Saul Kripke’s theory of rigid designation is one of the most influential contributions to analytic philosophy in the 20th century — which, when you examine it carefully, says something unflattering about analytic philosophy in the 20th century. The core claim is elegant, as confused ideas often are: names like “Aristotle” and natural kind terms like “water” are rigid designators — they pick out the same object across all possible worlds. This allows Kripke to argue that identity statements like “Water = H2O” are necessary a posteriori: empirically discovered, yet metaphysically necessary once known. The necessity is grounded not in description but in the object’s primitive, non-qualitative identity — its haecceity, or “thisness,” independent of any properties it happens to have.The foundation of that view isn’t merely unstable — it was never there to begin with. Specifically, what Kripke calls primitive, non-qualitative identity turns out, on inspection, to be qualitative all the way down. Kripke simply didn’t look. And if that’s right, the entire edifice — rigid designation, cross-world reference, and the necessary a posteriori — doesn’t collapse so much as quietly confess it was never built.
I don't think much of Kripke's work, but I think even less of horseshit LLM-composed threads like this. "Kripke says they're non-qualitative, but, au contraire, they're qualitative," in almost as many words, is not what a refutation looks like.
The distinction between qualitative properties and primitive haecceity turns out to be methodologically inaccessible: we have no route to the latter that doesn’t run through the former. And once that inaccessibility is acknowledged, the necessary a posteriori is no longer underwritten by metaphysical necessity independent of the world. It becomes, at best, a strongly stable empirical identity — not the grade of necessity Kripke’s framework requires, and not the revolutionary metaphysical achievement his admirers believe they inherited.What remains is a framework built on an assumption dressed up as a foundation — and a field that spent decades building on top of it without checking what was underneath.
>>25182327it literally is
>>25182327You’re right to feel that way. It’s not a refutation — it’s a rant. And the crucial part? The faggotry of the OP.
ITT low IQs coping they can't prove non-qualitative identity exists.
Most so called "infohazards" are just knowledge about dangerous things, but nothing maddening or reality-bending or shaping in themselves. True infohazards is the kind that leaves you a gibbering madman raving at the moon, true to Lovecrafts endings in his writings.
hes literally - i mean literally - me
Thoughts on That All shall be Saved?
>>25182442He's a tranny that's rage-baiting.
>>25182425>There is no Justice in eternal tormentIs this statement really self-evident? I think it boils down to whether or not the torment is eternal, and that determines whether is just or not. Christianity posits that God is all good, all just, and all merciful. Taking that as a immutable premise, if hell is eternal it must somehow fit within His goodness, justice, and mercy, and if it’s not then it wouldn’t.Also https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/shall-saved-universal-christian-universalism-david-bentley-hart/
>>25182839>if hell is eternal it must somehow fit within His goodnessBut that's impossible, hell is evil, evil cannot fit into goodness, to think otherwise is to completely distort the definition of goodness. If eternal torment is real, then God would be more evil than the devil, God would be an eternal torturer.
>>25182848Hell isn’t evil, it’s the punishment for evil.That’s like saying prison is a crime.
>>25182854Beheading someone for stealing a candy bar is evil, even though in a primitive country that beheading would be considered a "punishment" for the crime.A parent beating their child to near death for not taking out the trash would be evil, even though the parent might consider such a severe beating a "punishment"Eternal torment is the worst kind of punishment, it is a greater evil than any and all evil it might be regarded as a "punishment" for.
Chtorr editionHere we discuss any kind of science fiction and fantasy.>Recommended reading charts (Look here before asking for vague recs):https://mega.nz/folder/kj5hWI6J#0cyw0-ZdvZKOJW3fPI6RfQ/folder/4rAmSZxb>Archive:https://warosu.org/lit/?task=search2&search_subject=sffg>Goodreads:https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/1029811-sffg
god thousandfold thought sucks so far
>>25182318kekthat's fucking brutal
>>25182318> "First of all, I don't write fantasy. I write stories that have important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. It's either about magic or a world-building. I don't do either."His ego was only matched by his lack of talent.
>>25182782Post your writing, kiddo
I just finished reading Watership Down. It was a really nice relaxing read. Just the right amount of tense. It's kind of interesting because all the rabbits have their own personalities but the book still has to treat death as a sort of casual affair because in the end they're still rabbits. Makes the book both whimsical and grim at the same time. Lot of interesting tone shifts too. There's a horror segment, a spy thriller, battles, some slice of life stuff. Just really enjoyable from start to finish.
What do you think about D.H. Lawrence? Have you read any of his novels/ poetry?
>>25179060Nigger.
>>25181873>tacit acknowledgment of being stupid>>25181916And? Do you think that proves something? If you or the other anon had a brain cell to spare you would have just put it on me and challenged me to back up what I said, but you don't and just keep trying to prove me wrong with your own ignorance. >define it!That shipped sailed, now you need to offer me something in return or keep the thread alive until I get drunk again. >you can't!Just offer me something more than autism and I will. >I won!Good job. Be sure to send your mom a link so she can print out the thread and put it on the fridge.
>>25182632>challenged me to back up what I saidBut why would I challenge you when I proved you categorically wrong.? You are not more authoritative than Champfleury. That was the end of the question. Battu encore une fois, le pochard se mettra à chialer à nouveau.
>>25182664>i proved you wrong because I say I did!Email your mom the link yet?
>"When I read Shakespeare I am struck with wonder that such trivial people should muse and thunder in such lovely language."Never read this D.H Lawrence character in my life, but I already like him...a lot.
There’s a classical criticism of German Idealism — Fichte, Schelling, Hegel — that compares their philosophies to a spider’s web. The Idealists, the charge goes, spin their vast conceptual systems entirely out of inner resources: reason, the self, pure concepts. The result is intricate and impressive, but ultimately self-referential — a web connected only to itself, touching nothing solid outside. Fichte’s ego-philosophy gets the worst of it: how can you derive an entire external world from the pure self-positing Ich? Critics from Jacobi to Herbart to the Neo-Kantians argued that genuine philosophy must begin with something given, not merely posited. The web is beautiful, they said, but it catches nothing.But this criticism rests on a distinction that dissolves under pressure.Consider what “the given” actually means for the empiricist. The world is simply there — presented to a passive mind that receives it. This is supposed to be epistemically innocent, unproblematic, pre-philosophical. But Kant already showed that the given is never simply given: it is always already structured, conditioned, taken up by the forms of intuition and the categories of the understanding. The “raw datum” — pure, uninterpreted Stoff — is itself a philosophical posit, not an observed fact. The critic who appeals to “what is simply given” is spinning a web too. They’ve just forgotten they wove it.Now consider Fichte’s Tathandlung. The Ich is not arbitrarily constructing itself from nothing by an act of sheer will. It finds itself as already there — given to itself, which is exactly what the Tathandlung tries to capture: an act that is simultaneously a fact. The Ich is the one case where the condition of appearing and what appears are identical.Here’s the point: the I‘s self-positing is a limit case of givenness, not its opposite. In the same way that the world’s existence is inexplicably given to the empiricist — no explanation of why anything is given at all, it simply is — the I is inexplicably given to itself. Both are philosophical bedrock. Neither admits of further grounding without regress. The asymmetry the critic assumes between “positing” and “givenness” collapses: they are both primitive, both unexplained, both foundational.The spider-web criticism would only land if the empiricist had some genuinely neutral, unposited ground to stand on. But there is no such ground. The empiricist’s “given” is as philosophically loaded as Fichte’s Ich — it’s just hidden behind the appearance of passivity.
>>25182224lol read it
>>25182224That spooky af no cap
Total bullshit LLM composed thread
>>25182237Not yet but whenever I get back into reading philosophy I probably will. I've only read Kant in isolated sections and it's probably smart to dive deeper into that first though.
>>25182197Great post, made my morning. A lot of people read Kant as saying something like ‘everything is mediated by your brain or mind, you never see the true reality’. Kant uses language sometimes that would seem to support this. But for Fichte there is no “given” (and there’s another legitimate sense in which you could call being ‘given’ which you’ve done). There is limitation, but no thing in itself. It’s hard to get people to see that this isn’t schizo, nor is it pointless wordplay. Why does Heidegger think Hegel is the end of philosophy? I haven’t read him yet but it seems sus af, Hegel was just a brilliant dogmatist to me.
Are the Eton, Oxbridge English upper crust still this smart and literate? Or have they been watered down like everyone else?
>>25181479Nah, this was back when only wealthy aristocrats could afford a liberal arts education. Democratizing the arts effectively killed them.
>>25182388I think some people are naturally that good with languages. I struggle with Norwegian. My great uncle spoke AND read English, Greek, Armenian, German, French, Russian and Chinese fluently. And classical Hebrew, apparently, but I think that was a retirement project.
>>25182470NTA, although De Quincey was likely an exception rather than the rule, if I recall a teacher says of him that he would better argue with an Athenian mob than he (the teacher) could in English. But I am sure that on the whole, they were probably more proficient than one would be today. A privately educated teenager probably had more knowledge than classicists of today. I did my undergrad in the Classics, and my Latin is by no means impressive. My Greek is better but that's because I have intentionally spent time learning and reading in my own time as a hobby.
>>25181479They're too busy buggering freshers
>>25181479They don't study the classics anymore in primary or secondary. They get taught by karens and spend their free time aping Tiktok
Thrice greatest edition>τὸ πρότερον νῆμα·>>25103936>Μέγα τὸ Ἑλληνιστί/Ῥωμαϊστί·https://mega dot nz/folder/FHdXFZ4A#mWgaKv4SeG-2Rx7iMZ6EKw>Mέγα τὸ ANE·https://mega dot nz/folder/YfsmFRxA#pz58Q6aTDkwn9Ot6G68NRg>Work in progress FAQhttps://rentry dot co/n8nrkoAll Classical languages are welcome.
>>25181451no, despite the amazing level of continuity considering it's been 2000+ years it's still a different language, with that time I could profit more from learning a big Romance language like French or Spanish(being already a native in one), but I'm too saturated already
>>25181256>should I therefore doubt my ability to do it? I don't think soYes. You should. Doesn’t mean you ought to spend the time doing it, it just means you shouldn’t be a braggart and claim to be a better author than a native Roman who has actually authored something.
>>25151673roll
>>25181866>duplicesfugg >>25151673
>>25181543It's heckin valid tho :3 nah mean nigga
>Among matters of the heart and the soul, literary taste and distaste was a leitmotif of conversation between McCarthy and Britt. McCarthy was hard to please — or rather, very easy if one merely disregarded the bulk of popular literary output since the mid-20th century. He referred to Joyce Carol Oates, for instance, as “the goggle lady.” If one were, for whatever reason, to defend Oates for having written more than 60 novels, McCarthy’s dependable response was, “Yeah, that we know of.” He considered Don DeLillo no great shakes. He only began to speak of Saul Bellow as a very fine writer after he received the life-changing MacArthur Genius Grant from Saul Bellow. (After reading McCarthy benefactor Guy Davenport, it’s not therefore harebrained to wonder how much McCarthy could have really liked the novels of Guy Davenport.) Pynchon he found much ado about nothing, though Britt suspected he was perhaps jealous of the esteem Pynchon enjoyed for the scientific knowledge brandished in Gravity’s Rainbow, “knowledge” McCarthy found mostly utilitarian and otherwise nugatory. (Nothing like the quantum mechanics numinously undergirding Blood Meridian.) He once walked in on Britt reading Updike and stopped cold. His deafening silence spoke volumes, but he felt moved to speak anyway, “You’re not reading him, are you?” “No, I’m not,” said Britt, plainly reading him and now trying to find a way to play it off as if she hadn’t been. The only English translation of Homer that McCarthy recognized as legitimate was Chapman’s from the 16th century, the one Shakespeare had to hand. He never let praise of Proust pass unpantsed, even in the company of ladies. At one of the few literary parties McCarthy ever attended in New York in the 1990s, Norman Mailer lumbered up to him to pick a fight and McCarthy ignored him avuncularly. After all, McCarthy was the true heir and surpasser of Hemingway that Mailer failed to become. But McCarthy was nothing if not honest, and knew when on the fields of joyous contempt he’d been bettered, and so would say reverently of Christopher Hitchens, “No one can put someone down as beautifully as that man.”https://archive.md/pOgUA
>>25182517>What Infinite Jest was, Blood Meridian is now, and yet another book shall become in the future. The wheel of Samsara grinds on as young men shape their opinions around what they think will get them fucked by college girlsYou write like a faggot.
>>25182819This is a bideo game?
>>25182833Foundry VTT. I’m running a campaign of Call of Cthulhu where players go on a haunted show of Bookworm. They find out about a new book that is becoming a worldwide bestseller, then they’re transported to another world where literary stock is slowly eroding reality. I will make it available publicly when I finish writing it up.
>>25182843Cool? Possibly.
>1 books completed>3 books behind schedule
>>25180190this is a literature board and you haven't read a single work
>>25180764wdym? he read hyperion
>>25180190>scott bakkerwhat a fucking slop, doesn't count
>>25179300Reading two books currently so hopefully I'll have achieved my goal by the end of May
>11 books completed>2 ongoing
its mid
>>25181985Holy midwit
>>25182649Nta but you calling him a midwit while defending political art and presumably politics in general, something in which midwits swarm to, is really funny to me.
>>25182654Your comment is, ironically, peak midwit
>>25181002There should always be an Orwell thread in here. .. IMHO.
Name 100 better books you have read and 100 worse books you have read.
I ran out of space
>>25169587>Here's our son's bedroom... He's 32
>>25179911holy pleiades
>>25169780Those look pristine.
bump
Why does it seem that all anyone on this board wants to write now is either fantasyslop or sci-fislop?I have seen some decently skilled writers throwing themselves away writing the most derivative, infantile, autistic, Royal-Road-coded shit imaginable:>Narrowing his eyes at the approaching hoard of T’zendians, Klayden clenched his fist and summoned forth a burning shadow spear…Just stop! Is this all because you’ve watched a small handful of fat guys be moderately successful producing this gutter oil? Why can’t you write something real? Do you have no real life experience to draw from?Just downright right peculiar, thas’ all.
>>25181088I'll read whatever I want to.
>>25181062Because technology is gay.Its that simple, nobody wants to write stories with mobile phone in them, or cameras everywhere at all times, the characters on social media 4 hours per day every day.If you take out being able to write about your actual life and the world you live in, what else is left?You either go back to the past or create a future where things are not like today...
>>25181062If you would like a serious answer it is because of this: beauty and sincerity no longer exist. This is a material reality for zoomers. It is so unreal that zoomers have to create secondary worlds to explore it, as it is less realistic to imagine such qualities in our own.
>>25181062Because the literary scene has been dead since WW2, and then it died again even harder in the 2010s. If you're not an Asian woman who wants to write about how White men make you sad you've basically got no chance with modern literary publishers.
>>25181062Because imagination is something that connects us all. The global community is divided to a dozen axes. Sure , you can write something 10/10 for the American middle-class but then you'll be the country music of the lit industry.
what books to read to a baby so that it does not go full chud
>>25182292>They will call you many things, but never a liar.You lost, troon.
>>25182288
>>25182407>if you voted for trump you're retarded>oh yeah? well you're a TRANNY>you're obsessed with trannies>oh yeah? oh yeah? well you're a TRANNY!!!you fucking people, man. lmfao>>25182350I just want a president who wasn't friends with epstein
>>25182504You want a president that appeals to your vague center left sensibilities.
>>25181649> They just do whatever the powerful sayExplain women becoming nuns and sisters in the current year.
