• AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM
    My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such. — Hanover

    Like all religions, taoism has an ethical system, without being reducible to it. It also has a metaphysics. If one wishes to know what the Ultimate is (be it the Chinese Tao, or the Christian God), that doesn't seem (to my mind) to be within the province of ethics. It seems to belong instead to the province of cosmology. And behind the anthropomorphic or naturalistic figures (i.e., Zeus in Greek mythology, Nature in Taoism) there are philosophical concepts at work. These concepts are best understood from the point of view of scientific anthropology, rather than normative ethics (I.e., the ten commandments).

    There is also the question regarding mysticism and the Imago Dei. That doesn't necessarily say anything to me in terms of Ethics. It seems more like a genuine religious experience instead, and there is no prose-like language that can accurately express "what those experiences feel like" in terms of "qualia". Hence, poetry.
  • Tao follows Nature
    1

    Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature. No name can fully express what it represents.
    It is Nature itself, and not any part (or name or description) abstracted from Nature, which is the ultimate source of all that happens, all that comes and goes, begins and ends, is and is not. But to describe Nature as "the ultimate source of all" is still only a description, and such a description is not Nature itself. Yet since, in order to speak of it, we must use words, we shall have to describe it as "the ultimate source of all."
    If Nature is inexpressible, he who desires to know Nature as it is in itself will not try to express it in words
    Although the existence of Nature and a description of that existence are two different things, yet they are also the same.
    For both are ways of existing. That is, a description of existence must have its own existence, which is different from the existence of that which it describes; and so again we have to recognize an existence which cannot be described.     — Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958
  • Tao follows Nature
    25

    There exists something which is prior to all beginnings and endings, Which, unmoved and unmanifest, itself neither begins nor ends. All-pervasive and inexhaustible, it is the perpetual source of everything else,
    For want of a better name, I call it Nature. If I am forced to describe it, I speak of it as "ultimate reality."

    Ultimate reality involves initiation of growth, initiation of growth involves completion of growth, and completion of growth involves returning to that whence it came.

    Nature is ultimate, the principle of initiating is ultimate, and the principle of perfecting is ultimate. And the intelligent person is also ultimate. Four kinds of ultimate, then, exist, and the intelligent man is one of them.

    Man devotes himself to satisfying his desires, fulfilling his purposes, realizing his ideals, or achieving his goals. But goals are derived from aims. And all aiming is Nature's aiming, and is Nature's way of being itself.     — Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Sellars might well caution that access to or articulation of this division is mediated by our frameworks, this doesn’t necessarily entail rejecting the claim of independence itself. — Banno

    Ok @Banno, this is to your Quinenean point, actually. What you just said there about Sellars is an example of what I personally call "Alien-like Language". That's what it sounds like, to my ear at least. It sounds more alien-ish than Ordinary English.

    If that's all the proof that you have for Quine's theory of reference, then it graves me to say that Quine does not have much to tell us, about any substantial worldly matters. Sounds about fair?
  • Tao follows Nature
    It wasn't even that the book says inaccurate or wrong things. It says wrongheaded things. Things that don't fit in to my intuitive understanding of how the world works. — T Clark

    Unfortunately the misrepresentation of quantum physics outside of the university is something of an intellectual epidemic. Non-physicists tend to say nonsense when they talk about quantum physics. Like, it would be as if you or I suddenly started talking about the geology of Mars or whatever. But the difference between us and the people that use quantum physics without understanding it is that we're not profiting off of someone's ignorance. I'm not in the habit of writing self-help books, I don't think that's an Ethical line of work, to be perfectly honest. Why not? Because then you have self-appointed gurus talking about quantum physics without knowing anything about quantum physics.

    It's like, where does it stop? The next book they'll have us reading will be "Quantum Physics and How to Fix Your Kitchen Sink". I mean, come on. Enough already.

    I did read the whole book, fuming all the while. — T Clark

    Well, you're a better person than me, that's for sure. I wouldn't read that thing even if someone paid me to do it.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    (DK1) There is no explanatory connection between how we believe the world to be divided up into objects the how the world actually is divided up into objects. — Daniel Z. Korman

    Do you think Quine somehow posited this?     — Banno

    Quine would not have rejected DKI. He would have rejected DK2 instead. Why? Because of this:

    In simple terms, there is an "explanatory connection between how we believe the world to be divided up into objects the how the world actually is divided up into objects", given by holism. We use names so as to achieve the best fit to all our beliefs. We can't just divide the world up willy nilly - it has to be self- consistent.

    But moreover, the presumption that there is a "way the world is divided up" that is distinct from our conventions concerning rabbits and legs looks very much like "the myth of the given".

    So Quine would perhaps join you in rejecting DK1.

    There's also perhaps a presumption here that either the way the world divides up is entirely independent of our language, or it is entirely and arbitrarily dependent on it. Why not a middle ground, where we divide the world up using language in accord with how things are?     — Banno

    There is no middle ground. If you reject DK1, as I do, then you are effectively saying that we, human beings, apprehend objects and/or facts directly, the way they are, instead of merely "how they appear to us". Is it a perfect access to the things themselves? No, it's slightly distorted, in the manner of a map-territory correlation. And I mean that in a Meillassouxian way.

    If you reject DK2, you have (at least) two very, very different options. One is to embrace deflationism. This is Quine's position. The other one is metaphysical permissivism: you concede that it's a triviality that ordinary objects exist, and you claim (by parity of reasoning) that extraordinary objects such as trogs and incars exist. This seems to be your own position.
  • Tao follows Nature
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    How do you know? Take the question literally - what information do you have tat hand that shows that you and I are speaking the same language? — Banno

    :roll:

    The suggestion is that what this amounts to is our ongoing agreement as to the overall topic - that we are not here talking in German or about V8 engines is shown by our overwhelming agreement - that we are discussing philosophical issues concerning reference in a forum for that sort of thing. That is, we can be confident we are speaking the same language becasue of the holistic context. — Banno

    :roll:

    What's the alternative? — Banno

    The alternative to what? To Quine's nonsense? Science in its entirety.

    Quantification is not about what something is made of. That table exists because it is made of wood; and therefore something is made of wood. And that something is now the value of the variable bound by "something is...". The table is the value of a bound variable. And Pegasus is a greek myth, therefore something is a greek myth, and so Pegasus is the value of a bound variable. — Banno

    Existence is a property, not a quantity. You represent it with a predicate, not with a quantifier.

    Putting this in your common sense terms, when we say Pegasus does not exist, but the table does, we meant that Pegasus is not the sort of thing that is made of wood, but it is the sort of thing found in a greek myth. — Banno

    Then what you're saying to the common person is mediocre at best. They deserve better from philosophers.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Sure. And they can do this by pointing to the difference between being made of wood and being a myth. — Banno

    That's not good enough. Quarks are not made of anything.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    And how will you be able to tell that you and your companion are indeed "speaking the same language"? — Banno

    You and I are speaking the same language right now. It's the English language.

    Indeed, what is "speaking the same language" apart from the sort of agreement Quine is using? — Banno

    Something far more complex than the deluded beliefs of a philosophical Tax Lawyer.

    Quine's point is that we don't.. All we need to do is get on.
    2m     — Banno

    What a laudable, important point. Almost as important as finding the cure for cancer.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Or drop "existence" altogether in favour of quantification. To be is to be the value of a bound variable. Which is Quine's approach. — Banno

    Philosophers have the moral obligation to vindicate ordinary speakers when they say that tables exist and that Pegasus doesn't.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    It strikes me as an error to suppose that becasue there is a name there must be a thing named. — Banno

    If that's what you think, then you run directly into the following metaphysical problem, known in the literature as a Debunking Argument against Ordinary Objects:

    (DK1) There is no explanatory connection between how we believe the world to be divided up into objects the how the world actually is divided up into objects.
    (DK2) If so, then it would be a coincidence if our object beliefs turned out to be correct.
    (DK3) If it would be a coincidence if our object beliefs turned out to be correct, then we shouldn’t believe that there are trees.
    (DK4) So, we shouldn’t believe that there are trees.     — Daniel Z. Korman

    And the best strategy here is to deny the first premise. There is indeed an explanatory connection between how we believe the world to be divided up into objects, and how the world actually is divided up into objects.

    So "Neil Armstrong" succeeds in referring to Neil Armstrong, but what of "Pegasus"? — Banno

    You have two options here: to trace a distinction between conceptual existence and real existence, or to only recognize one type of existence (real existence). Bunge prefers the former. I prefer the latter. I would say that the word "Pegasus" successfully refers to the winged horse of Greek mythology (that would be the Russellian definite description here), and that such a creature, is just a fiction while it does not exist as a fiction (it exists, instead, as a mere brain process). In other words, I don't need to make any ontological commitment to fictional entities here, for the purpose of defending a non-Quinean account of how reference works. But, for all intents and purposes, I will say that "Pegasus" successfully refers to Pegasus (and that Pegasus does not really exist).

    Perhaps they think "rabbit" is the name of the creature you saw, or the word for an attached rabbit foot. How will you find out? — Banno

    By speaking the same language. If someone points at something and says something in another language, I don't know what they're referring to. But that's not because those words have inscrutable references. It's just because I don't speak the language of that person. And I don't even need to learn the entire language. I can learn just those few words that the other person just used. For example, if both of us speak English, and the other person points to a small piece of paper with some pictures, and says Briefmarke, and I don't know German, I can ask him: "What does that mean in German?", the other person says "it means stamp". The reference has ceased to be "inscrutable", if by "inscrutable" we simply mean, at the end of the day, that I didn't know what the reference was, instead of saying that it's unknowable.

    By continuing the conversation and checking for understanding.

    And on Quine's account, you can never be quite certain that they have understood you.     — Banno

    Why is this such a big deal in the first place? Why do I need my interlocutors to fully understand everything that I'm saying, 100% of the time? Ordinary language contains vague expressions. So? That doesn't mean that references are inscrutable.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    ↪frank


    It has been said that “E = mc²” proves that physics has dematerialized matter. This claim involves two confusions: the identification of “matter” and “mass”, and the belief that energy is a thing, while actually it is a property of material things: there is no energy without things, just as there are no areas without surfaces. — Bunge (2012: 137)
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    ↪Banno
    A proper noun such as "Neil Armstrong" successfully refers to Neil Armstrong. A Russellian definite description such as "The first person to walk on the Moon" successfully refers to Neil Armstrong. When Buzz Aldrin says to Neil Armstrong "Hey Neil, how's it going?" he is successfully referring to Neil Armstrong. When I say "that rabbit", and I point to a rabbit, I am successfully referring to that rabbit that I am pointing at. When I say "that rabbit's front left paw", I am successfully referring to that rabbit's front left paw. The word "gavagai" is a word that Quine made up. It is intentionally vague. Its vagueness can be remedied by specifying what the word refers to. Very few words are comparable to "gavagai" in that sense. The word "gavagai" is just as nonsensical as the word "pegasizes", as in, "nothing Pegasizes". Is there something in the world, according to Quine's reasoning, that "gavagaizes?" Is there an object or creature in the world that performs the act of "gavagaizing"?
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    Ohhhhh! I get it now! You're a p-zombie! — Harry Hindu

    No, I'm not a philosophical zombie. I can experience pain, as well as other qualia. I know "what it's like" to have a first-person perspective, because I actually have one.

    thoughts and minds as being existent facts — Harry Hindu

    Thoughts are not facts, and neither are minds. I say that in the same sense that a table is not a fact. An apple is not a fact either. What would the fact be, in such cases? It would be a fact that there is an apple on the table. But the apple itself is not a fact, it is instead a thing. The same goes for the table: it is a thing, not a fact. Thoughts are not facts, and they are not things, they are processes ("mental processes", if you will) and the mind is not a fact, nor a thing, it is instead a process (it is a series of processes that the brain undergoes, just as digestion is a process that the gut undergoes, just as the act of walking is a process that the legs undergo).

    But you've just proved that they do exist because you seem to have a different (or lack of) understanding of what is meant by "thoughts" and "mind" when people use those words. — Harry Hindu

    What is meant by "thoughts" and "mind" when people use those words has nothing to do with their existence, because they don't have existence to begin with. Existence is a real property that concrete, material things have, and only they (the concrete, material things) have it (existence is not a quantity, therefore the existential quantifier "∃" has no ontological import). Ideal objects (such as Plato's Ideas, or Aristotle's Prime Mover) do not have it. Stated differently, ideal objects do not have the property of existence. And the creative intentions of the speakers of a language make no difference here: you can creatively intend as much as you want when you mean that thoughts and minds exist, that doesn't magically grant them the property of existence.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    It's true that the earth orbits the sun if we say the sun is stationary relative to the earth. We could instead pick the earth as the stationary point and then it wouldn't be true that the earth orbits the sun. — frank

    :roll:
    The speed of light is the only thing in the Universe that is constant, in the sense of being frame invariant. Is that what you want to argue? :roll: There's other stuff that is also frame invariant, "c" is not the only one. And it's possible to argue from there (after a somewhat lengthy series of steps) that the Earth orbits the Sun.

    This is not rocket science guys. — frank

    No, it isn't. So why are we even talking about it? Just for the sake of arguing?

    Also energy and mass are constructs. — frank

    No, they're not. They're real properties that physical things have. We refer to them with "E" and "m", those are the constructs, not the referents themselves. The territory is not the map.

    They aren't observable. — frank

    So? Just because something is not observable, it doesn't mean that it's not real. I can't observe a living Triceratops. That doesn't mean that there weren't living Triceratopses in the past (and yes "Triceratopses" is indeed the plural of "Triceratops").

    The list goes on. — frank

    The list of what? Things are not words, and words are not things. The map is not the territory. The map successfully refers to the territory. Is it a perfect 1-to-1 match? Of course not. But why would anyone say that the territory that the map refers to is inscrutable? It isn't.
  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    ↪unenlightened
    Are you familiar with the work of Panopticon? It's RABM Metal from Kentucky (Red and Black Metal, as in, Left and Anarchist Black Metal). They did a cover of the labor song "Come All Ye Coal Miners":

  • Tao follows Nature
    it is a book I disliked even before I had the words to explain why I didn't. — T Clark

    Because you knew that the book was saying inaccurate things, if not outright wrong things. You didn't need sophisticated, articulate words to explain why you had that impression: you just had it (the impression, that is).

    There is a saying (you already know it) that one should not judge a book by its cover. But that does not apply here. You were not judging the book's cover. You were judging its content. How can one judge the content of a book without reading it? By reading its title, author, and synopsis, for example. By skimming through the pages. By reading the index, or the table of contents. By looking at the bibliographical references cited. By reading the marketing blurbs. Etc. We don't need to read an entire book just to have a more or less accurate opinion on it.
  • Tao follows Nature
    A.I. may be taking us away from Nature, but you can only go back-to-nature by trashing your computer. :cool: — Gnomon

    All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace

    I like to think (and
    the sooner the better!)
    of a cybernetic meadow
    where mammals and computers
    live together in mutually
    programming harmony
    like pure water
    touching clear sky.

    I like to think
    (right now, please!)
    of a cybernetic forest
    filled with pines and electronics
    where deer stroll peacefully
    past computers
    as if they were flowers
    with spinning blossoms.

    I like to think
    (it has to be!)
    of a cybernetic ecology
    where we are free of our labors
    and joined back to nature,
    returned to our mammal
    brothers and sisters,
    and all watched over
    by machines of loving grace.     — Richard Brautigan
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Do you believe it's true that the earth orbits the sun? Did you know that this "truth" is relative to choices that we little people make? If there's no one to choose a frame of reference, there is no truth of the matter. This is not philosophy. It's physics. — frank

    Hi, excuse me. In my personal ontology, truth is a feature of Reality itself. It has nothing to do with humans. Not all frames of reference are human. The fact that the Earth orbits the Sun would be the same fact if humanity went extinct, or if it never existed to begin with. It is true that the Earth orbits the Sun, because that truth is related to a fact. It would have been related to that fact even in the absence of human beings. And in fact, it was, it still is, and will be, for as long as it is a fact that the Earth orbits around the Sun (if, in the extremely distant future, the Sun ceases to exist, then such matters of fact will have changed).
  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    Suffice to say I don't agree with much of that :) — AmadeusD

    Feel free to disagree. See?
    It even rhymes. It's a cool thing to say. And, I actually believe in it.

    Glad we're at least in the same areas of taste though — AmadeusD

    People that listen to Heavy Metal have the best taste in the world of Rock and Roll in general.
  • Tao follows Nature
    The use of AI generated text undermines the credibility of sources and usually provides low quality and even incorrect information. Besides that, there are forum rules against it. — T Clark

    There's an even larger problem here, to my mind at least. Not too long ago, there was a meme about a person that asked an AI something like "What's the best recipe for Glue Pizza? Tell me the answer with an actual step-by-step recipe". And there was a numbered step that said something like "Add glue to the pizza". Apparently it didn't understand the concept that human beings do not eat glue, therefore a cooking recipe should not include glue. Why not? Well, because no one has solved Hume's is-ought problem. So, as best as the machine could "take a guess", maybe it's ok to make a recipe for a Glue Pizza. Why not? Didn't the human tell me to do exactly that? Suppose that it would be in her best interest (assuming charitableness of intentions), then the answer is yes. So, here's your recipe for a Glue Pizza."

    It's a genuine problem. Large-Language Models (LLMs) don't experience "Qualia", to use a philosophically loaded word from Philosophy of Mind. In other words: they don't have good common sense.

    (edited grammar)
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    I was thinking of starting a reading group on the SEP article, but I don't currently have time to field it. Feel free to start it yourself. — Leontiskos

    No, it's too much responsibility right now, I've a few other Threads that I've started that need my attention, I wouldn't be able to concentrate enough for the Medieval discussion on universals. It's a subject matter that I'm genuinely interested in, but I don't want to take the lead, here.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    "Triangle" is a concept which encompasses all sorts of different images, both mental and real. It is universal - it spans many particulars. — Leontiskos

    Is there a thread on medieval universals where we can discuss this? It interests me, but I don't want to start a new thread if no one cares.
  • Tao follows Nature
    We're not supposed to use AI generated content. — T Clark

    I just want to state for the record that I have no problem with AI generated content in this specific Thread, but I do have several reservations about it, outside of this Thread. I think that the use of AI generated content is indeed displacing jobs in several creative fields, especially the visual arts, particularly illustration, concept art, video game asset design, etc. This was a huge deal in the world of professional writers not too long ago, and it still is.

    The consensus among specialists on the topic of AI & Art, for the moment, seems to be that AI generated poetry is no match for human poetry in terms of its conceptual complexity. There is no AI equivalent to Emily Dickinson. There just isn't. There's no AI equivalent to Hesiod's Theogony, or to Parmenides' poem On Being. There just aren't. Machines have not reached that level of abstraction yet, as counter-intuitive as that sounds.

    (slightly edited grammar)

    EDIT: And, to my knowledge, no AI has produced, or is even capable of producing, a text like the Tao Te Ching. Conceptually, it is far too complex for even the best AIs out there to replicate.
  • 2025: 50th anniversary of Franco's death...
    Does Esperanto have categorically imperative verbs? — BC

    I've no idea, I don't speak it myself. I understand the concept, but I never cared to learn it. It was really fashionable in the Vienna Circle, among the Logical Positivists. Carnap was passionate about it, he said that he was deeply moved when he heard a work of art in that language (I can't remember if it was a poem, or a theatrical piece, or what).
  • Deep Songs
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    tools are for using — Banno

    Rorty says that a screwdriver can be used for scratching your ear or something along those lines.
  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    I think Dream Theater are the absolute epitome of tasteless wankery. — AmadeusD

    Damn, that's a metal thing to say. Tasteless wankery? Dream Theater? Well that applies to all of Heavy Metal, now doesn't it? What is Black Sabbath if not tasteless wankery? If that's what you want to discuss, what's the alternative? Hippie music? Like, maybe in the 60's and the 70's that was cool, but if you were a teenager in the 80's or the 90's or the early 00's? Those decades have no representative hippie rock bands. There's heavy metal, there's hip hop (rap, specifically), there's hardcore punk rock, there's gothic rock, there's darkwave, there's Krautrock, there's noise rock, I mean the list just goes on and on. And I listen to a lot of that stuff myself, but and the end of the day I'm just a metalhead with a bit of hardcore punk, that's basically it. That's why we were all so stupid to buy into Metallica in the first place, and into Thrash Metal more generally.

    So, back to Dream Theater. I can see what you're saying, but I don't know if they're the epitome of tasteless wankery. I think they're somewhere in the middle. I think that Dragonforce is the epitome of tasteless wankery. They're better musicians than Dream Theater, and they're a better Heavy Metal band. Power Metal is more metal than Progressive Metal. I'm telling you, Dragonforce has it all figured out, that's why one of their songs is in the Guitar Hero video game. Dragonforce was specifically braincrafted ("engineered") to be the Be-All, End-All Power Metal Band. Like, I'm sure that they literally believe that they are the best Heavy Metal musicians in the scene, if not the best musicians in pop music today.

    And all I'm saying is that they're wrong. What they do, from a conceptual, lyrical, and instrumental standpoint, is the epitome of tasteless wankery tout court.
  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    ↪AmadeusD
    Dragonforce is a real head-scratcher for me at the end of the day. I mean, on the face of it, their idea makes sense, right?

    1) Heavy Metal is more technical than Rock and Roll.
    2) Power Metal is the most technical subgenre in Heavy Metal.
    3) So, let's make the most technical band in the Power Metal subgenre.

    But it just leads to something that, when you look at it from a philosophical standpoint (as in, Aesthetics, or Philosophy of Art), it's just conceptually meaningless. I mean, what's the actual message of the band? What are the artists "trying to say" to their audience? What do they want to "express"?

    And the answer is something along the following lines: "Look, we're just the best musicians on the Planet, that's a fact, take it or leave it."

    And I'm not sure that I agree with such a philosophically loaded statement. Tool is better than Dragonforce, and that's a fact. Of course, the easy objection here to what I just said is that "Bro Maybe Tool Is Not A Metal Band".

    And my reply to that would be: Fuck off. Earth Crisis is Heavy Metal, Amebix is Heavy Metal, so Tool is Heavy Metal.

    So, back to the problem with Dragonforce. They're not the best musicians on the Planet. I don't buy that for a second. Well, maybe for a literal second I can somehow believe it, but no more than that. A classically trained professional Pianist, that plays at Madison Square Garden, is a million, trillion, zillionth times better Musician, better Performer, better Artist, better Human Being Simpliciter, than any of the members in Dragonforce.
  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    What I get out of Tool is the music. I listen to Tool like any other band (though, they aren't my favourite by a long shot). I enjoy their music at a very, very high level (and as a drummer, I am bound to continually exalt Daniel Carrington). — AmadeusD

    Come on man. Mike Portnoy is a million times better than Daniel Carrington. If it's high level that you want, then we should all just listen to Dream Theater. And if that's the argument, then we should all just listen to Dragonforce. And Dragonforce is awful!
  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    I guess I don't really see Bungle as metal beyond the Easter Bunny EP(both versions). Try not to shoot me :P — AmadeusD

    No, I'm super inclusive in that sense, I mean I started this thread by saying that Earth Crisis occupies the first three spots, I mean, it's a free-for-all at this stage of the game. Like, you could probably say something crazy like Michael Jackson is the best Heavy Metal artist, and I would probably believe you. I wouldn't agree with you, but it's like, you have the basic human right to have mistaken beliefs, just as much as anyone and everyone does.

    French pop music — AmadeusD

    Oh man, I hate that stuff. I hate French pop. It's an abomination. Like, it's just too much. You have to draw the line somewhere, even if it's Mike Patton that we're talking about here.

    but most Tool fans i've encountered aren't exemplary of these stereotypes... Then again, Maynard hates his fans so maybe you're right lol. — AmadeusD

    That's what I'm saying. Maynard is a "philosophical schizophrenic". He likes double meanings in songs. What is the song "Stinkfist" even talking about? Well, it has an obvious double meaning. And that double meaning is usually lost on the Tool fandom, it flies right over their heads, r/whoosh and all of that stupid stuff. That's why Maynard hates them. And you know what? He does have a point. A rather good point. So, by that point, I just stop listening to Tool, because if double meanings and Fibonacci sequences are all that I can get out of it, then, it's like, it's a mediocre band, objectively speaking. And if Maynard disagrees, then, well, go take a fucking anchor up your ass, know what I'm saying? Your band sucks, Primus already did what you guys are trying to do.

    Phew...

    Nothing personal though, all good, brah.
  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    Best rather than greatest? — AmadeusD

    Same difference, I would say.
    Source: I'm a philosopher, Trust Me Bro.

    ↪AmadeusD
    Faith No More and Fantomas, but no Mr. Bungle? What would Mike Patton say? : D

    Tool fans are toxic virgins. — Arcane Sandwich

    You really wanna go down this type of road on a philosophy forum? Hehehe.     — AmadeusD

    Hey, hey! I'm a Tool Fan as well! Come on, man. Let's be real. The Tool fandom is toxic, and the mentality of the Tool fandom is a virgin mentality. Like, guys and gals that overthink things, they get in their own way, they're trapped in their own minds, yadda yadda. Like, let's just assume it, and get on with it. We listen to healthy music, in addition to Tool. Right? Country music can be classified as healthy music, right? And, we also listen to Chad mentality music. I mean, within reason, of course. I don't listen to Mötley Crüe, for example, I don't listen to garbage. It's just musical garbage, there's no other way to describe it (other than "Toxic Chad"). As for Chad music, I like Hatebreed for example, and they're arguably Healthy Chad instead of Toxic Chad, right? Like, there's a positive message to their songs, they're uplifting (the technical term is "posi-violence", a portmanteau of "positive violence". It's like Positive Hardcore, sort of. Minus the violence, I guess).

    But I mean, it's kinda like, Tool fans are sort of pretentious, right? And I for one don't like to just blurt out something like "What about Heavy Metal?" because that's just Whataboutism. Like, it's apples and oranges. Yes, metalheads are indeed pretentious, and yes, Tool fans are indeed pretentious. But not in the same way! Lol : D
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Tell us more about me. — Banno

    I'll take that bet. You believe that words are the philosopher's tools, because you believe that anything that can be used is a tool (I disagree, but that's beside the point). You believe that the craftsman must take care of his tools, hence the philosopher should take care of his words. In that sense, you have some reservations on Quine as a philosopher. You see him as a good technician or an engineer, but you don't really consider him to be a philosopher. More like a person that studies grammar.
  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    ↪Tobias
    :up:

    Merciful Fate is wicked.
  • Deep Songs
  • On religion and suffering
    a serious player — Tom Storm

    Does that mean that he doesn't have fun playing?
  • Tao follows Nature
    Is there nature on Mars?
    That angry red planet, which the ancient Romans believed was the God of War.

    Is there nature in a stone?
    That lifeless inorganic object made of minerals.

    Is there nature in a number?
    That abstraction of the human mind that has no more existence than mythological creatures.

    Is there nature in table?
    That piece of wood that a carpenter shaped until it looked like a table.

    Is there nature in philosophy?
    That love of wisdom that one learns in preparation for one's own inevitable death.

    Is there nature in poetry?
    Emily Dickinson understood poetry better than me.

    Is there nature in a song?

    Do whales sing?
    Do whales speak to each other?
    What do they say to each other?

    Are they sad because they know that they will eventually die?
    Is that why they beach themselves when they are sick?

    Why do living creatures have to die?
  • Tao follows Nature
    What am I? What is one? Is one a person?

    Is one just a person? I am not just a person. Every person is an animal. Therefore, I am an animal. One is an animal.

    Is one just an animal? I am not just an animal. Every animal is a collection of chemical elements, most notably carbon. One is a collection of chemical elements.

    One is, more generally, a classical physical body, occupying a spatiotemporal location, subject to physical forces, such as the force of gravity. One is a physical entity. As such, one is a physical subject, not merely a person.
  • Tao follows Nature
Home » Arcane Sandwich

Arcane Sandwich

Start FollowingSend a Message