It's about visualization only, at least for me. I don't suppose that I'm great with smells or taste either, but I remember feelings, and sounds well. Those are my best senses, and I'm good with language, I think at least.

I do dream, though I don't remember them often, but they aren't visual either, I just have a sense of what was going on. Same with hallucinations, I don't actually see things that aren't there, I just get really confused, and keep thinking things are there that aren't, or stuff is going on that isn't. I never had a continuous hallucination for this reason probably, because I can't actually see things that aren't there when I look for them.

Yeah, I have that. Though I have had like a handful of visualizations in my life. Otherwise it's all empty up there, or more like a buzz that I can't quite catch, and then when stuff comes out, it wasn't exactly premeditated, more like it comes from no where, or all intuition. Though in writing I of course will write and delete many things before I decide on something. I can figure plenty out in my head though, but I just kind of have to "think" about it, like, give it a minute.

You know, we shame each other into it.

Notice how that little girl is already off balance... or maybe never attained it, I dunno. Her left outside heel isn't as grounded, and her right shoulder is higher than her left. She leans into her right hip more often than her left when she thinks and talks.

Honour code. Have you no honour!

One thing we forget, is that we aren't the one talking, we're the primate ignoring everything around them to listen. You thought, saw, tasted, and felt many things, some were agreeable, and some were not. Some things funny, others upsetting, some things frightening, and others pleasurable.

Consciousness is actually pretty much entirely confined to an autobiographical narrative. Things were significant to the extent that they fit into the narrative, and aren't even like how we remember them, even when we do. Like, people with the best memories in the world, and can memorize lots of information quickly (photographic memories aren't a thing) do so by narrativizing the information, by taking all of the things to be remembered, and turning them into a story.

Almost everything we forgot about, or at least wasn't significant enough to be featured in the narrative, so we forget about it, or didn't even consciously notice it at all, nor properly recognize it in the first place. Doesn't mean that it had no affect on you, nor that you don't remember it on any level at all.

There are currently over eight thousand rules of philosophy club, and I of course cannot expound them all here, and will rather do so arbitrarily when it suits me, and if I happen to give two rules with the same number, then that just means that I forgot to mention that it was section B of the rule, or whatever.

First rule of philosophy club is to always operate within the rules, of which I'm the sole arbiter.

Analytic things are true by definition, or tautological. Reason is a process of truth retention, and is deleterious by nature. You're to find the necessary by deleting the coincidental.

The precise example of an analytic claim that Kant gave, I believe was "all bodies are extended in space" or something like that. Married bachelors were too simple and obvious for him.

I said they sounded like fun, so clearly I was speaking of someone else.

They sound like a lot of fun.

I don't think that it is obvious, nor significant that she is a response, and he is not. Are all responses inherently inferior, or less meaningful or valuable because they are dependent in some contextual sense on what is responded to?

It's hardly impossible to imagine the girl statue being meaningful without the bull, it just so happens that within context, her meaning is dependent on the bull.

You think that one is legitimate, and the other is not, so you anthropmorphize them with this opinion? They're inanimate objects, with no concerns at all.

Anyway, the Girl means very little aside from her fake confrontation with the Bull. The Bull on the other hand is not beholding to her at all. — Cavacava

That's a weird thing to say.

I think that being unintimidated by an overwhelmingly superior force will always be far more epic than being an intimidating force.

I don't think that it's fair to say that it turns the bull into a villain, or misrepresents a thing. She doesn't have a weapon, and isn't there to kill it. The bull is there to symbolize intimidating strength, and the little girl is there to be unintimidated by it, while bolstering no such pretensions in her own representation.

It was compiled by his sister after his death from scattered notes and her husband's opinions.

I read all of Nietzsche's books, except the will to power, which doesn't count.

I thought it was more, survive until adulthood, find a mate, rear young, and make your life about them, and them more important to you even at the cost of your own life until they are adults. Then if you did it right, you have a loving family, and good connections, and your only fear becomes losing what you have, and not your life, as that stopped mattering a long time ago... then die, a success.

Maybe that's just bears. Growl growl.

Religion as an institution or force of influence, power, and authority is what people mean, I think also, when they say they aren't "religious". Religions possess bar none the most significant things you need to know about how to get by, but as institutions, the stewards of that info throughout history have acquired prestige along with the message, and find themselves in positions of influence and opportunity.

No one is good. Growl growl.

"I'd rather hang out with the witches" echoes softly from the fringes with the resonance of none. Glob I'm a rebel.

I wanted purple eyes when I was a cub because of that movie with the witches with purple eyes, and no toes. I thought it was so cool.

If you're searching for evil, then you've found it, because I'm a criminal bear.

Growl growl.

Growl growl.

Yeah, that one.

Google is failing me, and can't find the quote for some reason, but Nietzsche actually says in the twilight of the idols that the value of life is inestimable, or immeasurable, and from this, suggests that when someone does offer an evaluation, it can only be a symptom of their own constitution.

I of course agree that Kant contradicts himself throughout his literary progression, but everyone does... or at least ought to.

Yes, I meant Leibniz, not Locke. They begin with the same letter!

Back to work, so not a lot of time for this, will be my excuse, but I'll attempt to explain my understanding of his rejection.

Firstly, "inertia" is taken from "inert", and matter is manifestly not inert. Indeed, he thought some kind of interaction, communication, or transference of information is at play, as well as not just external inert forces are at work, but dynamic living ones, which this doesn't give an account of.

His view of something more relational sounds like a famous thought experiment about two people moving towards each other in a void to me... "if all changes of motion are reciprocal and equal (since one body cannot move closer to/farther away from another body without the second body moving closer to/farther away from the first body and by exactly the same amount)".

The most glaring anachronism to me, is that he clearly doesn't think of matter and energy as the same things in different forms, but distinct things.

Understand that both are actually mathematics, but mathematics is pure, and natural science requires empiricism and thus is impure, and the "pure part" in it that he mentions is itself mathematics. He is without a doubt influenced by Newton, and that article I linked says that people used to think he meant Newton, but now they think more so from Locke, but I think that it's pretty equally true to say that they both influenced him, and equally wrong to think that his notion of universal natural science just was one of their's.

The death of all natural philosophy” (4:544). In a later remark in the Mechanics, Kant explicitly objects that “the terminology of inertial force (vis inertiae) must be entirely banished from natural science, not only because it carries with it a contradiction in terms, nor even because the law of inertia (lifelessness) might thereby be easily confused with the law of reaction in every communicated motion, but primarily because the mistaken idea of those who are not properly acquainted with the mechanical laws is thereby maintained and even strengthened” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/#PhyPreCriPer

Here's the rejection in his words, and he actually thought that the law contradicted experience.

As for the Einstein link you can see that Einstein was a fan and read the CPR as a teen, there's also that quote stealing thing, but mostly I just think that a lot of it can just be seen there.

Firstly he reminds us that thoughts of empirical concepts take place in a three dimensional void, which is logical, and then we construct physical objects in the imagination like this. He rejected the law of inertia mainly because of the wording of the principle, feeling that it would be taken to be empirical and not logical, leaving out the reactive living aspect of matter, and only talking about the physical quantifiable aspects of motion in a logical void.

Kant's very thing is ultimately objecting to an objectivity or primacy of any perspective, but only of mathematical determination with respect to natural principles. Rather than imagining an absolute space, we rather need a universal constant, it would seem to me.

I didn't mention this earlier because I wanted to see where it was going, but Kant rejected a lot of Newtonian principles, and most of the principles for relativity are present in Kant, as well as Einstein being a fan, and co-opting his quote about concepts and precepts into one about science and religion.

I don't know where the idea that he was defending Newtonian physics comes from. Like most everything, he thought it was half-right, at best.

How do we honestly confront the problem? Genocide them for thought crimes? Serious question... isn't that crazy asshole a maniac?

I've never read the quran, but my understanding is that it's just one big monologue of God talking. The theological debate being over whether a lot of what God says needs to be taken with historical context, and those that believe that it's always, unequivocally applicable.

Kant's epistemic foundation for science, or empiricism is mathematics. If it can't be rendered mathematically, then it isn't science. As science does require an a priori, or "pure part", in his view.

“in any special doctrine of nature there can be only as much proper science as there is mathematics therein”

So basically, the only requirement is quantifiability. That's pretty damn controversial, and all victorian or whatever.

He argues that psychology isn't science, for instance, as in the only quantifiable aspect of the inner sense is time, which isn't enough.

I can't even pronounce those places, and of course looked them up, but I knew he'd traveled some, and didn't like to be tied down by much, kind of big on autonomy.

Carry on...

Except that Kant also worked in Veselovka, and Jarnołtowo, and biographies like to paint pictures.

I mean, they even had boats... it was just a different kind and size of boat...

One would think that an alien craft or species would be far more difficult to detect and identify if similarity to the particulars of experience is what's needed. Universe could be crawling with them, spirits, and all kinds of whatits, but their behavior would just be unintelligible, insignificant, or entirely unperceivable to us.

Maybe like the "somebody else's business" cloaking device from the Hitch Hiker's Guide. It was probably just so fucked up and crazy to them, so overwhelmingly technologically advanced that their puny brains could not process, and so just mind-fucked them invisible.

That's probably what happened.

I said "I think" rather than that's a fact. I think it for various reasons, but mostly because philosophy is supposed to be about the true and the good. I also think that it deals with the most problematic areas of life. Call me biased, or bad at psychology.

I don't think that we can consistently tell whether people are lying, no one can demonstrate an ability to consistently greater than chance, and seven year olds can pull it off. It takes trust, not intelligence to fool people. They have to be willing to trust you, and there are various reasons why they would or wouldn't, mostly based on your known and reputable trustworthiness, and agreeableness. I maintain that it doesn't takes intelligence to deceive, it takes trust, and the consequences of deception are the same risks to the idiot as the genius.