Most men probably do muscle building for sex appeal. Most of them are not doing it as "art" — BC

That is true if we are being realistic, though perhaps sex appeal is an art in itself.

and that teaches me nothing other than you want me to feel shame for not adhering to your objective slave morality — Vaskane

It is always this "slave morality" talk from people who faithfully follow a man :rofl:

Or to let 4chan (discussing Julius Evola and Aliester Crowley) speak for itself: — Count Timothy von Icarus

Most of those people are shitposting.

in Germany, historical memory is the specific target of the Neue Rechte’s campaign

I don't know how it works there because I don't quite speak German, but generally in Europe we don't see much insanity and LARPs like flat earth, traditionalism, million sexual identities, and when we do it is invariably from the people who spend most of their lives online — those that speak English better than their mother tongue.

Yet newspaper editors the world over know exactly which articles they should not publish. — Vera Mont

Charlie Hebdo disagrees.

It's a vaccuous concept that doesn't refer to anything that could be used interpersonally — AmadeusD

The society that promotes this political schizophrenia is itself founded on a collection of vacuous concepts.

Is Modern Greek a lot different from Ancient Greek? — Corvus

Attic Greek for Plato, Aristotle, etc? Yes. Hellenistic/Roman Greek for neo-Platonists and theologians? Not that much.

AI couldn't reach higher stated of mind. Or psychedelic state of mind — Abhiram

You can't make AI have psychedelic experiences because it does not have chemicals in itself. But the argument of whether computers can have something alike psychedelic experiences is the whole argument about whether AI can think (have reason) or not.

but a scoundrel very well — Pez

Is he? Some people genuinely can't help themselves. That should not stop us from jailing them, but why blame the fish for swimming and the bear for brutally mauling the off-trail hikers?

No. They're not that fancy. They're practicing math scholars and philosophers. — L'éléphant

gotcha.

Postmodern? — jgill

No clue what you mean.

Of + and =. In the group <ℝ,+>, multiplication is by definition not defined. For real and complex numbers, the symbol * for multiplication is a commutative operation, for square matrices it is a completely distinct operation (not commutative for one). For vectors, there are different kinds of multiplication, cross product, scalar product, outer product. — Lionino

Commenting on this, I don't think it is quite correct to say that multiplication is not defined in <ℝ,+>. It doesn't exist in the scope of <ℝ,+> of course, but whether it is defined or not is not a pertinent question. But the point stands nonetheless.

What the hell are we doing here then? — Zolenskify

Me? Thinking. You? I genuinely don't know, I'm not a psychologist.

I wish people into scholastic philosophy and theology were obliged to study Modern Greek so they realise how silly they sound, and how the usage of foreign words does not grant them mystique.

AI is indeed intelligent in that it is able to find patterns in huge amounts of data but there is no way AI could reach to judgements like we humans can — Pez

I can make up a question with a scenario in which a rule must be applied that most AIs would be able to answer correctly. But I don't think that is what is meant by judgement here. AIs can repeat something based on the huge amounts of data their alrogithm has been fed, but they can't think — is what you are saying. Some people do believe that some AIs think.

But to leave decisions regarding therapy entirely to AI or replace judges and jurors by AI would be fatal. — Pez

Leaving it to humans is fatal too.

Do you see the press as a legitimate political force, rightfully empowered to promote the good as the outlet sees fit, — Hanover

Yes, but only if the press agrees in full with my political position, otherwise they must be censored.

Secondly Trump undermines the idea of there being objective facts — Wayfarer

Oh, right, Trump, the anti-realist philosopher. Meanwhile in reality:

Pasta, sauce basilic, grated cheese parmigiano reggiano. Vitamins in the cup. Not good, but not bad either.

For formal affairs, I suggest bowtie pasta. — Hanover

They always slide off my fork. Next time I will eat them with chopsticks.

Descartes and Kant are influential to the thinking of every western philosopher that came after, yet I would say that eternal recurrence or denial of will have nothing to do with either.

I think of Newton, developing calculus — jgill

Leibniz :^)

I wish I still had the philosophy of math anthology book that featured the math philosophers who argued for the construction of mathematics as an empirical endeavor. — L'éléphant

Lakatos?

The Metaphysical Meditations and the Discourse are chock full of great quotes. Let's add to that:

I believe however to have dedicated enough time to languages and also to reading the old books, to its stories and fables. It is almost like traveling, talking to men of other centuries. It is good to know some things about the customs of other peoples, so that we may judge ours more aptly, as not to think that anything that is against our ways is ridiculous or absurd, which those that have seen nothing often think.

Ah, if you guys had only participated in my thread on The Laws of Form, you would have discovered that such self contradictory sentences are formed by "re-entry" or recursive definition, and result in truth values that oscillate in time. — unenlightened

Agreed.

Thus we end up in a loop of "if this is true, then it is false, but if it is false, then it is true, but if it is true...". It feels as though "sentence is not true" is sentence A and everytime we try to evaluate it we in fact create a new sentence A1, then A1.1, then A1.1.1, and so on. — Lionino

-

One need not consider vapid claims, and one need not construct logical proofs of their vapidity. — Faust Fiore

How do we know otherwise which claims are vapid or not? Proofs are welcome wherever we may find them.

Academic(-ish): philosophy (duh!), physics, conlanging, and to a lesser but still decent extent mathematics and linguistics. Back during the pandemic I was into physical anthropology, but I grew tired of the field.
Non-academic: gym, skiing (gotta learn how to snowboard), reading, and to a lesser extent writing and games. I enjoy debating but it is more of a toxic trait than hobby.

Not cooking, but for middle of the day food, real Greek yoghurt with protein powder, collagen, cinnamon, then French honey and chia seeds mixed in. That is usually my breakfast but since I did not have it today, I will have it as a middle of the day food to get those calories in. I typically put raw oat as well but I didn't buy it.

Spiral pasta with pesto sauce — L'éléphant

Spiral pasta is fusili, right? My favourite kind of pasta, superior to penne let's agree. I had pasta with pesto alla genovese homemade in Italy once, absolutely loved it.

methodological materialism (i.e. populating models with immaterial data – entities, causes – amplifies experimental error, therefore scientific (and historical) practices require eliminating as much immaterial data as possible as the preliminary method of decreasing a model's experimental error – making it (more) testable) — 180 Proof

Doesn't the {belief that eliminating immaterial data decreases a model's error} imply that immaterial things have no causal relationship with material things? By then, wouldn't methodological materialism imply a sort of metaphysical commitment against interactivism?

It is a great picture, it reminds me of the times past when we were not glued to our phones, staring into the horizon at a pool side while smoking a cigar and worrying about nothing was something easy to do. But now with the world on our fingertips, there is always an article to read, a movie to watch, news to catch up on, a stock to watch, someone to reply to... Ironically, the picture is not from those times.
The contrast of the cool blue sky with the emerald pool water is beautiful, and the palm trees sticking out give a nice assymmetry to the composition. 10/10

The human body taken to the extreme:

Steve Reeves, posterboy of the silver age of bodybuilding.

So neither is the study of how art is made — Ciceronianus

It depends on what is meant by "how is made". If by that, the techniques used are meant, what studies that is exactly the practice of the respective art, plastic art, scenic art, visual art, architecture, etc. If how human action produces something artistic is meant, I see little difference between that question and what makes something art conjoined with the matter of techniques expounded on above, therefore leaving it to philosophy of art.

what prompts some of us to make it — Ciceronianus

Psychology of art?

Believing works vis faith — Arne

Not every belief is faith, but every faith is a belief. How can belief work through faith if some beliefs are not faith at all?

We before anything else proprioceptively experience our bodies as extended—mouth here, ears, nose, eyes, hands, belly, legs and feet etc, all in different places. — Janus

We do, but through a series of inferences and regularities and inductions we equate {the hands and feet and belly we experience} and {things we see in the mirror with our eyes} as unified with our subjective experience.
Surely a baby does not do that explicitly, but at least at a subconscious level it does.

Art is the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings.
Philosophy of art studies the nature of art and how individual art pieces are evaluated and experienced.
Aesthetics is the study of beauty and taste, though ill-defined.
So, at a superficial level, aesthetics and phil of art overlap when phil of art is investigating artificial objects that are beautiful (though not necessarily express feelings) in what makes it art and how it is evaluated, and aesthetics will investigate what makes it beautiful. But being that the definition of art here is an artificial object that is beautiful, what makes it beautiful is what makes it art, so phil of art and aesthetics would be, in this scenario, doing the same thing.

Would you deprive us from a future where articles in metaphysics discuss "quanticularity qua quanticularity?" :cool: — Count Timothy von Icarus

With words such as "transcriptomics" and "eusociality", we are already at a point of no return towards that future.

the apparently mathematical in nature — Count Timothy von Icarus

Mathematicality is the closest existing (this one barely exists) word for that meaning. To be more specific, inherent mathematicality.

Quantos? Mathematicularity? Máthēma? Quanticularity? — Count Timothy von Icarus

:worry:

Happy to remind you of what your desires are, as I see you recently edited the post to now include after the fact. — Outlander

It was always there though :chin:

I neither like nor appreciate how you awkwardly and clearly randomly placed your fork in the position it is exhibited in. It's as if you were some alien who has no concept of what consumption of food is and is simply required to convince others you are capable of eating or regularly practice the routine of such. Or introducing the concept of a fork to some forgotten race of people somewhere. — Outlander

I rested the fork there so I could hold my phone. I took the picture nonchalantly and proceeded to eat. One of the rules of this thread is don't be rude, so I will refrain from calling you autistic.

What point? I was just pointing out that, altough different languages count in different ways, the concept of one and many is present to all languages.

I start:

Chicken breast with premade seasoning and oregano, with sweet potatoes, brocolli, and carrots on the olive oil and hawaiian salt.

I get that not everyone can easily imagine things, but some are quite apt at it. All these imaginings will require spatial distances of delimitation to that which is being imagined. And since imaginings are purely mental, this then points to mind necessarily being extensional when in any way engaging in, at the very least, willful imaginings. — javra

At least from the Cartesian perspective — and this is where I was getting at by saying "the mind has the idea of extension within it and that some interaction with our organs causes some idea of spatial localisation" —, in the Third Meditation it is said that the res cogitans can still have an idea of extension because (as he says and it is a convoluted argument) it is also a substance like the res extensa, extension exists in the mind not formally (in actuality) but representatively (as an idea). The question then becomes, are we experiencing extension when we hear stereo like we do when we touch something? If yes, perhaps the idea of the mind having extension is dependent on what semantics or pressuppositions we choose; if not, perhaps there is a solid ground to affirm the mind is extended — it would be a second cogito of sorts, I feel therefore I permeate.

For Tegmark, platonic schema has the last word, where for Bergson qualitative change in nature does. — Joshs

:up:

Can one speak in the strict sense of change in a situation in which, after all, constancy, duration filled out without change, is inconceivable? No possible constancy can be attributed to the continuous flow of appearance-phases. There is no duration in the original flow. For duration is the form of something enduring, of an enduring being, of something identical in the temporal sequence that functions as its duration…Objective time is a form of "persisting" objects, of their changes and of other processes involved in them. "Process" is therefore a concept presupposing persistence. But persistence is unity that becomes constituted in the flow, and it pertains to the essence of the flow that no persistence can exist in it. Phases of experience and continuous series of phases exist in the flow. But such a phase is nothing that persists, any more than a continuous series of such phases is

These considerations would be valuable in a thread about the nature of time.

But more questions follow: "is math only in us? If so, where does it come from? What causes it?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Good links for that topic:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

I agree. I noted in a You Tube "documentary" recently that there is a tribe in the Amazon that counts by 2s. Was that embedded? I think math, like Language, and everything else accessible to human mind/experience is a posteriori constructed by Mind and accepted if functional, rejected if not. — ENOAH

This may be so, but every language we know of has words for one and two and some, just like all have words for live and die.
https://intranet.secure.griffith.edu.au/schools-departments/natural-semantic-metalanguage/what-is-nsm/semantic-primes

Here, doing nothing with words.

‎

I don't think they're stupid. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I personally think so. I am convinced Wik***dia and Reddit have the same userbase.

Personally I love Wikipedia it always gives me a succinct clear gist of the whole idea in the first couple of sentences. When used this way it seems to be a very high quality standard. — PL Olcott

That is always the excuse given by users of that site. It is either "a good summary", when there are often mistakes right in the header and the site itself is rotten to the core, or to "check the sources on the bottom". Nobody who says that actually checks the sources on the bottom of course, otherwise they would notice the users there frequently misquote the sources they use. Especially because they have little understanding of the topic they are writing about.

I have no dog in the fight. I don't know if the article on Tarski is correct or not, I don't have much of a way to judge myself. Mine was just an off-the-cuff comment.

It is only via touch that we as first-person points of view—i.e. as consciously aware beings—permeate throughout and are, as such, fully unified with our own bodies in an indisputable manner: such that we are here defined as that awareness which touches and anything we touch becomes other relative to us, thereby delimitating us as bodies — javra

Good elaboration.

this does get complicated by the touching of one’s own body, but the relation between subject of awareness being that which touches and its objects of awareness being that which is touched remains unchanged — javra

I would imagine that here the skin serves as both the object and the subject. Insofar as it, as a solid physical thing, can exert pressure into other objects and, as the tool of the sense of touch, can provide an experience, it is not troublesome when two parts that connect to the same (awake) thinking being — the experiencer — come in contact.

I’m not certain we could isolate sight, smell, sound, as occurring within a 0D mind as I interpret you describing — javra

In the sense that these senses can be the mental operations of an immaterial mind with no extension.

Let's say our mind is indeed immaterial, being immaterial, it does not extend in space, so we can metaphorically say it has 0 dimensions. As soon as we reflect upon the experience of touch, it seems that experience is spatially extended. Being experience an attribute of the substance we call mind, it would be reasonable to conclude the initial assumption is wrong, and that the mind does extend in space (even if it is still immaterial perhaps).

While writing this post I was touching my body in order to stimulate — not in a weird way — thoughts about the topic.