Location: Between here and there, out of time, and in love with BSoD <3
Joined Mar 20, 2012 at 09:55PM EDT
| || |
Exudes and I made this, in case you haven’t seen it.
RariDash looks awesome. All the fire of Dash and all the focus of Rarity.
Sorry man, I don’t.
If you’re going to be an asshole, at least be a funny asshole. These women fail at wit.
Huh, sounds like a band name for a neo-Nazi powermetal thing.
You assume correctly. I’m looking forward to see what you start with :)
Hey Crimson look, I drew a thing.
I’ve been trying to improve my drawing skills a bit. You’re entering art school, so I suspect you’re doing the same. Want to start a drawing correspondence?
And yet everyone couldn’t give less of a shit about this
The lack of fucks given…glorious.
So next week will be the last week of my astronomy class. I’d like to try to stay vaguely abreast of this stuff, so if you’ve ever got any cool astronomy stuff you want to share with someone, please don’t hesitate to inform me.
Well, I find all of that entirely agreeable. Have at it then.
Read your post on the forum. I don’t believe in a hard, objective right or wrong when it comes to human conduct, but I do believe that there are objective states of mental health and sickness. In the same way that we can say that the morbidly obese smoker is less healthy than a athlete, I think we can also point out lifestyles that are less conducive to healthy functioning and the good life we all seek to enjoy.
I think you’re unhealthy, that your hedonistic perversions are just as unbalanced and harmful as the repressive Victorian attitudes towards sex you like to criticize. I’m not condemning you as a bad person, I’m just saying that I think you’d be happier if you found a way to curb your appetites as well as your misanthropic tendencies. Just speaking from personal experience, I became a lot happier when I decided to stop hating humans.
I remember once hearing on the radio when I was young that there would be a “very rare viewing of Venus visible tonight.” and then going outside to watch for it. I thought I was witnessing such a rare and mysterious thing when I saw it.
I feel kind of…disenchanted now realizing how often Venus is visible. I mean damn, I see it every night as I’m walking home, that obnoxiously bright fuck.
This is one of my favorite movies. I think you’ll really like it if you haven’t seen it already.
Dude, do you even Michael Winslow?
Have a Scootaloo
So I went to bed after a long night of studying astronomy. It was 4 in the morning by the time I eventually went to sleep, really hot, and my brain was going a million miles an hour, so it wasn’t really very good sleep. It was that kind of sleep where you’re semi-aware of your surroundings. I’m kind of a slob, so my surroundings consist of a lot of books, instruments, and plates strewn about.
Anyway, so I’m having this weird semi-sleep and I dreamt that I was the center of gravity and all the objects in my room were orbiting about me. In my haze, I kept making deductions about the objects, the eccentricity of their orbits, how the fork serving as a moon to the plate was effecting its rotation. When I woke up the next morning, still really hazy, I reached over to the nearby cup and was astounded when I discovered water in it! I had been theorizing all night whether its orbit would permit liquid water or not.
Then I drank the water.
Alright, we seem to have three arguments going on.
1: The use of language in discussing philosophy.
2: The assumption of basic beliefs, namely that humans can know the world.
3: Whether the categories of the biological sexes are naturally derived or socially construed.
I’m going to continue this via private message just so it gets less messy. I’ll get back to you some time later tonight. I do appreciate the discussion though…it’s good for me to familiarize myself with someone who isn’t steeped in the analytic tradition.
I don’t see the problem here. It doesn’t matter that you can point out individuals who fall out of the norm, it is very clear that all humans have features which are striving to meet the paradigm examples of male or female. My genitals aren’t just some entirely accidental feature, but exist to function in some capacity.
Maybe you can knit-pick about what exactly constitutes the necessary and sufficient conditions for being male or female are, but it’s manifestly obvious that the foundations for these categories comes from nature, not convention.
Well, I don’t think that really works. Texas sharpshooter fallacy is when one assumes there is a pattern at play when really the apparent pattern can be explained just by statistics. It’s not as if we just created this category for biological sex based on a set of arbitrary features that just so happen to be possessed in common by a number of separate individuals. It’s quite obvious that the separate features of biological sex function together toward some purpose, namely procreation. If an individual possesses some of the features but not all, that doesn’t discount the categories as arbitrary, it just points out a biological aberration: It’s clear from basic biology that, from a purely evolutionary standpoint, that humans have a functional design which divides them into male and female. Gender is a different story, but sex strikes me as a really hard sell.
Eh no, I don’t think that really works. I think that the shift from thinking in terms of a geocentric universe to a heliocentric universe would be an example of changing discourse as opposed to changing the underlying structure of language: We have to learn to think around commonsense beliefs like “the sun rises” and “the earth is at rest,” but the fundamental structure of language itself is untouched. Those beliefs were counter-intuitive to what the people of the time grew up believing, but they were just as easily expressed in language as was a description of the geocentric universe. The idea that language, when reduced down to its most basic, can still be flawed, that parsimony will still lead us to error, sounds much more like a problem with fundamental language as opposed to a mere objection against common discourse. I don’t think there’s any reason to express an idea in more complex terms than is necessary.
And no, it is absolutely necessary to assume that we have at least some acquaintance with the basic structure of reality. If you go about questioning that first order of comprehension, you remove your tools for ever hoping to find any kind of knowledge about anything whatsoever. You make for yourself a problem that is impossible to solve and damn yourself to a black abyss of confusion and despair. Trust me, I’ve done it.
The test for whether a thing makes sense =/= you being able to recast the sentence in synonyms. Philosophy, because it is so given to abstraction, has a bad habit to start forming these systems of thought that only have meaning in reference to themselves. I haven’t read Butler…yet…so I won’t say anything other than her stuff smells fishy to me.
Perhaps you can explain something to me about Butler because I just can’t figure out how this idea is supposed to work and I’m really curious: How is sex, not gender but biological sex, supposed to be socially constructed?