I've deleted that stuff for being off-topic. — Michael

Thanks for your opinion, with which I disagree. — StreetlightX

(e.g. Weinstein)? — Michael

They can't be much clearer about that than they have been recently. — Benkei

So, what? It's not worth trying? That we shouldn't at least hold the guilty accountable (e.g. Weinstein)? — Michael

I was just saying that the #MeToo movement is "trying to convince your average guy in the Western world not to pat a woman's bottom in what they take to be the 'right' social settings." — Michael

Sure, and there are people out there who like BDSM. But you don't use that to try to justify acting on the assumption that maybe the person you're with likes that sort of thing. — Michael

That's what the #MeToo movement is drawing attention to. — Michael

That's what the #MeToo movement is trying to do. It might be futile (or it might not), but it's an admirable effort all the same. — Michael

It is indeed and should be a social restriction on how a lot men behave towards women because women don't want to be treated that way. — Benkei

A good 50 % of their pieces in the last month were nothing more than postmodernism bashing or feminism bashing. — Akanthinos

Well... you don't like the alt-right, you don't like academic criticism of BS, and you don't like Trotskyist socialist rags, what the hell do you like? — Bitter Crank

It's not the slap that's the problem but the society that considers this acceptable. It shouldn't be. So it's all commentary on those social norms and the acts being an expression of that aren't really the issue here. — Benkei

Almost no one would think to slap a guy's ass (ok, ok, I'm telling the wrong guy now, but on average!) — Benkei

I don't think Philosophy makes progress, but neither does literature, music, or art. Which doesn't mean within these non-progressing fields there is never anything new or improved. Technology can make progress, because yesterday's tools can be remodeled, combined, and given new applications. A waterwheel can be replaced by a better waterwheel or better gearing. A higher dam can be built. Eventually the waterwheel can become a turbine and extract even more power out of falling water. That's "progress".

Art, philosophy, literature, or music are much less about technology and more about an individual reflecting on the realities of his times. Sophocles, Shakespeare, or Miller and Mamet all hit the target of drama. From the earliest music to today's latest, music soothes us savage beasts (or stirs us for the battle). The early philosophers take on what makes a life good may not be the final answer, but it a good answer that one is likely to get. — Bitter Crank

"Would have"! What, you didn't vote on your own poll? — Janus

I'm not sure whether I would count him as a Platonist. — Janus

I think some metaphysical systems are more coherent and consistent with the whole range of human experience; aesthetic, ethical, religious, scientific, phenomenological and so on, than others. — Janus

So, for example for someone who rejects the reality of religious experience there is no demand that metaphysical systems must account for religious experience; although they would still nedd to account for the belief that there are purported illusions of religious experience. — Janus

Is it just the "solving" of problems, in the "consumption" model of knowledge? — darthbarracuda

Or can it be the appreciation of questions themselves, and the creation of new questions? — darthbarracuda

A lot of this I think has to do with whether we see philosophical issues as problems or questions. Problems implies we're anxious to figure things out and move on. — darthbarracuda

Typically they ignore the fact that everything else is endless and pointless. — darthbarracuda

Once you think you've "solved" a philosophical problem it seems to end up being dull and banal, like a dead weight you drag around. You wonder what the whole fuss was about, and why it's seen as so important. — darthbarracuda

If there's still a good reason to explore the world and discover new things it's because it's fun to hang out with friends and have a common goal. It's not very "aristocratic", but who cares. — darthbarracuda

Sure, but the very limits of the mechanics would be themselves evolutionarily derived: that a heart wall is this thick and not that thick, that bone density would be such and not so, is not just an accident of mechanics but a function of evolutionary honing. — StreetlightX

. Even if it is granted that metabolic regulation might be able to kick into gear during a such a stress-event, no regulation would be able to keep up in the face of such permanence stress (and it would be an understatement to even call 'stress' itself an understatement here). — StreetlightX

You keep leaning on 'regulation' as though it were some magical instrument that can simply alter metabolic and other rates willy nilly: but this simply flies in the face of any understanding of evolution and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. — StreetlightX

I voted 'Yes' and 'other'. — Janus

On the other hand, philosophical system building is motivated by a desire to come up with a metaphysical system that includes and makes sense of all of our experience. — Janus

I think of all philosophers Whitehead has come closest to achieving that. — Janus

Controlling pulse (and blood pressure) is an integral part of your body's self-regulation mechanism, and it usually can control it over a very wide range, which is only limited by the mechanics of the situation. — Agustino

All in all: form is only ever the product of immanence. — StreetlightX

The girth of elephant legs on a small creature would be idiotic - without the nibleness they provide, they'd be hunted down and eaten in no time. — StreetlightX

And with respect to ears, Aug spoke of hippo ears, and seemed to forget that Hippos spend most of the time in water, which does the majority of their cooling for them, so have no need for the massive ears of elephants: — StreetlightX

But you're severely underestimating the significance of such a change here, I think. — StreetlightX

And this isnt' even to speak of the phyisological differences. As a furter instance, an elephant's skeleton makes up about 16.5% of an elephants total weight. This is a huge proportion - just under a sixth of it's body mass - one that is necessary precicely in order to support the elephant's giant weight. A mouse's skeleton by contast makes up about 8% of it's body weight, reflective of the fact that it simply doesn't need the kind of supportive structure that an elephant has. — StreetlightX

The sun is nothing apart from your experience of it. So the warmth + the sight + etc. all the other impressions of it. Why do you feel the need to postulate a sun outside of experience? All that we mean by "sun" is a certain cumulation or association of experiences (the certain warmth, the certain sight, etc.) — Agustino

I feel the warmth of the sun on my body when I go outside my house but the sun I see, I conclude is way outside of me, it is at a distance unlike my warm skin which is at no distance from me. The pain I feel from my stubbed toe, is hardly the same as my experience of the chair that I stubbed it on. How can you not get this difference, since it is only through our body that we can experience the world? — Cavacava

We build on our conclusions, when I see smoke, I don't have to see the fire to imagine it. I can imagine how it might feel to be weightless in space, even though I have never experienced it. We conclude causes we don't experience them as such, and we can be wrong. — Cavacava

Of course it makes sense to talk of things outside our self. — Cavacava

Our body is not like any other thing, it is not outside of us it is the limit, what separates the inside from the outside. — Cavacava

If by that you mean things in them self, things outside of us, then yes I agree no access. It is a different story when it comes to the body, which is not beyond us, which is in my estimation the locus of the unity we call our self. — Cavacava

I think Kant would be as confused at your thinking as others are. — charleton

The phenomenal is real, it is the basis for what we conclude, not the other way around. — Cavacava

The stick is phenomenally bent in water that's the way we experience it, we conclude that it is not bent, that light refracts its image and that the stick only appears bent. — Cavacava

And what do you really mean by it isn't really bent? All that you mean is that in a certain experience (looking at the stink in water from outside the water), it really is bent. And that in a different experience - looking at the stick in water from inside the water yourself - it isn't bent. All that is, is two different experiences. Why do you feel the need to pick and choose one as the "reality" and the other as the "appearance"? You should take both of them as equally valid, because, in fact, they are. The only reason why you prioritise the one over the other is because it makes calculations easy - so again, predictions. Because you want to predict, you create the useful fiction of 'reality' and 'appearance', when in truth, no such distinction exists. — Agustino

The "thing thought about" is in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

We have a distinction between the act of thinking, which is in the present, and the "thing thought about". — Metaphysician Undercover

I doesn't matter if it's fictional or not, past and future is a division which enters into Manzotti's description of thinking. Because it is an integral part of his description, then it is real as per that description. To say it is fictional is to say that his description is fictional. — Metaphysician Undercover

We learn that objects don't just disappear when they go out of sight, that a ball rolls somewhere, we learn to think causally because this methodology is successful. — Cavacava

Our conclusions are the product of our bodies ability to interact with the world and our ability to learn from those interactions. — Cavacava

The stick is phenomenally bent in water that's the way we experience it, we conclude that it is not bent, that light refracts its image and that the stick only appears bent. — Cavacava

Get a life.
I've no idea what is wrong with your ability to think. — charleton