ‘Philosophy is notable for the extent to which disagreements with respect to even those most basic questions persist among its most able practitioners, despite the fact that the arguments thought relevant to the disputed questions are typically well-known to all parties to the dispute.

A sceptic might claim that radical dissensus shows that pursuing philosophy is not a good means for discovering true answers for philosophical questions. Dissensus shows that philosophical methods are unreliable instruments of truth. Suppose an uncommitted person comes to philosophy hoping to get true answers to her philosophical questions. She wants to know what that nature of causation is, what justification is, what rightness consists in, what justice is, and so on. She notices that philosophers have extensive disagreement about the answers to these questions and thus concludes that the probability of her getting the true answer by pursuing philosophy is low. So, she becomes a sceptic about the field of philosophy and walks away with her questions unanswered.

Is she making a mistake?

In this essay, I consider scepticism of the sort that holds that there are true answers to philosophical questions, but none of us are in a good position to know these answers. This type of scepticism admits of two sub-types.

  1. An insider sceptic holds that even the best philosophers lack good reasons to hold their views. So, the insider sceptic thinks that philosophers who are not agnostic about philosophical issues should become agnostic.

  2. A person who is merely an outsider sceptic, on the other hand, might accept that many philosophers are justified in holding their views, despite widespread disagreement. The outsider sceptic need not hold that philosophers should change their beliefs or become agnostic. However, the outsider sceptic also holds that people not already committed to one philosophical position or another should stay uncommitted. So, the outsider sceptic holds that even if most philosophers are justified in accepting their different views, a person who lacks philosophical beliefs ought to refrain from using philosophical methodology and

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 6
📰︎ r/philosophy
💬︎
👤︎ u/homocomp
📅︎ Sep 19 2018
🚨︎ report
[Seriös] Hur faller ett liv isär såhär fort? Kristid psykiatrin, misstänkt ADD, Dömd, klarar inte skolan, igen. Lever för familjen, har inget hopp personligen.

FYI; Throwaway, alla som känner mig och sitter på detta sub, vet troligtvis direkt vem det är, men snälla. Visa hänsyn bara.

Från titeln, har haft problem ett par år nu, de tror det är en form av depression blandat med annat, varit prat om klinisk depression + socialfobi, troligtvis ADD, PTSD, (Far gick bort ett tag tillbaka). Men om jag vore deprimerad, alla dessa antidepressiva, bör inte de ha gjort något? Alls? Har nämnt bipolär för extremt oförklarliga humörsvängningar men inget de verkar tro på. Detta är varför jag är påväg att ge upp, 2 år och ingenstans.

Har varit I kontakt med psykiatrin i cirka 2 år, prövat i princip alla antidepressiva, ssri, snri, maoi, antiypsykotiskt, mildare stimulanter, och det är de jag kommer ihåg, enbart fått biverkningar, läkaren sa till att vi skulle börja om med medicinerna jag redan prövat så jag i min frustration skrev ut mig, för min socialafobi eller ångest, vad som, kunde inte få mig att kräva en annan läkare.

Hur som, tog kontakt igen med då, vårdcentralen, för psykiatrin när jag skrev ut mig sa att jag kunde kontakta de direkt när jag kände för att ta upp det igen, fick hem papper och givetvis, hänvisas jag till vårdcentralen. En tid senare (Idag) fick jag träffa en, gick igenom allt, skräll, remiss till psykiatrin. Jag vet verkligen inte hur mycket mer jag klarar av.

Oavsett din syn på olaga preparat, så är de vad som håller mig flytande, Clonazepam 1mg för ångest kanske 3 dagar i veckan, amfetamin, kanske 4 gånger i veckan, jag kommer inte klara mig en månad utan detta just nu och oavsett om detta klassas som missbruk (definitions sak) eller flytväst, så är det helt enkelt så illa. Dock det som fick mig på brottsregistret så ännu en underbar grej om mitt liv.

Hur långt kvar är det tills jag kan kalla mig fri från detta? Vi säger att jag klarar mig dessa veckorna till psykiatrin, då kommer jag behöva bli clean, och jag tror inte att jag klarar det som det är nu, vad säger jag då? Hur förklarar jag det till dagens psykiatri som tar körkort vid drogtester, skulle det hända faller allt i mitt liv ihop, behövs för att ta mig till bussen.

Finns ju garanterat inte en chans att de ser det från mitt håll, kommer begära drogtest, inget körkort, ingen chans att avsluta skolan ens.

Händer något mer stort i mitt liv kommer jag gå sönder, tar de körkortet så är jag körd, de höll på i 2 år och har inte hittat något som ens givit mig EN positiv effekt, bara biverkningar.

Vad, vad, vad, vad finns det jag kan göra. Öve

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 27
📰︎ r/sweden
💬︎
📅︎ Dec 17 2018
🚨︎ report
Can you ELI5 what the differences between positivism, post-positivism, and interpretivism are?

Even the wikipedia entries for these terms are too dense for my silly brain. From what I understand, positivism is an approach to social science where the scientist believes that they can be totally objective in how they measure human behavior and that everything is knowable through empirical research and that anything that can’t be observed/quantified is not scientific. Post-positivism is an approach to social science where qualitative methodologies are acceptable because studying human behavior is not the same as studying physics or biology, even though you can approach both topics “scientifically”. Interpretivism is kind of hard for me to understand but I guess that it says that both of the previous approaches are kind of lame (but I don’t really understand what they propose to do instead)

I can see that they’re all kind of similar, in the sense that they all want to understand human behavior but why are they so different that they deserve different definitions? They all have to use the same techniques to understand stuff and those techniques can’t be the same as the ones in natural science.

I know that none of these approaches are ”wrong”. Interpretivism seems kind of cloudy to me but my teacher called herself an interpretivist but she’s also a big statistics person too. Maybe I’m just a fence-sitter, but post-positivism seems the way to go. I hear that true positivists aren’t really around anymore because studying human behavior is different than studying natural phenomenon or whatever. But interpretivism doesn’t really sit right with me. I guess it’s good to take your own biases and perception into account while you’re trying to understand some kind of social thing but if you can’t quantify it, who are you ever going to be able to convince? I’m aware of the critiques of Big Data and how, like, it can’t be used to predict everything (or anything really) To use a sports analogy (a topic I’m much more comfortable with), statistics can tell us how good a team was but it can’t tell us how good a team will be. I’m doubtful that any social science can really predict anything about people outside of general stuff but that all of the approaches can understand how things were. Please help me understand!

👍︎ 26
💬︎
📅︎ Apr 16 2018
🚨︎ report
My experience as INTP, everything I "know", and the counterintuitiveness of introverted auxiliary

Okay this might be a little long. Idk how long itll be before I write.

Premises: In Jung's psychological types(page 76-77) he talks about how when thinking and feeling meet, they form a practical goal. Or rather that fantasy occassions a practical goal that they settle on. If Sensing is "what is" as in the current reality, and intuition is "what could be" then intuition would be the source of fantasy. Fantasy(N) is then compared(F) to current reality(S) and if it is preferrable(F) then it is sent to Thinking. If thinking says it can be achieved logically, then a practical goal is formed. The effort required to achieve(T) will be accounted for(F) and compared to other goals and their effort(TF). The dominant function is the ego and all information of subsequent functiond is understood and framed in terms of the ego. Introverted functions are equations. Extroverted are data collection.

Questions that arise: When intuition creates fantasy such as a three-legged giraffe, can sensing interact with that fantasy inside your head? Is F strictly ethics? If it isn't than does F also encompass the happiness received from sensation, intuitive possibility expectation, thinking enjoying analysis, and feeling enjoying experiencing emotion, when it goes to evaluate whether N is preferrable to S and should become a potential goal(T)?

My experience as an INTP: Ti is about building an internal system. This is math most of the time but also functional analogues, while Te is simply the data points themselves. Ti: y=x^2. Te: y=1, 2, 4, 9, 17. Ti then iterates through that system to solve problems by understanding cause and effect. Ne is then used to back up Ti, by taking a Ti form and giving it life in the real world(Ne). The most classic example of this is when you are in a debate trying to communicate Ti, but it is hard to follow, so you instead use an analogy, be it hypothetical or real, to communicate it more easily. Sometimes I assume Ne is also used as a means to create solutions. Imagine you have a water bottle filler machine. No water is coming out right now. Nothing is wrong with the nozzle, nothing is wrong with the first pipe connected to the nozzle, the second pipe connected to the first pipe is filled with way to much pressure. The third pipe connected to the second is much bigger than the first pipe, so too much water is flowing in the second pipe and not enough is flowing out of the first. So Ti says "we need to reshape the second pipe by reducing

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 9
📰︎ r/INTP
💬︎
📅︎ May 03 2019
🚨︎ report
Can christians be 'proper' scientists without cognitive dissonance?

Ok, so this is a two part question, please read this carefully, it might take some explaining.

Science is a methodology employed to falsify questions about the physical world. The question of whether x exists can either be proven false, or it can't. In the question of 'do unicorns exist', science cannot prove it false, ergo, it is false to say 'this does not exist', but as there is no direct evidence to say it exists,it is also false to say 'this does exist'.

It's not scientific, or unscientific to believe without evidence. It's unscientific to assert without evidence, or to assert without testing the statement's validity, because science concerns itself with claims.

But science does not comment on what you should believe in, or that you should care about what is true. It does not say that everyone should care about scientific results. Those are separate philosophies, like naturalism or logical positivism. Science is not a philosophy, the only requirements for science are that you follow the rules of science while undertaking it. For most scientists, science is a job, not a worldview to be applied to all aspects of their lives. Because science has never claimed to be as such. The assertions you make about the physical world can be tested with science, sure. But a) you don't have to do so, and b) science don't care what you believe. Science is not atheism; it is agnostic without bias to one side or the other; it has no belief system bar the assumptions core to it's progress (consistency of physical laws, for example).

So my arguments are thus:

  • Because science only requires following the appropriate rules, christians can undertake science just well as any other belief system (as long as they are able to follow said rules, which I am, but I accept there may be those who cannot)

  • As science makes no demands on scientists to apply scientific methodology outside the lab, there is no cognitive dissonance in having scientific evidence for some aspects of your life and not in others (and if you wanted evidence for gods, you'd need to know exactly what evidence you would need to see... good luck with that!). The cognitive dissonance only occurs if you have a personal philosophy that requires scientific evidence for all beliefs.

Anyway, would be keen to know your thoughts.

EDIT: Here's the distinction I think I'm failing in making:

SCIENCE The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 28
💬︎
📅︎ Dec 26 2014
🚨︎ report
Top 500 Console Player: Insight for all Platforms

First things first, my accolades:

https://www.overbuff.com/players/xbl/YeaaaaahDragons?mode=competitive I have only just reached Top 500 on xb1 this season with a career high of 3540, and s1 career high of 75 (Top 500).

Also, it is commonly believed almost all Top 500 players on Console use kb&m, I don't.

Before we begin I just want to mention a few notes, that may not seem so obvious:

-First off, the better you get the better your teammates get. What I mean is this: When you are low rank you must carry your teammates, they will most likely suck (no offense) and will probably not have a mind set of getting better, learning or climbing.

-Second, be careful who you play with, personally I play with friends, but evidently it has seemed to hinder my climbing. For the beginning of the season I was stuck between 3000-3150, but once I started to solo-q I saw significant improvement (see more in section Solo-q vs. Team/Pre-mades). Finally, this is my first big post, I would love some feedback, advice and general response to the post open to anyone. Also, if you have any questions you think I could answer, or anything I missed, leave them in the comments and I'll do my best to address them.

"The Lamb must learn to run with the tigers, as the tigers will not run with the lamb" - The Tiger's Bride

This may be a little long, therefore I will be dividing it into sections (please keep in mind I'm pretty new to posting on Reddit and my formatting may be a little off):

The Poker Analogy

Positivism

Communication

Positioning & Mechanics

Flexibility

Flame's Vod Analysis

Engage -> Disengage -> Reengage

Solo-q vs. Team/Pre-Mades

Let's go:

The Poker Analogy:

Whether you're on the Competitive Overwatch subreddit or Overwatch University, you've probably seen the Poker analogy, if not you can find it here: http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20748614966

The mindset behind this is simple, although I only skimmed the post, I found that it is comparing Overwatch to mathematics. In Poker there is a game inside the game being played, this is the game of odds. To fill in the big picture, some hands might only have 2% higher odds than another hand, but there is a reason why any good poker player will take those odds any day of the week: In the long run it will have a big payout. If you play 3 poker hands and lose your 2% higher odds 2/3 times, it wi

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 88
💬︎
📅︎ Sep 21 2016
🚨︎ report
Before Church and State pre-review

I'm currently taking way too long to read through Before Church and State by Andrew Willard Jones, so I thought I'd do a quick quote-bomb. I plan to do a review at some point after I finish.

As for the book so far, it's very much in line with what has been discussed here. One important thing of note is that Jones sees absolutism as the inevitable consequence of the liberal leviathan. The medieval order, or 'the Church and its sacramental kingdoms', is not a state and there is no sovereignty.

I have refrained from bolding any particular parts of these quotes and the italics are the authors.

>P. 98 It is true, as historians frequently point out, that royal offices were being professionalized and in a sense bureaucratized. What is incorrect is the placement of these facts within the context of the narrative of the construction of the “State,” unless, of course, one is writing a genealogy of the nineteenth century. Regardless of what these offices eventually evolved into, Louis was not building an absolutist State, let alone the foundations of a secular one. In the thirteenth century the Grande Ordonnance was a part of something that had nothing to do with absolutism, “divine right of kings,” the separation of Church and State, or the construction of the modern State. It was a part of the construction of a Christian kingdom.

>P. 110 The three reform initiatives of Louis after 1254 find a unity within the business, and they were wrapped up fundamentally with the spiritual power. Louis was not laying the foundations for a secular “State”; he was pursuing the program of orthodoxy. Gui Foucois and the Dominicans, and more distantly the pope, were likewise pursuing the program, and together they were building the social architecture it required. The enquêteurs and the inquisitors were part of this architecture: two pillars of the same structure.

.

>P. 114 …Essentially, any change in the status of the land that was not precipitated by crime was unjustified: in direct opposition to the modern and postmodern understanding, peace was the assumed status quo. Thus the distinction between lex, ius, and usus are unclear, with what was law, what was established, and what was right all being understood as the same when peace reigned. Since peace, the fruit of justice, was the objective of the secular power, only the fracturing of this “peaceful” status quo could justify intervention; otherwise, the secular power itself fractured the peace and w

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 3
💬︎
📅︎ Apr 05 2018
🚨︎ report
Musikmittwoch: O wie...

Oonagh und Orden Ogan!

Nochmal lust auf die Lieder mit N? Dann hier lang!

Für diejenigen welche dies zum ersten mal Lesen was ist das hier, in kurz und in knackig:

> ne kleine Serie in der ich den hiesigen Lesern Songs/Bands nach dem Alphabet empfehlen will und mich allgemein über Musik austauschen möchte

Hoffe wie immer auf viele tolle Musikvorschläge auch wenn ich nicht immer auf alles Antworten kann ich höre mir alles an Ü

Oonagh:

So, ich weiß jetzt schon das hier einigen der Vorschlag dieser Band sauer aufstoßen wird, da es sich bei Oonagh um eine Band handelt die relativ glattgeleckte, radiofähige (ich glaube lief sogar mal im radio, aber ka ich höre kein radio) Musik machen (ist halt Universal Music). Ähnlich wie Santiano (mit denen sie auch schon feat. gemacht hat, halt auch Universal).

Aber warum stelle ich dies hier dann dennoch vor?

Relativ simpel. Ich mag die Musik und hoffe das sie vllt jemandem hier auch gefällt Ü

Musikalische Selbstbeschreibung ist hierbei "Ethno Pop" und "moderner Folk".

Ethno Pop habe ich vorher noch nie gehört und musste erstmal googlen was das bitte sein soll. Stellt sich heraus das dies einfach nur ein anderer Begriff für "Weltmusik" ist, also eine Musikform die entweder beschreibt das viele verschiedene Musiker ihre Nationaltypischen Musikstile in eine Band einfließen lassen ohne das die Stile sich verändern oder aber eine Art Musikstil die sich stillistisch bei Nationaltypischen Musikstilen bedient.

Wer da was nachlesen möchte hier:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltmusik

Weiterhin wurde in einem der letzten Musikmittwoch Editionen mal erwähnt das Folk ja von vermutlich von "Volk" kommt und daher eher "rechts orientiert" sei. (nicht der verwendete wortlaut, und iirc).

Das wollte ich, da wir hier nun eine Vorstellung haben wo Folk zumindest eine mitvertretene Stilrichtung ist, einfach mal nutzen um aus dem Wikipedia Artikel zu Folk klugzuscheißen Ü

Heißt ihr lernt jetzt hier n bissle unnützes ob ihr wollt oder nicht! :)

>Folk (Folkmusik), [foʊk] (engl.: folk „Volks-“; gemeint ist die Volkskultur oder Folklore in Bezug auf Musik) ist insbesondere in Nordamerika und Europa ein Genre der populären Musik. Melodien und Texte traditioneller Volksmusik (nicht: Volkstümliche Musik) werden neu arrangiert oder stilistisch nachgeahmt. Die Instrumente sind meist traditionell akustisch wie Gitarre, Fidel, Flöte oder Du

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 13
💬︎
📅︎ Jan 23 2019
🚨︎ report
Q: How do Atheists Understand "Truth"?

Not sure if this belongs here or to r/Atheism

What do atheists understand by the term "truth" (deliberately making it small t to not ruffle any feathers)? Obvious, atheists can be/are very moral and truthful in their personal affairs, but what do they understand by "truth" when someone like Dawkins says "Evolution is true". What does "true" mean here? It would seem that they assume an impartial ground who somehow validates/certifies something as true. Disclaimer: these are my baby steps in attempting an Advaitic critique of modern day, Dawkins style atheism. I have a feeling this argument has been made before.

Update: A lot of these arguments are beyond my depth. I need time to study these. I probably won't be able to in any reasonable time. But here are some observations

  1. some of the atheists seem to casually believe in "objective truth". I suggest that they may wrong.

  2. Many of you suggest a narrower "truth is verification of propositions". OK, that is fine, I will think about the flawa in the argument. But this is logical positivism, and I thought the limitations of this have been well demonstrated. Perhaps we are all so ignorant of history that we keep repeating it.

  3. after this thread, I realized that an encounter wilt aliens, rather than destroy religions, may well destroy atheism. Since the atheist definition of truth is not universalist, it would seem that if we meet another civilization that shares some of our values (Truth, Beauty, Goodness), then Science will have something new to explain. Conversely, atheists should be wary of encountering other civilizations: after all the softening effect of Truth and Goodness might just be unique to the way evolution happened on Earth. Which might explain why Gates/Hawkings et al are worried about singularity and AI and all that. OTH, I am far more optimistic about aliens as well as AI that they too will embody Truth, Beauty and Goodness

  4. With respect to #2 above- the question remains - why do you value small t truth? why does the universal validity of a proposition fill you with joy? It is reasonable to assume that this pursuit will be pursued elsewhere too? You could roll out the usual "it must have helped secure the species's survival, very useful to make your behavior conducive to the scary reality of dangers outside the ancient cave blah blah", but why now, now that you have a big brain, does it fill you with aesthetic delight? And if you assume that you will traces of this joy in val

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 2
💬︎
👤︎ u/over_45
📅︎ Oct 22 2016
🚨︎ report
"The Silicon Ideology" Fundamentally fails to understand neoreaction (and basic chronology)

Posted on a throwaway due to the Author's insistence on using Doxxing against their political opponents

May Rule 1a defend me, for I myself hold positions that BadPolitics loves to shit on (No, that position isn't being pro-Neoreaction, for I am firmly anti-Neoreaction)

>People of all ideological identities are welcome to post here. Ideologies may be based on wrong facts, but for the purposes of this subreddit, no ideology is wrong by itself. We are here to mock wrong facts, not wrong opinions. As such, posts mocking people for their ideology or political beliefs will be removed.


The Silicon Ideology is an article in Journal format from an unknown author (they used a pseudonym). It is being trumped up as the go-to guide on the emerging political phenomena of Neoreaction. Unfortunately, it suffers from a very severe case of "All my political opponents are the same thing", as Marxist polemics against non-Marxist political theories often do. It's better than a lot of other attempts to analyse Neoreaction because it has the occasional correct observation, but not by much.


I shall skip to part 4 because I don't see much worth in criticizing Neo-Marxist understanding of Fascism separately.

>Neo-reaction is a 21st century variant of fascism: a new ideology that values stability, order, efficiency and "good governance" above all, or claims to.

For reasons that will be covered later, it will become clear that trying to lump Neo-reaction in with Fascism doesn't work.

>Comprehensive list of the backbone of neo-reactionary values part 1, transhumanism

I wouldn't say it's a backbone, but sure, that's ok.

>part 2, form of government

Mostly correct. Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk or Peter Thiel are often given as an example of what a ruler should look like. Given the lack of any political organization beyond blogging, any proposal to actually make one of these a leader isn't serious. I cannot find any indication on the claim that Neo-reactionaries hope to become the aristocrats themselves.

>part 3, the Cathedral

I would have listed this first. Doesn't go into enough detail to criticise anything here.

>part 4, Nationalism

Misunderstands that Nationalism has to do with Nationality and not Continent of Birth. Misunderstands the conception of why Neoreaction considers (Insert group here) better. See Moldbug's comment on "IQism" [here](https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvi

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 46
💬︎
👤︎ u/antinrx
📅︎ Jun 09 2016
🚨︎ report
Redditors on the PCT Week 9 (June 10)

So people are starting to get into the Sierra. Things are looking messy there, and people are having to make difficult decisions. Should they stick with their trail family and power through? Flip ahead? Take some time off? At the end of the day, this decision is incredibly personal. So long as you're keeping safety in mind, there is no right or wrong decision here.

I'm going to take this chance to remind everyone that two years ago, in high snow conditions, two young women died in stream crossings in the Sierra. Tree. Strawberry. That was their trail names. I knew Tree, I met her on trail less than a month before she died. Both of them were small women hiking alone. Even if you are very experienced in river crossings and high snow conditions, crossing rivers alone in this kind of snow year is a bad idea. Try to avoid putting yourself in that situation.

I'm not trying to fear-monger here. There is enough of that going around. I highly recommend going to see the Sierra conditions yourself before making any decisions. And put safety first.

Stay safe everyone, and keep up with the updates. We love vicariously experiencing all of your journeys.

Hiker Start Location Update
Bad Cheese aka /u/Whitefloor Mar 18 (N) Unknown No Update
oversizedoutdoors, Link 2 Mar 18 (N) Lake Isabella "I've walked across a quarter of the US, holy moly!"
RisingWaterline Mar 19 (N) Unknown No Update
Tloop Mar 24 (N) Mile 1000 "1,000 miles down. 1,650 more to go" Looks so happy in the photo!
/u/Incident_reported Mar 24 (N) Forrester Pass Is wearing a baller Hawaiian shirt through the Sierra
Sodee aka /u/Dcoakley Mar 26 (N-S-N) Unknown "In the last three days I saw 4 people. Just the way I like it"
Mild Sauce aka /u/anon-9 Apr 01 (N) Sierra somewhere "I also got my first experience with glissading today! Oh man it was SO MUCH FUN. I felt like a kid at Christmas and I could genuinely sense that the smile on my face was ear to ear. Pure happiness. Hiking the trail is definitely hard work, but I have never felt more determined to finish than I do right now."
Crush aka /u/Strider8008 Ap
... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 11
💬︎
👤︎ u/i-like-tea
📅︎ Jun 10 2019
🚨︎ report
Hitchhiking from Salzburg to Amsterdam

I am thinking of hitching from Salzburg to Amsterdam and back from 14.4 - 24.4 perhabs till 28.4 if i need more time.

It will be my first real hitchhiking trip. Normally i only hitch from and to university about 50km and only on country roads. I already did some research via hitchwiki and on /r/hitchhiking and i am positiv that it is do able. I am planning on starting in the morning around 9 am take a layover in or near Frankfurt (Google Maps says it is a 5 hour trip with the car so hope i will be there till 7 pm). I will look for a hostel via hostelworld or maybe trying couchsurfing. I am planning on going with my backpack (Osprey Farpoint 40) an packing Clothes (1 Pullover, 4-T-Shirts, 6 underwears, 6 pair of socks, 1 or 2 jeans, 1 shorts, 1 water bottle, cash, credit card, passport, powerbank, deodorant, toothbrush, toothpaste, showergel, 1 jacket, travel journal, 1 towel, 1 pair of shoes, mobilephone and charger)

My questions are:

  1. To you think it is realistic to go to from Salzburg to Amsterdam (normally a 10h car ride and about 960km/600 miles) with one layover?
  2. When to you book your accommodation? To be honest i am a little bit afraid that i have to sleep on the street because i got stranded somewhere. What are some tips that this is not going to happen?
  3. How to you decide at what spot someone should drop you of?
  4. What are some thinks i should definitely take with me?

Edit: I decided to not go this week because of the wether it is going to be "cold" i will go in summer instead. Thanks for your answers though :)

👍︎ 7
💬︎
📅︎ Apr 08 2019
🚨︎ report
Introduction to function signs

DISCLAIMER: This is an advanced level of socionics typology, If you haven’t studied reinin dichotomies and information flow I suggest not reading this article as it will tangle up your head more than clear it.

For the studying of this post it is suggested the reading of this post beforehand as it will go more in-depth about some subjects I will be briefly approaching here.

First we have to make some definitions clear: A dichotomy is a criteria by which you separate a cluster of concepts into two separate parts. A type dichotomy classifies the 16 types into two categories of 8 each. The MBTI I/E, N/S, T/F and P/J are 4 examples of type dichotomies. Socionics introduces 11 more type dichotomies as well as dichotomies to separate cognitive functions or the positions in our stack.

We already classify the information in the world (and the mental processing of it by our minds) in more categories as well: We can separate our ‘mental functions’ into either extraverted or introverted, judgment or perception, etc. There is nothing that can stop us from dividing it further up apart into more, for example while we could say that intuition can be either extraverted or introverted (Ne vs Ni), we could also say that an INFJ’s Ni will differ from an INTJ’s Ni and while we call the similarities between each type’s dominant function “Ni” we could come up with names for the individual proprieties of each, that the other does not share, how an INTJ’s Ni differs from an INFJ’s Ni, for example.

Socionics, unlike most Western approaches to typology, understands information in both Static and Dynamic terms. In western typology if we ask "What kind of information is this?" the answer is Ti, Te, Se etc. In Socionics instead we could also describe the information as Ti->Ne or Se->Fe, for example. As information is seen as a vector, direction, not just the functions involved, becomes very important. Ne->Ti is not the same thing as Ti->Ne. Therefore one of the possible ways to further up divide our mental processing (‘functions’) is by how our other functions affect it in the whole overall process of information flow in our psyche.

The Process/Result type dichotomy describes the direction of information flow between the functions. Information flows from judging to perceiving functions and vice-versa but not j-j or p-p. We

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 3
📰︎ r/mbti
💬︎
👤︎ u/Lastrevio
📅︎ Mar 03 2018
🚨︎ report
some meaningless meandering thoughts and a couple questions

For me, the first question of philosophy is not epistemology, but morality: what should I do? and it is only after this asked that we look to other parts of philosophy to better answer this question. The idea seems obvious: do what is good, avoid what opposes good, and to do this we must find what makes goodness.

Good and Meaningful (in the sense of value) are synonymous, i thought, and figured if a system could show what makes meaning it would enable the development of a moral system from it. The first way value is proposed to be ascribed is of course theological, and this i reject as nonsensical, since it is dealing, by its never nature, with things beyond humanity to such an extent they are absolutely untestable and no experience or logic can indicate for or against their probability, and their very definitions are arbitrary and disconnected from the experienced world. Ignoring this, consider heaven, and the idea of meaning reflecting heaven, and goodness being that which allows access to heaven: upon reaching heaven, couldn't one consider a higher heaven, a heaven as unseen in the lower heaven as heaven is on earth, with an even higher meaning? That is, alone, heaven cannot justify meaning.

A sidenote on mechanicalism, 'nihilistic determinism', and the idea meaning must come from free will, that a lack of free will would force an absence of meaning. To this I pose the incoherence of the concept of free or unfree will and propose that it is irrelevant to meaning, and whether there is or is not meaning, and if so, what it means, can be solved without reference to free will.

If there is to be meaning to me, it must necessarily be in relation to me. It's a tautology of course but one that can be rephrased and used like an axiom, to develop a theory of meaning. The two ways this can be are in the state of the represented world, the predicted noumenon, and/or in the subjective experience, the phenomenal world.

The problem with state-of-affairs meaning is that it must somehow jump from the state of affairs to the experience. Even considering cynicism, or an idea like a platonic moral version of aristotlean teleology, considering that things are good in how they meet the nature of the thing, we can go back to: why? how? If I act the most 'humanly', what makes this state of affairs valuable? and of course a thing really is its relationships and behaviors are relationships, it is not really possible for anything to do things in any way but according to

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 2
📰︎ r/nihilism
💬︎
📅︎ Aug 22 2018
🚨︎ report
Where bad philosophy meets bad anthropology (or, IEP <3's eugenics) (or or, an excessively long rant)

Apparently, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) has an entry on the philosophy of anthropology, and wow does it contain a lot of bad. First off, I'm not sure what the distinction is between phil of anthro and just plain anthropological theory is, because almost everything cited here is anthro and not phil. Second, it seems to be almost entirely about cultural anth. I know the four-field thing is a 'Murrican phenomenon, but c'mon, at least try a little.

In any case, let's dig in!

>Anthropology itself began to develop as a separate discipline in the mid-nineteenth century, as Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (Darwin 1859) became widely accepted among scientists.

This is just completely wrong. Immanuel Kant offered the first course in anthropology in the 1790s, but the first person to hold the title of professor of anthropology was EB Tylor. EB Tylor was certainly influenced by Darwin, but it's way off to say that anthropology began as a discipline because of Darwin. A lot of early anthropologists were not officially anthropologists -- I think this may be bad history in the form of anachronism on the part of disciplinary historians -- but they pre-dated Darwin. The Smithsonian under the direction of Joseph Henry began to collect artifacts and ethnographic information long before Darwin published Origin of Species. Another major figure in both anthropology and sociology is considered to be Herbert Spencer, and he published his great work on evolution, Social Statics, prior to Darwin and maintained Lamarckian ideas throughout his life. The beginning of American archaeology is often traced back to the mound builder controversy and Thomas Jefferson.

>Early anthropologists attempted to apply evolutionary theory within the human species, focusing on physical differences between different human sub-species or racial groups (see Eriksen 2001) and the perceived intellectual differences that followed.

OK this is mostly true, but it conflates cultural evolution and biological evolution. Polygenism was a popular position among proto-anthropologists, but Darwin was a monogenist. If Darwin was the cause of anthropology how were so many anthropologists polygenists??

>This is the positivism, rooted in Empiricism, which argued that knowledge could only be reached through the empirical method and statements were meaningful only if they could be empirically justified, though it s

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 56
💬︎
📅︎ Aug 06 2016
🚨︎ report
How to Make Your Copy Stick this is a blog post I saw that finded interesting

Copywriting is the act of writing text for the purpose of advertising or other forms of marketing. The product, called copy, is written content that aims to increase brand awareness and ultimately persuade a person or group to take a particular action. But copywriting is soooo much more than the academic definition.

“The ability to write ads and letters that sell is by far the most wonderful money-making skill you could ever acquire. If you master this skill, you should never again have to worry about money.” - Gary Halbert. Top Copywriter & All Around Crazy Successful Businessman (before it was cool)

Copywriting is the most valuable skill an entrepreneur could have and it doesn't just benefit entrepreneurs, it also benefit internet marketers, agencies, small business owners.

10 Copywriting Tips That Will Benefit Your Marketing Efforts

Use verbs

When writing your copy try to describe an action, state, or occurrence, this will make your copy cleaner and straightforward. And verbs are also essentials for your CTA and put words like take, download, learn more, and so on.

Keep it simple

Don’t use fancy words to describe your product or services, because not every person will be an expert in your niche. You can look at the tech industry as an example, when Apple makes an ad to show to the public, instead of saying “with this phone you will get a 5.0 Wi-Fi and a 2.5 GHz” they say “Faster Wi-Fi to give you a better experience and 5 times faster than the previous iPhone”

Use questions to call out your market

Figure out what the customer do/don't want or fear and ask them question that they can relate to. You can start with a questions, in the middle, at the end or a mix. You can experiment with these most people like to feel understood not understand another person, so keep that in mind when you are writing your questions.

Be specific

Don't leave anything for interpretation, be specific and explain everything in a simple manner. Otherwise your audience will not understand nor try to interpret your message. Making it simple and being specific go together.

Use CTA (call to action)

A call to action is a simple button that directs someone to do something on the ad, website, and funnel. This button should have a word like download, book now, learn more, etc. and direct the person to your website or landing page.

Keep in mind that is better to direct the person to a landing page or a specific page of your website, for example, if you want people

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 2
📰︎ r/marketing
💬︎
📅︎ Jan 24 2019
🚨︎ report
Translation - German Interview with Xherdan Shaqiri

Xherdan Shaqiri gave the german Sport1-journalists Florian Plettenberg and Florian Mesner an exclusive interview.

I had some time on my hands and wanted to train my english anyway, so I thought I translate the whole interview.

Hopefully I'm not breaking any rules with that. I couldn't find anything relating to "stealing" content.

But he doesn't do interviews very often and I think also non-german speakers should be able to read it.

Shaqiri-Interview with Sport1

Sport1: Mr. Shaqiri, what were your first thoughts when you drew Bayern?

Shaq: Happiness. But I knew right away that it would be a difficult but interesting challenge. We'll try to exploit Bayerns weaknesses. We want to go back to the final, just like last year. I definitely wanted to draw Bayern.

Sport1: Why exactly?

Shaq: I wanted to come back home to the Allianz Arena and to my ex-club. I still have a lot of friends there.

Sport1: You seem genuinely happy.

Shaq: Sure, I have throughout positiv memories of Munich. At Bayern I had the best part of my career so far. It was two and a half really beautiful years, with many titles and emotions. I've learned a lot in this time. Not just on a professional level but also on a human level. I made a lot of friends. Every time I go back to Munich it feels like home.

Sport1: Are you still in contact with your former teammates?

Shaq: I have contact with Rafinha sometimes. It was his birthday not that long ago. Anatoliy Tymoshchuck wrote to me on Instagram the other day. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing many old friends again. Not just players, but also staff members.

Sport1: Do get questioned a lot about Bayern from your teammates?

Shaq: Of course we talked about it, we always ask how it was at former clubs. We often compare them. Our fitness coach Andreas Kornmayer also got a Bayern history. He knows the club, too.

Sport1: Bayern wants to strenghten their wings next summer. Could you imagine to return to FC Bayern?

Shaq: A return to Bayern is definitely an option, because I'll have always a place for Bayern in my heart. If they would call me, it surely would be interesting and emotional for me. But right now don't think about something like that, because at the moment I am at the perfect club with the perfect leadership.

Sport1: I

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 52
💬︎
📅︎ Feb 19 2019
🚨︎ report
[Weekly Discussion] Criticizing Efficiency - Philosophy of Economics

Introduction

In this weekly discussion post, I'll be talking about a set of closely interrelated concepts that are important in contemporary economics: Pareto improvements, Pareto efficiency (optimality), and the Pareto Principle. I will discuss two lines of criticism of the standard interpretation of these concepts (a line developed by Hilary Putnam and a line developed by Daniel Hausman), and then I will propose a tentative solution.

Pareto Concepts

If you've ever taken an undergraduate level course in economics, you have probably encountered Pareto concepts. Usually they get introduced like this. Imagine a situation where you have multiple options. One of those options makes at least one person better off, and it doesn't make anyone worse off. Notice that it is at least one person better off - it might also make everyone better off. That option is a "Pareto improvement." On the surface, choosing that option seems like a no-brainer - it is making some people better off without making anyone worse off. Quite roughly (we'll be polishing up these definitions shortly), the idea that we ought to implement a Pareto improvement if we have the chance is the "Pareto Principle." A situation is "Pareto efficient" when there aren't any Pareto improvements left to make. Perhaps an example will clear things up. Suppose Jenny, Susie, and Tommy are playing. Tommy gets bit by a snake. Luckily, they have one dose of anti-venom. Administering the dose to Tommy would be a Pareto improvement - it makes him better off, and it doesn't make Jenny or Susie worse off.

The strength of this cluster of concepts is that they are (or at least, appear to be) extremely plausible and thoroughly uncontroversial. The Pareto Principle looks borderline self-evident. However, discerning readers may have already noticed a potential issue lurking in the background: we haven't yet said what we mean by "better off" and "worse off." It turns out that the standard interpretation of "better off" and "worse off" in contemporary economics for these Pareto concepts is in terms of preferences. As Hausman and McPherson explain:

> A Pareto optimum (also called a “Pareto efficient allocation) is typically defined as a state of affairs in which it is impossible to make anyone better off without making someone worse-off, but this purported definition is misleading. It is more accurate to say that R is a “Pareto improvement” over S if nobody prefers S to R and somebody prefers R to S… (H

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 59
📰︎ r/philosophy
💬︎
👤︎ u/twin_me
📅︎ Jul 28 2014
🚨︎ report
Verständnisfrage zur Quarantäne...

Wenn mir jemand schreibt "Meine Arbeitskollegin ist positiv auf Covid getestet, ich hab mich heute testen lassen, wart noch aufs Ergebnis, geh aber normal arbeiten und schränk meine privaten Kontakte ein bisserl ein." - gehört das so?

Wer muss denn dann eigentlich in Quarantäne, wenn nicht Leute, die es möglicherweise habe? Ich zweifel grad...

EDIT - Was ich heute gelernt hab:

Auch wenn ich mir bei Begriffen quasi sicher bin, kann ich im Duden nachschauen, ob ich die Definition richtig hab.

Der Bescheid kommt nicht automatisch, wenn man positiv ist. (Warum eigentlich nicht...? Technisch wäre das ja möglich, einen Zettel auszudrucken, wo drauf steht "Bleib zaus! Wennst Essen brauchst, melde Dich da und da.")

Wenn man den starken Verdacht hat, dass man positiv sein könnte und sich testen lässt, kann man trotzdem weiter machen wie bisher. Wenn man dann positiv ist und in der symptomlosen Zeit wen angesteckt hat, tja, blöd gelaufen für die anderen.

👍︎ 8
📰︎ r/Austria
💬︎
📅︎ Oct 29 2020
🚨︎ report
Meditation and Acceptance

"Serenity comes when you trade expectations with Acceptance" Buddha.

Have you ever imagine how much restlessness one can control and get rid of just with the help of one powerful word Acceptance. What does Acceptance means, what is the essence of this word?

Acceptance, means getting close to the reality, and take things the way they are without attaching any kind of thoughts, emotions and opinions to it. Reality is never hurtful, as it is just the outcome or the way situation turned out to be, it is only troublesome when we attach opinions, feelings and thoughts to it. The original event changes to a new and manufactured reality which is nowhere near the actuality and that is what the most hurtful and dangerous.

All this can be very easily resolved by this one word called Acceptance, which not only help you or your mind but also bring back the peace which you were always looking for. Acceptance is a such a big tool, if used well will not only help you live in present moment but also will take most of the pain away. Learn how our emotions takes us away from reality, click here.

Most of the times things become a struggle and stress because we refuse to take the outcome and fight it with our thoughts and emotions. We need to understand how so many external things are not in our control and how fighting to take control of things which are outside of us is just simply a futile effort. What and only what we can control is ourselves and our reactions, that is what's in our hand and acceptance plays a big role in bringing the control from inside. In the end that is all what matters how peaceful and in control you are of yourself.

Learn how to use this tool:

1. Emotional Acceptance: Every thought which comes to your mind, has the power to raise your feelings and emotions to a level which can lead you to take wrong steps. These steps can result in a outcome, which can change the course of action completely and that is what you don't want. Acceptance of arising emotion or feeling due to particular situation, outcome or things can play a big role here in terms of resolving the thought process, bringing the required peace and reduce the probability of wrong outcome.

For e.g: If you are not happy with your boss or the work you do, it could lead you to the thoughts of unhappiness, which can eventually produce the feelings of desperation and men

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 5
📰︎ r/Meditation
💬︎
👤︎ u/Morchelos
📅︎ Sep 10 2020
🚨︎ report
Andrzej Sapkowski about accusations of sexism, postmodernism, adaptations and why there is no map - part 2

Andrzej Sapkowski in an interview with Waldemar Czerniszewski, 1993, part 2.

WC: How did you react when you found out that there was an initiative to turn the world of the Witcher visible, meaning the comic book adaptation?

AS: At first I was a bit scared. To be honest, I've had many proposals to show ''The Witcher'' as a comic book. It started from the Polkom con in Olsztyn, where I was swarmed by sketch artists and ''comic book guys''. I kept refusing them, I didn't really know if it was possible to do it. Ultimately, I decided to accept the proposal of my publisher and Bogdan Polch, who convinced me that in ''Komiks'' (the magazine in which the Witcher comic books were published – translator's note), everything is possible. I can already see it's true. The number of comic books I've read proves that with the image, the lines and the text box, you can show much.

WC: I've witnessed many interesting reactions from my friends, who, when they discover that other than my day job I also create comic books, tell me ''Man, why even bother, it's literature for idiots!'' What, Mr. Andrzej, do you think about comic book as a medium?

AS: I don't share that opinion, even though I was never as passionate about comic books as a lot of other people are, especially young people, who are just comic book maniacs. But I've read comic books many times and with great pleasure, too. I bought Polish and foreign ones, borrowed them from my friends and got to know many different genres. I never considered comic books to be ''literature for idiots'', just like I don't think that literature is ''creating for idiots''. In any form – drawn, told, written, filmed – there's something for ''idiots'' and ''non-idiots''. In my mind, comic book is worth no less than other forms of literature, than other forms of... ART. I don't know enough about comic books to make solid statements, but other than the comic books that are pieces of art, I've also read those I didn't like.

WC: How, as the creator of the Witcher world, do you judge the work of the sketch artist, looking at the already drawn land ''between Ina and Jaruga''?

AS: That's where the biggest problem lies, stemming from the simple fact that I've never had the ambition to create worlds. Never! The world of the Witcher was always an allegory to me. I've never done what's supposed to be a Commandment of every fantasy writer, especially one that writes a longer story or a novel. He starts with the heavy dut

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 66
📰︎ r/wiedzmin
💬︎
👤︎ u/Todokugo
📅︎ Aug 15 2019
🚨︎ report
The bad science and history of a science-focused story: What does Senku from Dr. STONE get terribly wrong despite the incredible manga’s attention to detail and being so well-researched? Its most central topic: What science is. (Part one, minimal spoilers.)

#Introduction: What is Dr. STONE all about?

So, I just finished Dr. STONE, binged it all while studying for my physics final (which I did pretty well on, thanks for asking). It’s not perfect; I could definitely write a pretty detailed review on its aesthetic and moral accuracies and inaccuracies, but I’m willing to bet plenty of people more experienced with that sort of thing already are, and have repeated the points I’d have to make ad nauseam.

No, what really prompted me to write about Dr. STONE is not my assessment of how good the show is and whatever evidence I have to convince you that I’m right (though I do think it’s a fairly good show), but rather my claims about the accuracy of Dr. STONE’s claims about science. The show, for those unfamiliar with it, is about a teenager with superhuman scientific knowledge trying to see if he can (for reasons I won’t reveal) obtain our technology from scratch.

While he does this, the show explores a lot of topics central to what science is:

  1. Does science produce epistemic achievements about unobservables? That is, does science ever figure out anything? Are our best scientific theories approximating truth?
  2. What is the essence of science?
  3. Does science have a specific method to it? If so, what?
  4. Who should we, and scientists, recognize as having epistemic authority?

All of these are really important questions, but I can’t go over them all. Here’s a brief answer to each of them, and an overview of what I’ll be discussing in this post.

  1. Experts are about four times as likely to say “yes” than “no,” but there’s still a lot of disagreement on the issue. Furthermore, despite the expert consensus on the matter, scientists at large seem to disagree, with many leading scholars observing that scientists tend to hold or express what are called “anti-realist” attitudes.
  2. Not any of the main answers prior to the last few decades.
  3. No, “the scientific method” is a myth (though fortunately, scientists are listening more and more to experts on the matter) and there’s likely no such thing, though often useful for teaching those unfamiliar with science about it.
  4. There’s disagreement, but there’s been a stronger push away from hard distinctions between observers and subjects in terms of epistemic authority, and naïve notions of objectivity. Much research shows that they have an ironic tendency of moving us away from the objective truth.

I

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 8
📰︎ r/DrStone
💬︎
📅︎ Dec 13 2019
🚨︎ report
Redditors on the PCT Week 8 (June 2)

To be added to the update list, fill out this survey.
&nbsp;

Hiker Start Location Update
Bad Cheese aka /u/Whitefloor Mar 18 (N) Bishop Worried about money and unsure if finishing is a possibility. Taking some time off with family to let the snow melt a bit and figure out options.
oversizedoutdoors, Link 2 Mar 18 (N) Walker Pass "I really havent been motivated to write anything... As of right now I am at mile 640 and getting ready to head into the Sierra to deal with the insane snow conditions."
RisingWaterline Mar 19 (N) Bishop "We've been off trail for a week due to a massive hissy fit thrown by the Sierra Nevada causing frostbite in a lot of hikers caught up there. Going back into the fray! over Kearsarge Pass tomorrow-ish"
Tloop Mar 24 (N) Kearsarge Pass Flipped up to NorCal and wasn't a fan. Heading back to the Sierra to conquer the snow!
/u/Incident_reported Mar 24 (N) Kennedy Meadows Loving life, riding in the bed of a pickup to Grumpy Bear's
StinkyCheez aka /u/stinkycheez17 Mar 25 (N) Off Trail Quit because of time constraints
Sodee aka /u/Dcoakley Mar 26 (N-S-N) Lassen Flipped to Dunsmuir, heading south
Mild Sauce aka /u/anon-9 Apr 01 (N) Lone Pine Optimistic about the Sierra, and ready to make big miles once the snow lets up.
Crush aka /u/Strider8008 Apr 02 (N) Lone Pine Doing some bouldering
Spice aka /u/hotncold1994, Link 2 Apr 05 (N) Kennedy Meadows "My feet haven’t stopped hurting. My pack still feels heavy... it’s been absolutely incredible"
Shortstack aka /u/Mooyack , Link 2 Apr 05 (N) Kennedy Meadows "I’m doing this, I’m really doing this!"
HikingRogue Apr 07 (N) Tehachapi "These wind turbines are absolutely massive."
miken1ke
... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 6
💬︎
👤︎ u/mvia4
📅︎ Jun 03 2019
🚨︎ report

Please note that this site uses cookies to personalise content and adverts, to provide social media features, and to analyse web traffic. Click here for more information.