|
On June 09 2017 19:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 09 2017 02:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
In most cases philosophy can be understood as giant glass towers sitting on shakey foundations. Zeno's paradoxes for instance is an interesting mental diversion for those who aren't mathematically grounded and simply a solvable expression for those who are. Other times, philosophy doesn't follow reality, as it has no need to do so. Philosophy only cares about reality. The issue is that it focuses on the logic of observed reality as opposed to deriving conclusions from the observed reality. An artists replicates nature, a scientists studies nature, but a philosopher attempts to define what is natural, what is unnatural, and if we are actually being true about how we experience or ignore the natural. I didn't say philosophy doesn't care about the nature of reality, only that it has no need to follow reality. If tomorrow, science can prove that we have no free will, the same philosophers will ignore all that and continue to put forth the same arguments as centuries past. ___ Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 14:09 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 09 2017 14:07 IgnE wrote:
what does it matter practically speaking? they get out voted thats what I'm asking. So you can force someone to sell their stock if your the majority owner? No you cannot, but conversely, for the purpose of control of the direction of the company, the majority shareholder will have full control. So there is no business reason to try to do so, and there is no legal recourse to do so. The only problem would be that you will have other voices which can be ignored. True egomaniacs will turn a majority into total shareholding simply becuase they don't want to see the other guys face. The worth of a minority against a majority shareholding would be the dividend.
I don't disagree that there will be some philosophers who will continue the narrative even with direct evidence against it--but I do disagree that Philosophy as an academic practice would not evolve and adapt to those findings.
|
How come 내가 제일 잘 나가 means "I am the best", yet 최고 means "best". They don't look alike, is 최고 hiding morphed somewhere in the first phrase?
|
On June 10 2017 01:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 19:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 09 2017 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 09 2017 02:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
In most cases philosophy can be understood as giant glass towers sitting on shakey foundations. Zeno's paradoxes for instance is an interesting mental diversion for those who aren't mathematically grounded and simply a solvable expression for those who are. Other times, philosophy doesn't follow reality, as it has no need to do so. Philosophy only cares about reality. The issue is that it focuses on the logic of observed reality as opposed to deriving conclusions from the observed reality. An artists replicates nature, a scientists studies nature, but a philosopher attempts to define what is natural, what is unnatural, and if we are actually being true about how we experience or ignore the natural. I didn't say philosophy doesn't care about the nature of reality, only that it has no need to follow reality. If tomorrow, science can prove that we have no free will, the same philosophers will ignore all that and continue to put forth the same arguments as centuries past. ___ On June 09 2017 14:09 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 09 2017 14:07 IgnE wrote:
what does it matter practically speaking? they get out voted thats what I'm asking. So you can force someone to sell their stock if your the majority owner? No you cannot, but conversely, for the purpose of control of the direction of the company, the majority shareholder will have full control. So there is no business reason to try to do so, and there is no legal recourse to do so. The only problem would be that you will have other voices which can be ignored. True egomaniacs will turn a majority into total shareholding simply becuase they don't want to see the other guys face. The worth of a minority against a majority shareholding would be the dividend. I don't disagree that there will be some philosophers who will continue the narrative even with direct evidence against it--but I do disagree that Philosophy as an academic practice would not evolve and adapt to those findings.
A slight twist to the question: if we have empirical data answering a philosophical question (such as "does the human have a free will"), is it still philosophy?
That is: is it now biology or whatever branch of science that did the measurement, as that is the branch that can answer it? Can it be both? Is there any philosophical question where there is hard evidence giving you the answer?
|
Don't forget that experimental philosophy claims to exist, I even talked about it some time ago, probably in this thread, as I have been used as a subject  However it's actually mostly psychology.
|
On June 10 2017 17:48 opisska wrote:Don't forget that experimental philosophy claims to exist, I even talked about it some time ago, probably in this thread, as I have been used as a subject However it's actually mostly psychology.
*opens mouth to ask what tf experimental philosophy is*
*thinks better of*
*closes mouth*
Interesting, thanks for that!
So, watched any good TV series lately?
|
We just finished Misfits. If you read a description it sounds silly and it really is, but is British so it doesn't matter, mainly because it is really, really British. The show develops a style which is kinda the opposite of GoT's approach to death, as people die left and right and nobody really cares, which again, sounds silly, but it just makes the show what it is. It also has Iwan Rheon playing a freak.
We watch things with subtitles, either English or Czech, whatever is available as my wife doesn't really understand everything even when people speak normally and it was funny how they dealt with Kelly, who speaks really weird English - they just made her lines in Slovak instead of Czech and it works really well
|
On June 10 2017 06:48 JWD[9] wrote:
How come 내가 제일 잘 나가 means "I am the best", yet 최고 means "best". They don't look alike, is 최고 hiding morphed somewhere in the first phrase?
내가 : I, with an indication of action (usually something I do)
제일 : Indication of superlative
잘 나가: Verb, something like being successful, popular.
최고: best in the sense of the highest/the maximum
|
On June 10 2017 18:47 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 06:48 JWD[9] wrote:
How come 내가 제일 잘 나가 means "I am the best", yet 최고 means "best". They don't look alike, is 최고 hiding morphed somewhere in the first phrase? 내가 : I, with an indication of action (usually something I do) 제일 : Indication of superlative 잘 나가: Verb, something like being successful, popular. 최고: best in the sense of the highest/the maximum
Awesome! Thank you Oshuy :3
|
On June 10 2017 18:26 opisska wrote:We just finished Misfits. If you read a description it sounds silly and it really is, but is British so it doesn't matter, mainly because it is really, really British. The show develops a style which is kinda the opposite of GoT's approach to death, as people die left and right and nobody really cares, which again, sounds silly, but it just makes the show what it is. It also has Iwan Rheon playing a freak. We watch things with subtitles, either English or Czech, whatever is available as my wife doesn't really understand everything even when people speak normally and it was funny how they dealt with Kelly, who speaks really weird English - they just made her lines in Slovak instead of Czech and it works really well
I loved Misfits. In the end, it's a show that isn't about a person, or even a group of people, but about the culture that is created as people join and leave a band of emerging superheroes (or supervillians!) and the question is how the superpowers will ultimately be used.
Also it's funny as hell and the willingness to off key or beloved characters is incredibly ruthless.
|
On June 10 2017 17:44 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 01:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 09 2017 19:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 09 2017 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 09 2017 02:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
In most cases philosophy can be understood as giant glass towers sitting on shakey foundations. Zeno's paradoxes for instance is an interesting mental diversion for those who aren't mathematically grounded and simply a solvable expression for those who are. Other times, philosophy doesn't follow reality, as it has no need to do so. Philosophy only cares about reality. The issue is that it focuses on the logic of observed reality as opposed to deriving conclusions from the observed reality. An artists replicates nature, a scientists studies nature, but a philosopher attempts to define what is natural, what is unnatural, and if we are actually being true about how we experience or ignore the natural. I didn't say philosophy doesn't care about the nature of reality, only that it has no need to follow reality. If tomorrow, science can prove that we have no free will, the same philosophers will ignore all that and continue to put forth the same arguments as centuries past. ___ On June 09 2017 14:09 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 09 2017 14:07 IgnE wrote:
what does it matter practically speaking? they get out voted thats what I'm asking. So you can force someone to sell their stock if your the majority owner? No you cannot, but conversely, for the purpose of control of the direction of the company, the majority shareholder will have full control. So there is no business reason to try to do so, and there is no legal recourse to do so. The only problem would be that you will have other voices which can be ignored. True egomaniacs will turn a majority into total shareholding simply becuase they don't want to see the other guys face. The worth of a minority against a majority shareholding would be the dividend. I don't disagree that there will be some philosophers who will continue the narrative even with direct evidence against it--but I do disagree that Philosophy as an academic practice would not evolve and adapt to those findings. A slight twist to the question: if we have empirical data answering a philosophical question (such as "does the human have a free will"), is it still philosophy? That is: is it now biology or whatever branch of science that did the measurement, as that is the branch that can answer it? Can it be both? Is there any philosophical question where there is hard evidence giving you the answer?
I have always believed that Philosophy hinged between the concepts of the uncertainty of objectivity and the uncertainty of experience. And while free will, for example, is something that overlaps these two concepts--any given example that does fit these concepts does not define nor dictate the reality of these concepts.
As such, scientifically proving any one of the examples of these concepts simply serves to push the dialogue into that space. For example: "Knowing that we *do* have ______ (Free Will for example), why is it that we still do/feel/experience/observe _____."
|
On June 12 2017 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 17:44 Cascade wrote:On June 10 2017 01:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 09 2017 19:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 09 2017 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 09 2017 02:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
In most cases philosophy can be understood as giant glass towers sitting on shakey foundations. Zeno's paradoxes for instance is an interesting mental diversion for those who aren't mathematically grounded and simply a solvable expression for those who are. Other times, philosophy doesn't follow reality, as it has no need to do so. Philosophy only cares about reality. The issue is that it focuses on the logic of observed reality as opposed to deriving conclusions from the observed reality. An artists replicates nature, a scientists studies nature, but a philosopher attempts to define what is natural, what is unnatural, and if we are actually being true about how we experience or ignore the natural. I didn't say philosophy doesn't care about the nature of reality, only that it has no need to follow reality. If tomorrow, science can prove that we have no free will, the same philosophers will ignore all that and continue to put forth the same arguments as centuries past. ___ On June 09 2017 14:09 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 09 2017 14:07 IgnE wrote:
what does it matter practically speaking? they get out voted thats what I'm asking. So you can force someone to sell their stock if your the majority owner? No you cannot, but conversely, for the purpose of control of the direction of the company, the majority shareholder will have full control. So there is no business reason to try to do so, and there is no legal recourse to do so. The only problem would be that you will have other voices which can be ignored. True egomaniacs will turn a majority into total shareholding simply becuase they don't want to see the other guys face. The worth of a minority against a majority shareholding would be the dividend. I don't disagree that there will be some philosophers who will continue the narrative even with direct evidence against it--but I do disagree that Philosophy as an academic practice would not evolve and adapt to those findings. A slight twist to the question: if we have empirical data answering a philosophical question (such as "does the human have a free will"), is it still philosophy? That is: is it now biology or whatever branch of science that did the measurement, as that is the branch that can answer it? Can it be both? Is there any philosophical question where there is hard evidence giving you the answer? I have always believed that Philosophy hinged between the concepts of the uncertainty of objectivity and the uncertainty of experience. And while free will, for example, is something that overlaps these two concepts--any given example that does fit these concepts does not define nor dictate the reality of these concepts. As such, scientifically proving any one of the examples of these concepts simply serves to push the dialogue into that space. For example: "Knowing that we *do* have ______ (Free Will for example), why is it that we still do/feel/experience/observe _____."
I don't follow the first paragraph, but I'm ok with that, because the second paragraph makes sense for me. When a philosophical question is answered, you hand that over to science and move on to follow up questions. There will be plenty. If nothing else, you can always just continue going "why", and you'll eventually end up with philosophy. 
|
On June 12 2017 23:59 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 10 2017 17:44 Cascade wrote:On June 10 2017 01:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 09 2017 19:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 09 2017 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 09 2017 02:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
In most cases philosophy can be understood as giant glass towers sitting on shakey foundations. Zeno's paradoxes for instance is an interesting mental diversion for those who aren't mathematically grounded and simply a solvable expression for those who are. Other times, philosophy doesn't follow reality, as it has no need to do so. Philosophy only cares about reality. The issue is that it focuses on the logic of observed reality as opposed to deriving conclusions from the observed reality. An artists replicates nature, a scientists studies nature, but a philosopher attempts to define what is natural, what is unnatural, and if we are actually being true about how we experience or ignore the natural. I didn't say philosophy doesn't care about the nature of reality, only that it has no need to follow reality. If tomorrow, science can prove that we have no free will, the same philosophers will ignore all that and continue to put forth the same arguments as centuries past. ___ On June 09 2017 14:09 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 09 2017 14:07 IgnE wrote:
what does it matter practically speaking? they get out voted thats what I'm asking. So you can force someone to sell their stock if your the majority owner? No you cannot, but conversely, for the purpose of control of the direction of the company, the majority shareholder will have full control. So there is no business reason to try to do so, and there is no legal recourse to do so. The only problem would be that you will have other voices which can be ignored. True egomaniacs will turn a majority into total shareholding simply becuase they don't want to see the other guys face. The worth of a minority against a majority shareholding would be the dividend. I don't disagree that there will be some philosophers who will continue the narrative even with direct evidence against it--but I do disagree that Philosophy as an academic practice would not evolve and adapt to those findings. A slight twist to the question: if we have empirical data answering a philosophical question (such as "does the human have a free will"), is it still philosophy? That is: is it now biology or whatever branch of science that did the measurement, as that is the branch that can answer it? Can it be both? Is there any philosophical question where there is hard evidence giving you the answer? I have always believed that Philosophy hinged between the concepts of the uncertainty of objectivity and the uncertainty of experience. And while free will, for example, is something that overlaps these two concepts--any given example that does fit these concepts does not define nor dictate the reality of these concepts. As such, scientifically proving any one of the examples of these concepts simply serves to push the dialogue into that space. For example: "Knowing that we *do* have ______ (Free Will for example), why is it that we still do/feel/experience/observe _____." I don't follow the first paragraph, but I'm ok with that, because the second paragraph makes sense for me. When a philosophical question is answered, you hand that over to science and move on to follow up questions. There will be plenty. If nothing else, you can always just continue going "why", and you'll eventually end up with philosophy.
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, it's complicated, but not untrue.
Philosophy is less about finding answers than it is about discussing the concept of solving questions. That philosophy delves with abstract things like objectivity is because it is trying to reach the root cause of what makes do what we do, and not do what don't do.
Science looks at what we do and figures out the cause//effect//process of the whole thing. Philosophy tries to go a few layers deeper, going so far as asking why any of it happens at all.
An example would be science figuring out that sex leads to babies. Philosophy wonders why have sex at all? Why have babies at all? Etc...
|
On June 13 2017 02:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 23:59 Cascade wrote:On June 12 2017 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 10 2017 17:44 Cascade wrote:On June 10 2017 01:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 09 2017 19:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 09 2017 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 09 2017 02:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
In most cases philosophy can be understood as giant glass towers sitting on shakey foundations. Zeno's paradoxes for instance is an interesting mental diversion for those who aren't mathematically grounded and simply a solvable expression for those who are. Other times, philosophy doesn't follow reality, as it has no need to do so. Philosophy only cares about reality. The issue is that it focuses on the logic of observed reality as opposed to deriving conclusions from the observed reality. An artists replicates nature, a scientists studies nature, but a philosopher attempts to define what is natural, what is unnatural, and if we are actually being true about how we experience or ignore the natural. I didn't say philosophy doesn't care about the nature of reality, only that it has no need to follow reality. If tomorrow, science can prove that we have no free will, the same philosophers will ignore all that and continue to put forth the same arguments as centuries past. ___ On June 09 2017 14:09 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 09 2017 14:07 IgnE wrote:
what does it matter practically speaking? they get out voted thats what I'm asking. So you can force someone to sell their stock if your the majority owner? No you cannot, but conversely, for the purpose of control of the direction of the company, the majority shareholder will have full control. So there is no business reason to try to do so, and there is no legal recourse to do so. The only problem would be that you will have other voices which can be ignored. True egomaniacs will turn a majority into total shareholding simply becuase they don't want to see the other guys face. The worth of a minority against a majority shareholding would be the dividend. I don't disagree that there will be some philosophers who will continue the narrative even with direct evidence against it--but I do disagree that Philosophy as an academic practice would not evolve and adapt to those findings. A slight twist to the question: if we have empirical data answering a philosophical question (such as "does the human have a free will"), is it still philosophy? That is: is it now biology or whatever branch of science that did the measurement, as that is the branch that can answer it? Can it be both? Is there any philosophical question where there is hard evidence giving you the answer? I have always believed that Philosophy hinged between the concepts of the uncertainty of objectivity and the uncertainty of experience. And while free will, for example, is something that overlaps these two concepts--any given example that does fit these concepts does not define nor dictate the reality of these concepts. As such, scientifically proving any one of the examples of these concepts simply serves to push the dialogue into that space. For example: "Knowing that we *do* have ______ (Free Will for example), why is it that we still do/feel/experience/observe _____." I don't follow the first paragraph, but I'm ok with that, because the second paragraph makes sense for me. When a philosophical question is answered, you hand that over to science and move on to follow up questions. There will be plenty. If nothing else, you can always just continue going "why", and you'll eventually end up with philosophy. Short answer, yes. Long answer, it's complicated, but not untrue. Philosophy is less about finding answers than it is about discussing the concept of solving questions. That philosophy delves with abstract things like objectivity is because it is trying to reach the root cause of what makes do what we do, and not do what don't do. Science looks at what we do and figures out the cause//effect//process of the whole thing. Philosophy tries to go a few layers deeper, going so far as asking why any of it happens at all. An example would be science figuring out that sex leads to babies. Philosophy wonders why have sex at all? Why have babies at all? Etc... Science also asks those questions. The difference is that philosophy is it's own means.
|
Nah, science fundamentally doesn't answer "Why" questions, except in a procedural way. It is very good at describing what happens, and predicting what is going to happen. Sometimes, these things are phrased in a way that answers a "why" question, but it does not answer it fundamentally, but in a way that describes a process.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0EmMH5X.png)
When koreans stream to multiple platforms, which one is the fourth one? (yellow)
Afreeca->Twitch->Youtube->???
|
Is there a historical consensus on if the Crusades were good or bad? I randomly came across stuff arguing in favor of them (didn't read it just saw the books online) and was wondering how valid those arguments are considered.
|
On June 15 2017 21:42 JWD[9] wrote:When koreans stream to multiple platforms, which one is the fourth one? (yellow) Afreeca->Twitch->Youtube->???
Where did you find those icons?
On June 16 2017 16:30 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Is there a historical consensus on if the Crusades were good or bad? I randomly came across stuff arguing in favor of them (didn't read it just saw the books online) and was wondering how valid those arguments are considered.
Not sure the answer is quick. The history is written by the winners, but there weren't definitive 'winners' in crusades, though I guess they reach some goals, so there weren't failures at least. (My history is very bad, take it with a mountain of salt.)
Another question:
It all comes from more money being in the (illegal) gambling scene than in progamer salaries.
What if an illegal network with tons of money decided to go legit, and declare all their money, and swap their activities for the legal ones. Would they be able to do so, and what would be the cost (in term of taxes and such)? Because in a way, they'd be injecting a lot of money in the system, most likely creating job, and so on.
|
Who the hell argues in favor if the crusades? It was an invasion, done under a religious guise, mostly for money. It was kinda the modus operandi of the period, so it really shouldn't be seen as particularly evil, but there is really nothing to praise about it.
|
Does anyone have any good world history atlases or large world history books with lots of images and maps? And preferably one that does not just cover the typical Europe, China, and Middle East, but also South East Asia and Africa.
I am looking to give a history book as a goodbye gift, but I don't want any books that are heavy and filled with technical knowledge, something that someone can read while in the bathroom or falling to sleep.
|
Sure, but I see crusades as almost all invasion done anyway.
There is a good reason at first. If the invasion is successful, then they were right to invade, and the defeated may have the honour to be raised to their level. Otherwise it is stamped as a hatred move or such, and the failing invaders are to return home and maybe do something in return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
