@Jamal
@Lionino

When we talked about Soviet/Brutalist architecture... Well, some Brutalist music to chill out.

First Person Singular, by Haruki Murakami.

There is nothing like coming back to Murakami after a while. Do you still read some of his works, @praxis?

I was an English teacher for many years. — Sir2u

I wish I had you as an English teacher in my school. You seem to be a very dedicated person and the passion for teaching flourished when I had some debates with you about English irregular verbs and philosophy of language last year. Honduran folks were lucky to have you. I didn't have a 'native' English teacher until I started university. Bloody moocow...

But my first thought, reading the above, was that there is an unfortunate tendency to make a discussion into a competition. It's not exactly mischief, but it does tend to undermine what I see as the purpose of discussion. — unenlightened

Although that is not the common behaviour among the users, yes, I usually felt some threads go on that way. It seems like a competition for who is right, or more specifically, who is the one who gives more 'strong answers'. This is very difficult to reach inside the nature of philosophy. Even the forum says: 'start a new discussion'. It is obvious we are here to discuss different opinions.

And having to try and communicate with one who is struggling a little with the language forces one to be more simple and clear if possible, which is always a good thing, but also makes one rethink for oneself ideas that may have become stale. — unenlightened

I agree with this. I understand that if I force others to be more considered of me for not being native, I am at the risk of reducing the quality of the conversation. Exactly in this context, I have to admit it is my fault if I can't seriously follow him with fluency. But, being honest, I hardly experienced this. When I read a thread and I feel it is too complex for me, I decide not to dive into it. I only tend to post wherever I feel comfortable and ready to have a fruitful discussion with others. Nonetheless, it is obvious that philosophy is very complex itself! Imagine it in another language when even translation can change the sense. Crazy and beautiful at the same time!

In general, I don't think there are special rules that apply to discussion that don't apply to other interactions; respect, kindness, honesty — unenlightened

True. But, again, most of the people are quite nice here. Yet, I wanted to share my thoughts because I felt that maybe the language is a tougher barrier than I ever imagined.

Thanks for the feedback, Outlander.

I do not feel scared to ask questions when I don't understand something, and even at The Shoutbox my posts are often proofread, something that I am grateful for because it helps me to keep improving. I also have had the same feeling as yours in some threads. When I read them I feel lost the first time, so I need to reread again or even use DeepL to translate some parts.

But this issue goes deeper than just that. I have the feeling that some users accused me of being non-native with bad manners, with the aim of derailing the main topic. Whenever I try to make arguments, I personally believe that I do my best.
Then, it is not possible to keep a 'good discussion' if the other interlocutor is already biased on my lack of fluency. I think this should not matter at all. If we are debating, let's say, about Kierkegaard's works, we should focus on this topic. Our level of English is accessory.

I came back to this important thread and I reread all the answers. The main point that we discussed last year was why some threads were more active than others. I think we could say this has got better than before because there is a nice balance and most of the threads are active, and many members are very involved with them.

Yet I have to share another issue that is limiting me to having a good discussion, or from enjoying posting at least.

It is well known that there are members whose native language is not English. I am not the only one, and I acknowledge that inside the group of non-native speakers there are some whose level is high and others (myself) are not that precise or good.
This fact has never been a good deal, and I mostly enjoyed my presence here, posting mainly in The Shoutbox.

But when I try to discuss with another member of a serious topic, the interlocutor accuses me of not having a great level of English instead of focusing on the main topic of the OP. I personally don't know whether this is posted with mischief or my lack of 'fluency' is actually the cause of not performing a good discussion.

I wish I could know. I want to improve and maintain 'fruitful' discussions.

I didn't ask for your opinion.

You are the one who is correcting me and highlighting my grammatical mistakes, mate…

By the way, I tried to explain that “except for” and “apart from” are different. One is an adverb and the other is a preposition. When I translate into Spanish it makes a great difference if I use one or another in the sentence, but it seems in English it is not that important.

Let’s leave it there. You just discovered I suck at a language I am not native to, and we derailed from the main point of the thread which is a paradox, not proofreading my sentences.
I experienced this before here in the forum. It is not the first time, and it will not be the last one…

I know I am debating correctly when you don’t know how to answer back to me rather than just attacking my English skills knowing that I am not a native speaker.

You give up on continuing debating on the paradox, right?

No. I want you to see this:

“Apart from” and “except for” are different things.

The first means “plus”. So, is there a barber in Seville apart from the one who shaves the people and himself? It is cumulative. There could be the possibility that others could shave the barber. But who If he is the only one in Seville?
The second means “minus”. Is there a barber except for the one who shaves others and himself? It is excluding. There cannot be a paradox because we already take for granted that the barber is the only one in Seville.

See! It is a linguistic paradox. You are getting closer to the approach of this thread. :smile:

The text states that besides adds something to the clause. It means "plus". Except (of) means minus; it has a meaning of excluding something. Apart from is a combination of the two, meaning plus / minus depending on the context.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/565669/difference-between-besides-apart-from-and-except-for-prepositions-vs-adv#:~:text=Except%20(of)%20means%20minus%3B,minus%20depending%20on%20the%20context.

Mate, this is not a simple story. If you are an expert at recognizing paradoxes, why do you not try to define them or at least explain how they work to me. I am still waiting for your answer.

On the other hand…

I pour milk for everyone in my house except for me. Who pours milk for me? — flannel jesus

The premise is badly written. The OP didn’t say “except” but “apart”. This means if there is someone, apart from A, who can commit the action.

In the paradox of the OP, A is the barber, who shaves others in the same city. But, paradoxically, there can’t be Y because there is not another barber apart from him. He can shave himself, but is there someone who can shave him?

The same happens in your irregular example. There could be a paradox if we say: you pour the milk for everyone in your house. You can pour the milk by yourself. But is there someone who could pour the milk apart from you?

or maybe there are more barbers in Seville but they aren't all called "the barber of Seville", — flannel jesus

No. There aren't more barbers in Seville, this is the key of the paradox.

someone from outside Seville, or someone who isn't a barber, — flannel jesus

You share my point then. It is a paradox because, although he is the one who shaves the people of Seville, there is not another who can shave him. So, he needs to leave the city to be shaved by a different barber of him.

Or maybe nobody shaves him, — flannel jesus

It is not about if someone shaves him or not, but if there is a possibility to be shaved in Seville by a different barber apart from him!

This isn't a paradox — flannel jesus

You haven't explained what is a paradox yet! :blush:

This isn't a paradox. — flannel jesus

It will be very informative what you consider (and please explain) a paradox, because according to your posts, none of the previous threads are paradoxes.

The sentence of the op is clearly, plainly, easily possible. Nothing remotely challenging about imagining a man shaving all men in his village except himself. — flannel jesus

That's where your mistake pops up. You only understand paradoxes as mathematical challenges against common sense. Again, this is a linguistic paradox, not something related to algebra.

We have a linguistic paradox here because of the following premises:

A) The Barber of Seville shaves all the men of Seville

B) Apart from himself.

And C) Who shaves the Barber of Seville then?

The paradox is that the Barber of Seville can shave everyone in Seville, but there is not another barber who can shave him.
If there are no more barbers in Seville apart from him... who shaves him, Sherlock?

He shaves himself while looking in the mirror — Sir2u

I thought the same, but @Nemo2124 stated that '... all the men of Seville apart from himself.'

We have a good paradox or riddle here. The Barber of Seville can only be shaved by another barber from another city or village. The quid of this paradox is the location of the barber, because he is the Barber of Seville,' not a barber from anywhere else. So, the big paradox is he can only be shaved by another barber, but not from Seville.

Then, the Barber of Seville needed to go to another site to shave himself, because if there was another barber like him in Seville, he would not be the only barber in the city.

You don't have any clue about this linguistic paradox. Surprisingly! When you ranted on my posts about the staircase paradox.

I don't know if this can be considered as a 'hobby', but I spend time taking photos and writing reviews on Google Maps. I am plainly focused on Madrid because it is the city where I live. But I usually share reviews on other sites throughout the Peninsula.

Javi. Local Guide user.

If you are planning to visit Madrid one day, I am your trustworthy Local Guide user!

Why did you ignore us when it is clear that 'Spain' is written in the title between Ireland and Norway? :roll:
The same snub by North to the South, as always... If only my government would root for Israel, folks would say: Oh yes, the unemployment young men doing reckless things as usual.

:up:

Understood. Thank you for taking your time reading the book and providing a review for me. I appreciate it, Pantagruel.

I am from Russia. Please note that I support Ukraine, I am even a russophobe. — Linkey

No, Linkey, mate please. Don't feel bad about yourself in that way. There are members here who love Russia and Russian culture. Don't mix up things! Maybe politics in Russia are screwed, but your culture is awesome: pianists, painters, writers, scientists, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Shólojov, Chejov, etc...

If I were Russian, I would feel very proud of the heritage of my nation.

By the way, what if two or even four sets of those numbers lie in the same winner/person? :smirk:

Better to LOWER lofty jackpots, but RAISE the probability of winning jackpot. LottoMax ought offer MORE chances of winning SMALLER slices (of the same pie). Rather than one winner hoarding $70M — scherz0

2-6 possible winners to share the jackpot. Maybe add 1 extra set of numbers per $50m so that (e.g.) a $300m jackpot would consist of generating 6 sets of numbers — 180 Proof

I disagree. Those eventually rules are contradictory to the aim of the lottery. People get attracted to play even different sets of numbers to increase the possibility of winning one and a unique number out of the rest. If the jackpot is shared with another set of numbers, the players will not be motivated enough to play the lottery because they know they have to share the jackpot with others. This should not be called a 'lottery' because the randomness of the prize fades away. We would not feel the same feeling of 'uncertainty' (commonly in gambling) if the rules establish that the same jackpot will be shared with other participants.

The main point is to only be just one winner, and this is why an important number of people get very addicted to these games.

My advice? Stay away from lotteries, dice, cards, and gambling. They could be your bankruptcy!

Unions should extend to everyone — and they basically do. — Mikie

No, they do not extend to everyone. Maybe I sound a bit stubborn regarding prostitution or sex workers, but these professionals are not covered by trade unions. There is a big debate in each nation about whether prostitution should be eradicated. I agree that around more than 80 % of the women of this world do the job forced by violent situations. But others don't, and we have to accept that there are women and men who exchange pleasure for money. I fully consider these women as professionals without any kind of discrimination. It is unfair how it seems they are hidden from the groups or collectives.

I did a search on Google, and this is the 'group' which is the closest thing to a trade union for prostitutes: English Collective of Prostitutes

The English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) is a network of sex workers working both on the streets and indoors campaigning for decriminalisation and safety.

We fight against being treated like criminals. We’ve helped sex workers win against charges of soliciting, brothel-keeping & controlling – the last two most often used against women who are working together for safety.

Most sex workers are mothers trying to do the best for their children. We campaign against austerity cuts and for housing and other survival resources so that any of us can leave prostitution if and when we want.

Better than nothing, absolutely. But they are not a trade union in the purest sense of the organisation. My point is, some class workers (prostitutes) will not have the same back-up from a union as others (Ford or Santander Bank workers, for example).

He’s speaking of wealth inequality, which underlies so many other problems. And he’s right. It’s not voting, it’s not government (although local government is a bit different). It’s really unions, and in particular their ability to strike, that serves a counterbalance to the power of corporate America and K street. — Mikie

Good remark.

If only trade unions were responsible to the workers, we (workers) would make a real counterbalance to corporations.

The main problem of trade unions in the 21st century is that they are part of the government. I will be more specific: they are lobbies of both right-wing and left-side political parties. There are not many unions which are apolitical. The interests of trade unions, apart from representing and defending the rights of workers, is to press other groups, using low or 'toxic' practices often.

On the other hand, I learnt by experience that it seems there are different 'classes' of workers according to the unions: why does a worker of a bank or big tech have the opportunity of being assisted by a unionist and a prostitute doesn't?

There was an important strike by farmers in Europe a few months ago. It is crazy that here any union went to assist and represent the farmers, because 'farming' is related to far-right. This situation was crazy. The farmers were abandoned by both the government and trade unions.

My criticism of them goes in that way: a real trade union would assist every class of worker. From a Google engineer to a prostitute or farmer.

The Wisdom of Insecurity: A Message for an Age of Anxiety. by Alan Watts. — javi2541997

I fully enjoyed Alan Watts' work. It is well written, and for a non-native speaker like me, it is an easy reading to follow. Thanks @Wayfarer for introducing me to this author. I look forward to reading another book by him later on.

Currently reading: The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera.

Brutalism definitely goes here, and I don't mind if you don't know how to appreciate this 1960s and 1970s aesthetic movement.

Madrid.



Scotland.



Russia.

Sorry, I will amend my statement:
...someone who has not been to Europe in the past 10 years would say.
Paris is a dump, London is beyond gone, Lisbon and Brussels are approaching a point of no return. Europe is busted. The belief that it is fine doesn't stand a one-week trip to De Hague. — Lionino

The elections to the European Parliament in just a few weeks will be fascinating.

We started with something outstanding: the attempted murder of Slovakia's President.
Not even in backward countries like Mexico or India is this done.

X is real because it is not existentially dependent upon imagination. What I can't follow, as you also noticed, is the great-making attributes.

First, the second premise states that Y that is real is greater than a Y that is imaginary only.
But the third premise states if X is an idea in the mind and not real, then we can imagine something greater, a Z that is also real.

If we keep imagining, Z and Y are never 'greater' than X. Those are just products of our imagination, while X already exists itself. Maybe we can imagine attributes of X, but not the existence per se. Therefore, X is the only existing being in reality.

I understand that this thread is focused on people from the Anglo-Saxon nations. Yet, I want to share with you that Isabel Perón (the second wife of Perón, the famous Argentinian President) is still alive.

She has been living in Madrid since the end of the 1970s.

She is 93 years old, and she was briefly the President of Argentina in 1974.

Isabel Perón

No, I never heard of Nishitani. My fault, because I have always read Japanese literature instead of having an approach to their philosophy too.

I watched the video. The author gives a nice and precise introduction to Nishitani's work.

Honestly, I felt a bit anxious and despaired after reading some quotes by him. It is true that I should have already used to that kind of nihilism or existentialism after reading Dostoevsky or Mishima, but I got the impression that Nishitani reached deep into the abyss. The paradox of stating that there is not a point in existing but, at the same time, this 'experience' or 'thought' is just a shadow of ourselves hit me hard.
I understand everything he went through when he was an adolescent, but I guess Nishitani dived into the darkness of the abyss when he thought it was 'normal' to sit there as a spectator and watch how everything is meaningless. He is above all existentialists I knew until now.

The Grammar of Systems: From Order to Chaos & Back
Patrick Hoverstadt — Pantagruel

I have read a review in 'Good Reads' and the book seems very interesting. Most of the readers agree that it is a well written book and a nice introduction to a guide on 'thinking patterns'.

Well! Let us know what you think after reading it, and thanks for bringing it up in this thread.

This is why 'currently reading' is one of my favourite threads. I can discover new interesting books.

Alan Watts is well worth reading. — Wayfarer

:up: :grin:

The Wisdom of Insecurity: A Message for an Age of Anxiety. by Alan Watts.

@Wayfarer Thoughts? I remember you recommended me to read Watts when we had exchanges about the spirit, soul, struggling with religious faith, etc.

The preface of the book is great. It gives me high expectations of the work of this author.

The second one is the bus station in Preston, Lancashire. — Jamal

Oh! Wow! Thanks for telling me it is actually a bus station. I promise I thought it was an airport the first time I saw the picture!

The first one looks like the UK too — Jamal

Yes. :smile: It is located at Park Hill, Sheffield.

https://parkhill.estate/#gallery

Wanna see some soul-crushing, ugly building? — Lionino

Ugly? Soul-crushing?

I get it. Brutalist architecture is not your cup of tea. But I would not call those buildings or structures ugly but unique, and this is what makes them special, at least to me.

For example, wouldn't you feel delighted living here?

It gives me a feeling of calm and chill. The neighbours say 'good morning' and everything is quiet when you come back home after a long day at the office...



***
And what do you tell me about this bus station? The trip to nowhere that we will all take one day. :heart:

I'll wager the apartments in that building are far more spacious and varied than most of today's apartment blocks — Jamal

Absolutely. The flats are very spacious and the prices per m² are expensive there. The building is located at both Avenida América and Corazón de María, which are one of the 'top' and rich neighbourhoods of Madrid.
Oiza - the architect - said that his plan was to build a building that looked like a tree with its branches. It is one of the most iconic constructions in Madrid nowadays.

Note: I checked in the land registry and it says that each flat has an average of 127 and 200 m²

It's a famous example of organicism — Jamal

Some say it is Brutalist too, but I don't have enough knowledge of architecture. :sweat:

And here's a better image of the exterior: — Jamal

Yeah, it is iconic. But that wall made of concrete reminds me of all the buildings built on Franco's era. :lol:

I am not a big fan of grotesque mansions either. I think it is unnecessary to live in a large building, but rich folks tend to be 'pompous'...

It has some classical appeal, yes. It seems that the Catholic gambling czar had good taste regarding architecture.

It is very interesting that we could make a 'first impression' on people depending on the buildings they live in.
We could say that the Catholic gambling tsar was pompous and showy.

What should we think about the people who live like sardines in a tin in buildings like this one?

What makes a structure "beautiful"? You find these buildings "magnificent" and "photogenic", but lacking in something, "humanity" you refer to. Could you show some buildings that do quantify what you would call "beautiful" or "human"? — Outlander

Those are very good questions.

Are the beauty and greatness of a building dependent upon our appreciation?

Could it be a possibility to value an architectural design objectively?

Most of the designs of government buildings were not really thought of sharing with the people. I mean, they were built to show the greatness of a dictator to the world. Nothing else. We could agree that Tiananmen Square is actually pretty, but its lack of humanity makes it 'ugly' or sordid. Then, we are judging Tiananmen Square subjectively.

I think I came to the conclusion that it is hard to have an objective opinion on a building. If I see a Soviet building I will think of Stalin, and if I see the Coliseum I will have the bloody fights of gladiators in mind, etc.

During Stalin’s rule, the priority was to build grand, imposing buildings like wedding cakes — Jamal

Interesting.

I search on Google 'Wedding Cakes' buildings in Spain, and then it showed this one as the most famous: HH Cielomar

I would feel very ashamed of myself if ChatGPT had access to read my posts with poor grammatical skills.

I don't think the building (Moscow State University) is a beautiful thing — Jamal

You are right. The building is not beautiful, but sublime. I would have extra motivation for studying law if my university looked like that formidable architectural design.

Ma! I want to study there! Like my friends, the Brothers Karamazov! :up:

@BC @Tom Storm

Now that we are remembering Mishima in The Shoutbox, and his romantic concept of death (suicide)... :flower:

I also want to mention @180 Proof who always shared with me interesting views on his works.

My passion for reading his novels has been diminishing in the last year, but his idea of death and living still impact me.

We live in an age in which there is no heroic death...