• 8th poll: your favorite classical text in the history of philosophy
    ↪Thorongil
    It's an almost unacceptable omission from such a poll I think. I voted Wittgenstein.
  • 9th poll: your favorite philosophical tradition
    Roman philosophy fits between Greek and medieval Christian philosophy — Heister Eggcart
    Who's your favorite philosopher? (apart from me please LOL)
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    If you have a complain about modal realism, then provide citations. — mosesquine
    You're a joke man >:O I can't be bothered so much with you, honestly.
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    You couldn't say, "Well, anything and everything possible," because that would obviously be vacuous in this case. — Terrapin Station
    Which is the point I made initially with regards to modal realism.
  • 9th poll: your favorite philosophical tradition
    ↪mosesquine
    Because it took the world more than a thousand years to even touch the achievement the Greeks managed to perform in about less than 200 years.
  • 9th poll: your favorite philosophical tradition
    Ancient Greek, there kind of isn't any competition.
  • 4th poll: the most important modern philosopher
    Some folks I feel are excellent writers you might think are horrible. (Or if not you, some people will think they're horrible writers.) Nietzsche writes too "continentally" for my tastes. I tend to hate that style of writing. — Terrapin Station
    Yes but your expressions aren't adequate. Good writing - in a literary sense, in the sense which Nietzsche's writing is good - has nothing to do with thoroughness. Nietzsche has a lot of insights, but he jumps from insight to insight and spends little to no time proving anything, or building up arguments. That doesn't mean he's a horrible writer, that means, on the contrary, that he is a great writer who is able to expound complex ideas in simple and appealing terms. His thought functions intuitively, instead of being stuck in the granny step-by-step, you're-too-quick-for-me mode.

    You seem to want thoroughness from writers. What's the point? What's the point of having, for example, undeniable proof for something? That's too hard to come by, and we don't need it for the purposes of action.
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    anything and everything is possible — Terrapin Station
    When he says this though, I think he means that everything that obeys the principle of non-contradiction is possible.
  • Most Over-rated Philosopher
    With his "here is a hand" argument? — Michael
    Yeah, with the here is a mental hand, and here is another mental hand - thus there are two mental hands, and therefore there is no external world! >:O
  • Most Over-rated Philosopher
    Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida — Thorongil
    I'm not so sure - there's probably more good ideas in Nietzsche than in all the other 4 combined :P
  • Most Over-rated Philosopher
    ↪ThePhilosopherFromDixie
    (Y) >:O
  • Embracing depression.
    Waiting around is not a healthy fix, because you don't know whether your depression will more naturally subside. You have to be treated in some facet in order to change the makeup of your brain, and specifically "pills" do this best. — Heister Eggcart
    I didn't say waiting around is what one should do. But there are other non-pharmaceutical treatments. And by the way - non-pharmaceutical treatments DO change the makeup of your brain via neuroplasticity.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/mindfulness-based-cognitive-therapy-treatment-chronic-depression-antidepressants

    MBCT is a development from both CBT and MBSR mixed together, which has shown quite effective in combatting depression.
  • Embracing depression.
    ↪Heister Eggcart
    Im thinking of any kind of pills, including supplements, those herbal ones like Valerian, etc. Anything you have to swallow
  • Embracing depression.
    ↪Heister Eggcart
    Okay but you used the word "medication" which is pills. The point is that pills aren't always used to treat depression, and there are other options available which do take more effort from both the patient and the therapist.
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    ↪StreetlightX
    Im saddened to see Plato top Aristotle :P

    Ah Deleuze is even missing from the list...You should've picked Deleuze's Prince of the Philosophers maybe :D
  • Embracing depression.
    Mmm, I dunno about that. The whole point of the clinically depressed requiring medication is because they are not able to change their behaviors and thoughts. — Heister Eggcart
    But medicine isn't always given to the clinically depressed, you're ignoring that fact. Some people get better spontaneously, by themselves, others find a way through CBT, MBSR or ACT or another variation of therapy. You speak of medicine (pills) as if it is absolutely necessary, and it's not. It may be necessary for some people and in some cases, but certainly not all.
  • Most Over-rated Philosopher
    ↪Heister Eggcart
    Bruv, but I'm already rated highly, I'm your favorite already!
  • Most Over-rated Philosopher
    No, please, don't make me say it again today....... >:O
  • 4th poll: the most important modern philosopher
    ↪TheWillowOfDarkness
    >:O
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    It wasn't your point. You were more or less trying to use metaphysics to take out (the necessity) of radical contingency. In your argument, you treated logical possibility as if it was like a state, almost like we needed to observe those logical possibilities actualised if it were true they were logical possibilities. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    No you don't get it. The point isn't that they are logical possibilities - which they could be for all I care. The problem is that according to modal realism, there really and actually exist other possible worlds. Like those possible worlds aren't just possibilities - they are actual. That's what I have a beef with.
  • 4th poll: the most important modern philosopher
    Of the bunch I voted Descartes because he's arguably the beginning of modern philosophy, and I would say the reason for that is because of his contribution to philosophy. In many ways we are still dealing with the problems he set out. Everyone disagrees with Descartes, of course (well, most everyone) -- but it is this very requirement of disagreement which makes him the most important. — Moliere
    :-O .................................................... I can't believe what I just read... I think people can't be fucked to even disagree with Descartes. They ask who is the village idiot, who is the easiest to pick on? Descartes! Great! Let's do it! They reply to him only in jest, only as a means of having an easy target against which to frame their own philosophy. Seriously - in all of philosophical history, I doubt there exists a man who has had so many terrible ideas - so many!
  • Embracing depression.
    Being an unregulated supplement, how do we know exactly what and how much we would be taking? — John
    Well it usually sells in the form of Lithium Orotate, which are capsules 130-120mg in active content. That translates to roughly 5mg of lithium. What your body does with it once you've taken it though -- that's never too clear. That's why blood serum tests are the only means of verifying the concentration that is present in the blood, whether it builds up and so forth. And anyway, the main point is that you only need it if your levels of lithium are low. So to verify that, you should get a blood test.
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    The point about possible worlds is they do not exist — TheWillowOfDarkness
    And thus modal realism is false, which is my point.
  • Why is social conservatism generally associated with religion?
    All relationships end in the sense of the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    Not from the reference frame of our own life. From the reference frame of our own life, there is no death - there is no end, because we will never experience an end. Death is nothing to us.

    An eternity, in this sense, is expressed all states. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    Nope, not in the sense I mean it in.

    My point was in ethics, there is no hierarchy. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    I disagree, and I think most people would also disagree. Murdering a child is worse than hitting a child.

    As an understanding of sexual relationships, it is a sibling of “seeking sex is only question of someone getting pleasure.” — TheWillowOfDarkness
    Well it is, from the point of view of those seeking it.

    I mean must you have sex someone to care about them? — TheWillowOfDarkness
    No, you don't have to have sex with them.

    You appear to hold the position that if someone has sex with someone, then they must continue to do so for the rest of their life, if they are to care for them. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    If someone initiates a sexual relationship, then yes, if they are caring, they will devote themselves to that person - including in this case sexually - for the rest of their life (so long as that person doesn't reject them obviously). Otherwise, they shouldn't have had sex with them in the first place.

    Suffice to say, your insistence you don’t care about sex is a pretence. You understanding it as an all consuming component of status. So much so much so that, if people have sex, they are bound to having sex for life, or else have no care for each other. The horndog holds their status depends on getting sex from others, you set your status by continuing to get sex from someone. For you the question of caring is not one of thinking about others, what they think and feel and what matters to them. Rather, it’s about maintaining your status of having a lifelong sexual relationship. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    This is wrong for the mere reason that the two people involved don't need to keep having sex, they merely need to be devoted and faithful to each other sexually. For all practical purposes, they could be having no sex at all.

    Could you care about the woman you fell into bed with in a night of passion? — TheWillowOfDarkness
    No - only if you are devoted to her sexually. That doesn't necessarily imply you keep having sex with her as you think. You could go on living with her, without any sex whatsoever. A celibate relationship - which probably is ideal at a certain point. And on top of that, one shouldn't be in a relationship if sex is what holds the relationship together, that just misses the point. Fact is, it takes a very long time to find the right person, or groom them and grow together into it. Most people don't have the patience.

    You’ve imagined what humans supposedly are without reference to their behaviour and taken choice, responsibility and description out of the equation. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    No - you have done this when you say there is no hirearchy of wrongs in ethics. It sufficies for the rapist and the regular playboy to merely have the same intention, and they commit an equal wrong, according to you. However, according to my conception, the intention is very important, but it's not the only factor - factors of behaviour, actions, consequences and so forth are also relevant. That's why the rapist's crime is worse than the playboy's although both are committing a wrong and share the same intention to use another.

    Supposedly, people possess this “natural” inclination (intention) which means they are pre-determined to act immorally unless held back by a threat of rule. — TheWillowOfDarkness
    No they don't possess it naturally, they develop it, and hold on to it. They choose it.
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    Descartes was at least important enough for Kant et al to respond to, wheras they wouldn't notice you even as you tried to pleasure them. — Hanover
    :-! I would rather not be mentioned at all, than be mentioned in jest
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    Possibly. — John
    >:O
  • Why is social conservatism generally associated with religion?
    it caused him a great deal of consternation — John
    He had a very sensitive morality about him, not to mention that he was conflicted because of his mother's views of his relationship.

    One who naturally has very little sexual desire to begin with certainly has less to struggle with. — John
    I'm not sure because for me at least, I've found that sexual desire doesn't happen regardless of context - it's context dependent. Like I don't just have some vague sexual desire that makes no reference to a context in which it would occur, and latches itself on whatever person is present. I never had such a desire. After I broke up with my second girlfriend for example (because the first and the second were too close in time, so virtually no time in-between) - I did have sexual desire which troubled me, but it wasn't sexual desire in the sense of I just want to have sex. It was sexual desire in the sense of I want to have sex with a her who loves me and whom I love - not otherwise (and the "her" in question wasn't at the time any of my two previous girlfriends, they stood merely as symbols for her, or as Plato would say, as shadows for her - mere intimations). And that's in some regards more painful, because it can't be satisfied at any time and anywhere, and with just about anyone. I couldn't just find some girl and have sex with her, because that wouldn't do. So I spent quite a few months afterwards just languishing with little interest in anything else except finding someone to love and who would return my love at the same intensity. So it took me quite a bit of wrestling with that desire before I could subdue it and return to living peacefully. All in all, I don't think I've eradicated that desire - as Napoleon said, once one has tasted of romantic love, it's hard to give it up - it's there, only that it's dormant. It's the sleeping dragon as the Chinese say >:O

    It's a funny thing, how much it used to trouble me, and how little it troubles me today. There is a certain growth of acceptance in there - that's I think most important, acceptance of your circumstances, and yet unyieldingly holding onto the desires of your heart. It's always the one who is prepared to walk away who closes the deal. And I've become like this in quite a lot of aspects of my life, whereas before I was impatient and wanted quick results. Now I want certain results, but not necessarily quick. Time is no longer a concern. Nor is achieving things a concern. To be on the certain path of achievement though - even if one never achieves, for whatever reason - that alone is sufficient. So nowadays, the question of sex rarely, if ever arises to my mind. I had one more girlfriend afterwards, and never even had sex with her, nor was interested in having it before marriage (to the point I had to refuse her). So the desire is quite context-sensitive for me, especially nowadays. In my experience, there is no blind desire for sex - so I find it a bit strange that others have a blind desire to have sex - for the sake of sex.
  • Embracing depression.
    The level of lithium I'm taking is far lower than the typical clinical dose range of 300 mg or even more. — Question
    Yes your level is much lower than what would sometimes be given for bipolar. But that doesn't mean that it is inconsequential. As I said, I've heard a few doctors recommend people who have no problems with depression to take lithium orotate - simply because the body is generally towards the low side on it. I myself refused my doctor (other relatives accepted), but to each his own.
  • Embracing depression.
    I'm no doctor and don't pretend to be one; but, try some lithium. It's as harmless as one can get and is quite effective as an adjunct to most medications along with being a potent anti-suicidal drug. I take 5 mg (120mg of lithium orotate) every day and feel quite serene and calm. Goods stuff for your body also. — Question
    I'm not a doctor either, but I have studied medicine for quite a long time and have spoken to a few doctors. Regarding lithium - it does have potential side effects but they are rare and will often happen when lithium levels reach too high in the blood. There generally isn't a good source of lithium naturally, so many people have towards the lower levels, which may be responsible for their feelings of depression. However - lithium treatments should only be undertaken AFTER a blood test has been run, and the lithium levels present are below 0.4mmol/L (these limit levels would differ from country to country depending on what the labs there set as the mean concentration for people). Afterwards, treatment with lithium should occur under the supervision of a doctor, and with a monitoring plan for the blood levels of it. This has sensible information after a quick read:

    http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/medicines/depression/a636/lithium-medication/
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    Every formally valid argument is not begging the question. You are ignorant and stupid. — mosesquine
    I think you should maybe have a look in the mirror. I never said this one is begging the question:
    If a motorcycle runs, then Agustino is an idiot.
    A motorcycle runs.
    Therefore, Agustino is an idiot.
    This argument has two premises. The proof goes as follows:
    1. (∃x)(Fx & Gx) → Ha
    2. (∃x)(Fx & Gx)
    // Ha
    3. asm: ~Ha
    4. ~(∃x)(Fx & Gx) (from 1 and 3, modus tollens)
    5. Ha (from 3; 2 contradicts 4, reductio ad absurdum)
    Q. E. D.     — mosesquine

    But rather this one is begging the question:
    The structure goes as follows:
    A & B
    Therefore, B     — mosesquine

    Now I suggest you follow that link and figure out what begging the question means, so next time you are aware of it.

    And I never claimed that "every formally valid argument is begging the question". Just your second argument is (and by the way, to beg the question, an argument always must be valid - otherwise it has much bigger problems than just begging the question). I advise you to close your mouth and keep it closed, or otherwise you'll just be humiliating yourself even more.
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    ↪mosesquine
    lol kiddie, give me a break, please...

    If a motorcycle runs, then Agustino is an idiot.
    A motorcycle runs.
    Therefore, Agustino is an idiot.
    This argument has two premises. The proof goes as follows:
    1. (∃x)(Fx & Gx) → Ha
    2. (∃x)(Fx & Gx)
    // Ha
    3. asm: ~Ha
    4. ~(∃x)(Fx & Gx) (from 1 and 3, modus tollens)
    5. Ha (from 3; 2 contradicts 4, reductio ad absurdum)
    Q. E. D.     — mosesquine
    Yes this argument is formally valid, however it isn't sound, because premise 1 is false.

    A & B
    Therefore, B     — mosesquine
    No - that's called begging the question, merely re-stating what is already in the premise(s) in the "argument's" conclusion. In any case - that doesn't qualify as a fucking argument, but as a logical fallacy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

    You should look into logic textbooks. — mosesquine
    Yeah, I think you should look outside of logic textbooks - you've clearly been looking there so much that you have lost all reason.
  • Embracing depression.
    (though even this is not that powerful, and can't make things as bad as being starving — The Great Whatever
    Well sure, but it depends. I agree if you're starving, you have no roof over your head, you're out in the cold, and so forth - like some beggars, then yes, mere attitude won't make you any happier. But most people who struggle with depression aren't in those circumstances. Although - I will say that even someone who is in those circumstances, while a change in attitude may not make them any happier, it could set them on a road towards changing their circumstances and finding the help they need.

    But it's not possible for a good attitude to remedy bad conditions. — The Great Whatever
    It is - because attitude precedes actions. If you have a bad attitude and a bad situation, then you'll not act in ways which can change your situation and make it better.

    Also, the ability to have a good or bad attitude is just another living condition, and is also not magic, so it doesn't really help. — The Great Whatever
    Yes but it makes one focus on what's important in order to become capable to alter the situation if this is at all possible. Having a good attitude isn't a guarantee of success - but it definitely gives you the best odds.
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    A
    Therefore, A     — mosesquine
    Logic lesson

    1. Arguments don't have a single premise. Arguments always involve more than one premise. Premises in arguments cannot be proved, because, if all premises had to be proven, then no arguments could be proven because every argument would require further arguments to prove its premises, which would require further arguments to prove the premises of those arguments and so on ad infinitum.

    2. A proposition of the form "A, therefore A" is a tautology - a repetition. Tautologies do not prove anything, nor do they form parts of arguments.
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    You are a stupid idiot. Therefore, you are a stupid idiot. — mosesquine
    No, that's not an argument, that's called begging the question. Furthermore could an idiot be "intelligent"? >:O

    So, what's your argument against modal realism? — mosesquine
    The burden of proof is on you to prove that modal realism is the case. Not that it COULD BE the case, but that it ACTUALLY is. Do you understand that simple difference?

    As for what my argument against modal realism is - quite simple. First, there is no need to postulate an infinity of ontological entities (the possible worlds) - it doesn't help in anyway, hence why do it? (Occam's Razor). Second, the existence of possible worlds is inconsequential to this world by definition, hence pragmatically unimportant and uninformative.
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    Your attack is not on modal realism, but on the reason for modal realism. I defended the latter. Modal realism won. — mosesquine
    Yeah sure, you can disappear from the Earth and appear on Mars tomorrow as well. Does that mean anything? No. Logical possibility doesn't tell us anything. So all you will have proven - if you settle the premise that I questioned - is that possible worlds CAN logically exist - in other words, they are not logically incoherent. But neither is you flying to Mars today. Does that mean you'll fly? No. Likewise, your argument doesn't mean that possible worlds do, in fact, exist.So you're not even talking about modal realism, in fact, you have no clue what you're talkin' bout.
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    It's logic. Conclusions follow from premises. Good arguments are formally valid arguments. My argument is formally valid. You say that the premises and the conclusion are all okay. Modal realism wins. — mosesquine
    First, the conclusion is inconsequential, even if the premises are true (for the conclusion to be consequential you have to show me that not only CAN the possible worlds exist, but that they actually do exist - Lewis doesn't only claim that the possible worlds CAN exist. He claims they DO exist). Second of all, I disagree that whatever is thinkable necessarily can exist.
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    I say "the reason for modal realism". You say every premise above is okay, and you accept modal realism. — mosesquine
    And this isn't modal realism by the way. To be modal realism you have to prove to me that possible worlds not only CAN exist, but actually do exist. If they merely can exist, then I don't give a shit about them.
  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    I say "the reason for modal realism". You say every premise above is okay, and you accept modal realism. — mosesquine
    No i haven't. Have you not seen the question?

    How do you know this? — Agustino
  • Embracing depression.
    ↪The Great Whatever
    The particular group of people who you're pointing to (and please not that not everyone who is depressed belongs to this group) are depressed mostly because they can't come to terms with the conditions that they're living in. I could complain and be depressed whole day that "Uhh society isn't how I'd want it to be, how sad man" Do you see me doing that? No! But I could do it.

    This guy's living conditions are also probably intolerable according to many (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kxSrPD__BA). Do you see him being depressed? No. What makes the difference? The attitude one has in front of whatever the world is. The world doesn't have to be the way you want it to be for you to be happy. All that has to be the case is that you have hope. This guy for example - imagine him when he was in his late teens. According to most, he was hopeless. Would never get married, would never do anything great in the world, would never have sex, etc. And yet he could live like that. But then we have people - *crocodile tears* - uhhh uhhh the girl I like doesn't like me back! End of the world! Or uuh uuh Im too ugly, no one wants to have sex with me - or uhhh aahh! I lack skill, I'm not good enough to be a basketball star! End of times! >:O Give me a break, give me a break...

  • 6th poll: the most important metaphysician in all times
    We can think about the way things could have been — mosesquine
    Okay.

    Anything thinkable can exist — mosesquine
    How do you know this?

    Possible worlds (= the ways things could have been) are thinkable. — mosesquine
    Okay.

    Therefore, possible worlds can exist. — mosesquine
    Okay.

    This is a summary of the reason for modal realism. — mosesquine
    In what sense is this realism? From "they can exist" to they DO exist is a long way.
Home » Agustino