I've noticed that a lot of sophist philosophizing is based around this concept of "nonexistence". But it seems obvious that "nonexistence" just isn't a real thing right?How can something exist that by its own definition does not exist? It's just a nonsense idea made up of circular reasoning. There cannot exist a thing that doesn't exist. Everything that exists exists and there is nothing else. Existence by definition is an all encompassing concept. You can't logically accept that things exist and then turn around and say there are things that don't.And logically the concept of nonexistence is already nonsensical but if you believe in determinism the idea really just gets defeated many times over.
>>24955107>>24957636the core principle of philosophy is honesty, not truth. you can honestly believe something that is wrong and you can honestly not believe something that is true.
>>24950960>That's essentially what people are saying when they talk about something like "the me that doesn't exist". There is no you that doesn't exist the same way there is no 2 that is a 0.>Anon discovers what a hypothetical is
>>24957254>See OP. Everything is, so what am I to make of you positing a "not"? My answer has already been given: your post conveys as much meaning as chicken scratches in the dust. Gibberish.So it is your position that why-questions do not existence?
>>24958560do not have existence*?
>>24950487Learn about imposition and intention.You're supposed to study grammar, logic and rhetoric before you study philosophy.https://libgen.li/edition.php?id=137170227
are there any scientifically published books that have analysed why japanese people are so... particular about tidyness and obsessed with mastering everything they know?
>>24956315>scientifically published
>any scientifically published books that have analysed why japanese people are so... particular about tidyness
>>2495805590% of americans act like this
>>24956315>t. never been to japanThe place is a dirty fucking toilet dude. Travel a little heh
>>24956645>Canadian here, we are basically the same as the Japanese.
>>24957124Times New Roman
>>24957124Avenir Next along with Apple’s corporate font. Just perfect for my eyes.
>>24957124Thrillhouse. You only enter your name.
Seravek>>24957355San Francisco
>>24957124I've been using Rockwell Nova Light for a year or two.
>>24957542You at least mark them as “read” on goodreads right?
>read first chapter>read last chapterGood enough.
>>24957550>>24957646kek
I bought an e-reader and set out to start reading books again but the books I chose were fucking boring so I quit. Everything I read is just too long to the point where it feels like the author is being too indulgent in their own verbosity.
would you?
>>24958557...Read her book, Atlas Shrugged? Probably not.
Life
Death
>>24957804>>24958370And the goddamn in between.
Without God, meaning and morality do not have an objective grounding, yet a bunch of you people live as if your life still has value, or that your choices matter. The moment you deny God, you lose the right to claim that objective value, meaning, or purpose exist, or that something is right or wrong. But you cannot rule out the possibility of God either by default, because of cause and effect, and symmetry and order, etc.If a mathematician was presented with the choice (A) guaranteed 0%, and choice (B) even a slight chance of >0%, the mathematician would be forced to choose (B), not out of fear or despair, but out of logic and rationality. If everything you believe in collapses without a creator, and you can see even a slight chance for His existence, you must have faith in Him; otherwise, your choice is emotional.Most of you people do not want to be logically 100% consistent, and that is why you fail the test. You do not fail the test because you lack proof; you fail the test because you hate the truth.
I have knowledge of God's existence from reality, what place does faith have?Faith is about accepting something you cannot justify through facts simply because you want it to be true
>>24958456You see why God is necessary, but you cannot know whether he is there or not. This is where faith comes in. Faith means enduring under uncertainty, and the chain of logic helps you to endure under that uncertainty because what is certain is that the alternative is meaninglessness. Thus, if the alternative is meaninglessness, you lose nothing by choosing God, and if he is there, he can give you true value.
>>24958540If I know that God exists by necessity then I know that God is there, since God necessarily existsThe only place for faith is in those who reject God There is meaning in life by virtue of God's existence since God had an idea in his mind when he thought every individual into existence
>>24958029It's not easy to help people understand epistemology outside the modern, Western post-Reformation context. The modern context has your entire K-12 education and college to make itself seem natural and unimpeachable to you, the pre-modern and Eastern contexts are being asked to do it in a 4chan post length statement.Modern epistemology is full of technical terms too. "Justification" is originally a theological term and is given a new meaning for Enlightenment epistemology. "Subjective," "objective," etc. all could be called jargon.Here is a good book on how the modern view emerged, which is helpful for being able to break out of it to at least understand the pre-modern, Indian, etc. epistemologies.
>>24958548I meant necessary as in necessary to ground value, meaning, or purpose, and moral laws. If those things are not grounded in something objective like God, then you might as well not exist at all. Existence itself becomes meaningless. That is what I mean when I say "God is necessary."
prev: >>24951862
This old, aggressive, snarling, rude, old black man has taken up hanging out in the same area of the library where I like to read. There's tons of drug addicts and homeless people and unwashed refuse types who hang out there, that's whatever, I have no issue with that. What separates this guy is he watches his videos on his phone on a volume loud enough to where others can hear, and he's even rolled up a joint at the table, causing the entire area to smell like weed. Then, when he saw me looking at him for this, it must have set him off because he started mumbling all kinds of profanities and aggressions -- to me or in general? not sure, I was definitely ready for it to become violent but I just looked away until he left and fortunately it didn't. Anyway, it's really pissing me off having this guy around, because he's causing other normal, kind people to stay away from the area as well, and silly as it sounds, I like reading around people. Guess I'll have to start reading in a different part of the library... lame.
>>24958439Report him to the police
>>24958443There are a couple security guards they have for the place, and the staff are usually good at catching people eating or watching videos too loud. I guess I'll just have to deal with it unless he fully crosses the line at some point. Hopefully he moves to a different area.
i'm incredibly boring and i don't have anything going on in my life or any experiences to share with others so when someone polite enough to try and start a conversation with me i just avoid talking about myself and i just ask the person clarifying questions to seem like i'm present but i don't have any feelings or thoughts about what's happening. then this sort of artificial politeness of mine after a few minutes starts to strain the other person's capacity to sustain their politeness and then i start to get anxious that they'll think i'm a vacuous douchebag and so i try to find a way to terminate the interaction somehow but i am autistic and i don't know when conversations are supposed to close so in aggregate i quickly become the creep/loser that floats around the perimeter.i have no personality, however, paradoxically, apprising people of that is socially repulsive and comes off as a narcissistic defense mechanism but not apprising people of this just results in them perceiving you as retarded or boring.so every social interaction just turns into pain no matter what and drives me further away from everything. the only time i can have a conversation is within an artificial context ie. a therapist. i can't even escape and be alone because i have no hobby or even curiosity. then the response to all this is that i can't have no personality because i exhibit self-awareness but your own self-awareness isn't something you can actually use as a substrate to communicate, it's just results in narcissism. but then if i try to accept this as just who i am then people have justification to treat me like a loser. i'm a mentally ill ragdoll. im completely alone. what the fuck am i supposed to do
>>24958494No need to thank me
Do edgy book titles make you want to read it?
>>24957902These look interesting. Are they essays?
>>24957782this
>>24957800>The NoticerDoes he name the Jew?
>>24957774i admit, i picked up "babyfucker". it was not good.
>>24957912Tl;dr: White people who read science fiction are literally Hitler
This book changed my life for the better
>>24951011The genetic bottleneck in question was the Neolithic Revolution
>>24947641This. Honestly it's a psyop to get people to have less vaginal preventative sex. My wife cums better from penetration.
>>24950204>with decaying nigrescent tapeworm caviar spilling from the creviceGave me a giggle.
>>24950554Men are the objectified sex.
>>24950994>Men almost always orgasm during consenual sex. Women rarely do.oh nonononono
Do you think Mrs. Reilly is a sympathetic character? Is the she a good mother in spite of her flaws?
>>24956957His mother never showed him actual love. Ignatius lost his happiness when his dog died.
>>24958304How reductionist of you
>>24958320You might have a point of there wasn't thousands of works obviously superior to it
>>24958300Nah, for some reason redditors hate this book, and they’re the most vocal about it. Never figured out why.
>>24956957Is that Mario?!!
i don't even know how to describe what i'm trying to ask so i can't really google it but maybe you bros can help mei'm looking for works written about the entire phenomenon of how people come up with the consensus for an "ideal state" of a technology, as in there seems to be a sort of generally agreed upon golden age for every major technology that exists, like video games from 20-30 years ago or cars from the same era, for examplei'd like to know if anyone has written anything serious about it
YOU ALL NEED TO STOP USING WORDS THE MEANING OF WHICH YOU IGNORE.YOU MEAN «OPTIMAL», NOT «IDEAL».
>>24958415to be honest, i'm not even sure which word to even use because it's a mystery to me
>>24958447I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN, BUT I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY STUDIES ON THAT VERY SPECIFIC SUBJECT.THERE IS A THEORY OF ÆSTHETICS THAT POSES THAT ANY ARTISTIC MOVEMENT CONSOLIDATES INTO AN EPOCH WITH THREE DISTINCT SUCCESSIVE PHASES: ARCHAIC, CLASSICAL, BAROQUE; THIS THEORY IS APPLICABLE TO EVERYTHING, REALLY.NOSTALGIA FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD IS, OFTEN, TOWARD THE CLASSICAL PHASE OF A GIVEN EPOCH, OR HISTORICAL CONTINVVM; THE PHASE AT WHICH THE RUDIMENTS HAVE BEEN OVERCOME, THE CONVENTIONS SET, AND, THE TECHNIQUES, PERFECTED, BUT BEFORE SOPHISTICATION LEADS TO FORMAL TRANSGRESSIONS, AND TECHNICAL LUDISM.IT IS IDIOTIC; NOSTALGIA KILLS; APART FROM THAT, CLASSICISM MAY BE THE PHASE OF PERFECTION, BUT BAROQUISM IS THE PHASE OF OPTIMALITY; THE PHASE AT WHICH MASTERY IS TOTAL, ALLOWING FOR FORMAL PLASTICITY.
>>24958476Nigger
If only I knew back when this was published how right he was
>>24956032things failing can usually be traced back to commies fucking up shit because they want to see young men die making their Revolution
>>24956224iirc Liberalism defeats itself. The state liberates everyone from their chains (religion,culture, family, gender, nation, unions.) It then requires state intervention to close up the wounds that it self-inflicts, meaning more police, surveillance, DEI, welfare, etc..
>>24958012>If all creatures fall by nature, why didn't all the angels fall?Creatures don’t fall by nature, they fall freely, of their own volition, because created rational natures are mutable and dependent and thus capable of sinning and falling, but never determined to do either. This means the fall wasn’t necessary or determined. Angels fell because of a free act of instantaneous will, where they rejected grace when it was offered, while the rest affirmed grace and had their decision confirmed by the Beatific Vision. >If man can only avoid sinning by not being finite, how can he ever stop sinning?Man doesn’t stop sinning by ceasing to be finite. He retains his finitude but is healed by grace. A created will cannot secure eternal rectitude on its own, its dependent on and made stable by God. >If a man who doesn’t sin is like a four-sided triangle, how can man ever be redeemed?A man who doesn’t sin is not the same as a man who is indefectible by his merit alone. A man who doesn’t sin is theoretically possible, but a created will that is sinless, indefectible and self grounding by nature is a contradiction on par with a square circle. That will requires confirming grace.
Bump
>>24958095>Man doesn’t stop sinning by ceasing to be finite. He retains his finitude but is healed by grace. A created will cannot secure eternal rectitude on its own, its dependent on and made stable by God.Ok, so why doesn't God bestow grace before the Fall? This doesn't answer the question.>A man who doesn’t sin is not the same as a man who is indefectible by his merit alone. A man who doesn’t sin is theoretically possible, but a created will that is sinless, indefectible and self grounding by nature is a contradiction on par with a square circle. That will requires confirming grace.Which thinkers are you getting this from? I have never heard the claim that it is a "logical contradiction" for man to be unable to sin (except obliquely in that freedom presupposes the possibility of error, which is of course the very problem I am talking about).I don't think this makes sense either, since you haven't addressed the problem. Either:A. When man gets beatified and is no longer capable of sinning he is like a "square circle" and grace is actually contradictory (and so seemingly impossible);B. For some reasoning *creating* a man who cannot sin is a contradiction but gracing him out of sin later isn't (you'll need to explain that one if that's how it works);Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
How do we know they didn't have blue wine?
>>24958502cus we know from folks that were there
Does Aristotle ever talk about how the four causes interact with each other within a framework of an explanation, i.e., a chain of causes from a major to a minor through a middle? Is there a meaning of cause in a primary sense the way that being is substance in a primary sense, or perhaps a genus of cause where the "four" causes fall under as species? I was thinking about what a cause was after thinking about why the first cause had to be a final cause and not an efficient cause. And then I thought, why couldn't it be multiple causes at once, the same way that going for a walk for it's own sake (e.g. a leisurely stroll in the park) is both an efficient and a final cause in itself. And then I realized that I didn't understand causes as well as I thought I did.
>>24957697Have you read Aristotle or just the wikipedia page?Because Aristotle uses the word "causes" pretty liberally. It is framework to help you understand something. And this framework is built around four questions, each of which in some way "causes" the thing we are looking to analyze.
>>24957763>Have you read Aristotle or just the wikipedia page?Did you even read my post? >Because Aristotle uses the word "causes" pretty liberallyNo shit. That's why I have questions. Surely, there is some focal meaning to it. And if we are talking about a structured framework of interlinked causes, then surely there are some rules to it. Is that a crazy question to ask? >which in some way "causes" the thing we are looking to analyzeYou are thinking of causes as if they're all efficient causes. It's better to think of them as types of explanations.
>>24957697Yeah in Post An 2 he does talk about this. An efficient cause could be taken on its own, or as subordinate to a final cause. The formal cause is just the definition, so it occurs in any syllogism implicitly, but taken on its own (the horse is an animal because it is a mammal) it doesn’t combine and isn’t even a real apodeixis, as he discusses. The role of the material cause is explored more in Metaphysics, DA and Physics than in Post An but in a “reason why” or propter quid apodeixis the premises are all material in mathematical apodeixeis because they’re in simple potency to form. It’s a mistake to say he thought mathematical demonstrations were formal. In the second paragraph you’re thinking of the contradictions in what Hegel calls “real ground”. For Aristotle this doesn’t matter much because the concrete situations that fall into these contradictions are not scientifically knowable anyway, so they can be shunted to doxa and phronesis. In the Analytics Aristotle is mostly concerned with scientific knowledge. The theory of syllogism applies there too ofc but the externally determined ground-relation isn’t a challenge to his theory, he actually accounts for it.
>>24957854How can a mathematical demonstration take a material premise? Matter seems like the antithesis of mathematics, which seems more closely related to form.
