Born to Squint, Forced to See ⚜️
Not every country is quite as ridiculous with private property. For example in Scandinavian countries they have the “everymans right”, which basically says that, within reasonable limits, owning property doesnt mean no one else can pass through it or use it to fulfill basic human needs for a few days
Im still waiting for a link to proof we understand the origin and function of the human consciousness, since its so easy to find. Go ahead, throw me one since I cant find it myself.
Since you have no clue what youre talking about, here is a clear cut example of how we are still just beginning to understand the brain:
Scientists are beginning to confirm that our massive capacity for memory is due to astrocytes, which we previously thought had nothing to do with memory.
Maybe you ought to question shit a bit more instead of being confident in things that experts arent even confident in. The more you know the more you realize what you dont know. And we dont know quite a few things
Oh, I didnt realize scientists finally cracked the case of exactly where within the mind our consciousness resides, and the mechanisms by which it functions.
Please, by all means, link me to that info. I cant believe I missed such a critical discovery.
It’s especially amazing considering we hardly have any understanding of how the brain fucking works in general. Were still hypothesizing how we can even store so much information, yet we figured out consciousness? Where the very soul stems from? Truly incredible
Less concerning to me is the magazine than the fact that this dude is a philosophy research fellow at the University of Kent. I cant imagine working under a guy whos arguments dont hold up to the scrutiny of anyone with an introductory philosophy education
The hell is this article?
For one, he really fails to prove his main argument
on virtually every point that mattered he was disastrously wrong, and his errors entrenched fundamental mistakes that would hamper philosophy and intellectual culture forever more
Proceeds to critique the concept of the duality of mind and body as if its some kind of settled science rather than an open question. Which is really annoying considering he is trying to hammer Plato for being too rigid in thought.
Plato also established the method of defining terms by necessary and sufficient conditions (although that terminology came later). So, for example, he considered the idea that knowledge is justified true belief, meaning that for a belief to count as knowledge it is both necessary and sufficient that it is true and justified. This kind of search for strict definitions has dominated western philosophy but we now know that this is not how language works. In different ways the psychologist Eleanor Rosch and the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein both described how words are far more indeterminate and that the only way to understand their meaning is to understand how they are used. The philosophers’ search for precision in meanings is like trying to draw a clear line around a fuzzy object.
It feels like this author, despite writing about philosophy, has never taken a basic course on logic. Their conclusion is hardly relevant to the argument. Could the use of words not be a fundamental perspective of what definitions it can have? In some Latin countries they have a phrase “cutting dicks” which is like “coming in hot”. Obviously there is a literal and a metaphorical interpretation to the idea of cutting dicks. The contextual use of the phrase would convey the meaning. Either way, that leaves us with no confusion as to the very clear definitions of the phrase. Despite the fact that the literal and metaphorical use are completely different, the coexistence of the different meanings does not undermine Plato’s perspective of knowledge in any way, as far as I can see.
If we wait until we all agree on precisely what justice means before trying to create it, we’ll be here until doomsday. Nor should we expect there to be one, single ideal of justice anyway. It has many dimensions, not always compatible with each other. But although we may not agree on what perfect justice looks like, we can easily agree on what counts as manifest injustice here and now. And that’s what we should focus on.
Again, this guy is killing me here. If we can “easily agree on what manifest injustice” looks like in the moment, then ipso-facto we can easily agree on what manifest justice looks like as well. I dont even agree that it is so simple for everyone to agree on what manifest injustice looks like, which would actually further his original point. But instead he shoots his own argument in the foot by not considering the inverse statement he is implying must be true. He ends up arguing basically in favor of Plato’s rigid perspective of justice. Ill also note its frustrating that he again is overly rigid in his own criticism of someone else’s logical rigidity. Did Plato argue we should sit around arguing over justice ad infinitum and never do anything, or did he argue that we can define, at least momentarily, and ideal of justice by which to enact decision making right now?
The original Socratic method is for Socrates to dictate the terms of the debate, explicitly or by cunning orchestration of the discussion, with the merely destructive goal of shredding whatever hypotheses his interlocutors propose.
While this is a fairly dramatic interpretation, a more common perspective would see the intense scrutiny of arguments as beneficial, considering it very quickly exposes logical inconsistencies. Although it is quite clear that the author is not a fan of logical consistency, so I can see why he detests a method renowned for rooting it out.
This dude should sue for a refund on his PhD program or whatever. Maybe he is better in long format, idk. But this article would hardly make good toilet paper, let alone any decent arguments
Freud was just a guy who failed at finding eel genitals and then moved on to the simpler task of defining the human condition
PSA for anyone who doesnt know: there is no such thing as a flushable wipe. “Flushable” is a marketing lie. Dont flush any wipes!
Im talking about nuclear fusion not nuclear fission. But clearly youre here to troll and not actually have any understanding of the issues at hand
You realize the ultimate source of renewable energy is nuclear fusion?
The microkra
Ironically, the Lego inside was mostly sea-themed, for kits including Lego Pirates and Lego Aquazone
deleted by creator
Tbf teenagers are generally emotionally unstable and highly impressionable. As anyone who has ever spent a lot of time working around them could tell you, the same kids could either be absolute shitbirds or total saints just depending on the day.
If you have a group of 5 teenagers, all it takes is one of them being a prick for all 5 of them to start acting like pricks. The same is true when it comes to them acting positively. If one acts like a saint first, then the rest are more likely to follow
“Wow, this baby really purrs”
“Wait…. Is it meowing too?”
On an island with ample food sources it really isn’t all that crazy, compared to the many things I have heard of dogs surviving.
There was a dog that got lost on Saint Lawrence Island in the winter, which apparently crossed the sea ice all the way to Wales, AK over 160 miles away. I think they believe the dog managed to catch and eat birds along the way, as there was quite literally nothing else he could have eaten.
That is quite insane. I cant imagine how I would survive on foot trying to make it 160 miles away, let alone if that entire 160 miles was just barren ice
I once had a very similar experience at GWB in Houston, except it wasnt even 4am. I was just highly confused when the lady started yelling at me to take off my belt.
As I was complying, apparently the right thing to say was not “Im sorry, they didnt make me take my belt off at XYZ airport earlier”, because Im fairly certain that response almost earned me a trip to the special area and an all-expenses-paid cavity check. To say she was unpleased would be a massive understatement